On the basis of the analysis of international program documents and modern scientific researches devoted to the actual issues of counteraction to corruption, the problematic aspects in the implementation of the formula «definition -measurementcounteraction to corruption», which are hindering the state anti-corruption policy in many countries of the world, and in particular in Ukraine, are grounded. The authors of the article argue that effective counteraction to corruption, regardless of national context, depends on the coherence of a three-component mechanism which includes the categorical design of corruption, development and taking into account the features of economic development, political history of the country, its institutional «heritage», ethnic and socio-cultural traditions of proper and adequate tools for measuring corruption, and, finally, the formation of an adequate anti-corruption policy. Unlike other similar studies, this article attempts to reveal the underlying causes of the failure of anti-corruption programs which are of theoretically, methodologically and nationally determined character. The authors investigate the problem of combating corruption in its global and general social dimension, and, at the same time, on the example of the Ukrainian experience, which proves the need to develop a sound methodology for studying the level of corruption, taking into account the national specificity.

The purpose of the article is to reveal the specific features of prosecution for contempt of court in different countries. The methodological basis of this research is a set of general scientific methods (dialectics, abstraction, generalization, analysis, modelling) and special methods of scientific cognition (comparative and legal method, etc.). The existing types of responsibility and penalties for committing contempt of court in different countries of the world have been characterized. The authors have carried out the analysis of the experience of legal liability for manifestation of contempt of court rules established in the United States, Canada, France, Australia, Belgium, Poland, Great Britain, New Zealand, Ireland and India, which allowed to highlight the positive provisions for improvement of legislation in this area. It has been concluded that the purpose of establishing the aforementioned responsibility is to guarantee the administration of justice and the rule of law, maintain and strengthen public confidence in the judicial system, safeguarding the continuity of the judicial process. Based on the analysis of regulatory legal acts and the jurisprudence of several countries in the world, the authors have made the classification by categories of actions that qualify as contempt.

The article is devoted to the procedural features of the implementation of the principle of the rule of law in administrative proceedings after the introduction of martial law. More than 80% of administrative lawsuits brought to regional courts during martial law are social disputes. During the period of martial law, the strict application of procedural terms by the courts regarding the application to the court with claims, appeals and cassation complