The object is public relations that are directly related to the settlement of the principles of "external" activity of public servants. The subject is the anti-corruption standards of legal regulation of "external" activities of public officials. Research methodology is shaped by both general scientific and special methods of scientific research. The basic is dialectical analysis, semantic, comparative-legal, logical-legal, modeling, forecasting are also used. The following conclusion can be made. Anti-corruption standardization of legal regulation of "external" activities of public servants helps to systematize, unify the principles of such regulation, and increase the efficiency of enforcement. It is advisable: a) awareness of the importance of "external" activities of public servants for the latter (their personal growth, personal realization), and for the public service as a whole (including the formation and improvement of the quality of human resources), consolidation of official norms-definition of the "external activity of public servants" as any activity of the latter out of office regardless of place, time, form, payment; b) introduction of a "mixed" model of legal regulation of "external" activity of public servants, with a combination of prohibition (business in all manifestations) and restrictions (with clear definition of criteria); c) unification of the principles of regulation of "external" activity of public employees and their concentration in the "basic" anti-corruption legislative act, alignment with the provisions of the legislation on public service; d) harmonization of the provisions on "external" activities of public servants with the legislation on declaring the income received from any sources outside the place of public service; e) to introduce the notification of the direct supervisor at the place of public service about "external" activity; f) the introduction of relevant, unlawful acts committed in connection with violations of the law on "external" activity by public officials, sanctions (penal or personal property).

The purpose of the paper. Search for the best motivation means for fruitful, efficient, and high-quality service activities of public servants requires in-depth study of those resources which are traditionally “associated” with public service. Traditionally, bonus for public servants still remains one of these kinds of means which is linked with the “distinguished”, “over-productive” official activities. Methodology. Comparative and legal analysis of “bonus” laws of countries across the world shows the difference in consideration of the role and purpose of an award in the modern public service, which contributes to the defeat of its real resource, false identification with the “scheduled”, “regular” pay for labour, along with other components of the latter, which does not depend on “achievements” in the official activities. Results. The author, on the basis of comparative legal research, substantiates the need to model the results of “bonus” rulemaking and enforcement of unified “rule-making filters” in different countries of the world for the targeted use of reward as a means to encourage public servants for the effective, efficient, and high-quality official activities, which is the purpose of the article. It is expedient: a) to define a bonus at the regulatory level as a means of encouragement and harmonization of related subject-matter legal terms; b) to differentiate two types of bonuses for public servants – according to the results of annual efficiency rating of person’s official activities (“effective”, “valuation”) and the bonus as a type of encouragement as a whole (“general”, “common”); c) “standardization” of the bonus amount for public servants, namely: “valuation” (“effective”) should be in percentage (twenty percent is proposed) to the annual salary of a person who received an excellent grade on the basis of annual evaluation, “general” (“common”) as a means of encouragement related to “achievements” of a public servant in official activity, “within rate” (from minimum to maximum) with “binding” to the official salary (it is proposed from one to two) of a public servant; d) to introduce regulatory “filters” of bonus frequency towards “common” (“general”) type due to the mandatory adherence to requirements for the application of encouragement means for a public servant in accordance with their consolidation in a unified list, which makes his “constant” bonus awarding impossible; e) intensification of the principles of transparency, publicity, openness, control over “bonus procedure”, elimination of the prerequisites for a broad manifestation of the discretion of subject who makes a final decision (with the introduction of principles for the division of powers on initiation and final decision, the approval of a draft decision with the public, etc.) on the bonus reward for a public servant. Practical applications. Under the conditions of practical application of the abovementioned recommendations, it is quite possible to use bonuses as means for stimulation, encouragement to fruitful, effective, and qualitative official activity of public servants, a real means to improve public service in general.

The paper substantiates the importance of standardization of gift’s “value feature” for a public person as a reliable “filter” for eliminating threats for effective implementation of the state policy in the public service. Methodology. The analysis of regulatory and law enforcement experience of different countries allowed distinguishing three basic regulatory models of “gift relations” in the public service – prohibitive, permissive, and mixed. Clarification of the essence of each of them led to the conclusion on the expediency to choose the mixed model as an optimal alternative for an effective counteraction to the unlawful, non-purpose use of gift resource in the public service under the conditions of modern reformation state-building and law-enforcement processes. This model due to a simultaneous regulation of the principles of “prohibitive gift” relations, “permissive gift” relations envisages determination of the limits for possible reception of other gifts by public servants. It ensures elimination of the prerequisites as for waking “gift relations” in the public service, so for unreasonable use of the gift as a source for enrichment, encouragement means, and “instrument for influence” on the professional official activity of a public servant. Results. A unique character of the gift in the public-official relations is caused, first of all, by its trifling “symbolic” value. Due to this fact it can be considered as a “symbolic manifestation” of respect, gratitude to a public servant for his competent, honourable, lawful professional official activity. Its symbolic “value feature” is its central feature that causes the need for its obligatory complete regulatory determination. On the basis of the comparative legal analysis of rule-making and law-enforcement experience of different countries, a number of basic approaches to the definition of “value feature” of a gift are distinguished (in a completely determined amount, in a multiple of the guaranteed rates established by the state, in a multiple to the salary of a public servant, in a generalized form without any quantitative indicators and with the list of possible external forms of gift’s manifestation etc.), and it is justified the feasibility of its binding to a certain number of the national currency (“solid”, “constant” indicator). Practical implications. Standardisation of this gift feature along with others which carry out an additional role (frequency of reception and source) should be at the level of the basic legislative act, which consolidates principles of “gift relations” in the sphere of public service in its entirety. Taking into account the importance of this gift feature, any sub-legislative “alternative” in relation to the determination of gift value can’t exist eliminating the grounds for a controversial nature of regulation of relevant relations. Value/originality. It will help to unify the regulatory standards for using gift’s resource in the public service as a whole, regulatory “filtering” effectiveness of the implementation of public policy in the sphere of public service as a whole.

ubstantiation of the expediency of considering the resource of monitoring of lifestyle as an anticorruption means in the aspect of compliance with the requirements of proportionality in establishing its foundations in the legislation and its application in practice. The author notes that monitoring the way of life of a person authorized to perform state or local government functions is a “innovation” for domestic rule-making and law enforcement, which also determines the need for analysis and borrowing of relevant foreign experience, tested by time and practice and adapted to national needs of state-building and law making. The normalization of proportionality as a “filter” of using the resource of this medium allows for a “fair balance” of public and private interests, the impossibility of using the benefits of the public service for individuals to realize and protect their called interests or interests of their families and, at the same time, “arbitrary interference with the private autonomy” of these people. Proposed consideration of proportionality in the broad sense, with an emphasis on the resource of all three of its “basic” elements, among which: admissibility (legality, legitimacy, legitimate purpose, legal certainty), necessity (minimization of “interference in the called autonomy” of a person, advantage of less intrusive funds), a fair balance of public and private interests (the minimum negative result for the person and the positive result for the public interest, compensation for the harm done, the appeal of NSC acts, the elimination of the prerequisites for achievement of the result at any cost and impossibility to restrict the rights of individuals). Based on the analysis of the current legislation that defines the principles of monitoring lifestyle, the“defect” of using the resource of legal certainty and necessity, which in general affects the “filtering” of the resource of this anticorruption tool, creates the preconditions for the manifestation of the subjective resource in the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the law. In order to eliminate these gaps and to ensure maximum use of the resource of the “integrated model” of lifestyle monitoring (it is noted that there are several models of this anti-corruption tool – “desk research”, “field research”, “a mix of these two types, or a complex model”) , which was chosen by the domestic legislator, it is expedient to adjust the content of the current domestic legislation, which determines the bases of using the resource of the corresponding anticorruption means. In particular, it is proposed to consolidate the definition of “monitoring lifestyle”, “private life of a person”, to elaborate provisions on “monitoring selectivity”, “balance of the called and public interests”, “excessive interference”, to agree provisions of legislation on the definition of the legal status of the NSC and the scope of authority for the implementation of this body of its functional purpose, itsplace in the system of bodies of anticorruption purposeful activity; to consolidate the list of principles of the NSC, with the provisionof proportionality as one of these; coordinate the results of subordinate and interpretative activities of the NSCC regarding the procedural aspect of the life-saving monitoring resource with the requirements of the current national legislation, the practice of the ECHRand the Supreme Court positions, ensuring their maximum detail and, consequently, unification of the practice of using the life-savingmonitoring resource as an anticorruption tool in Ukraine.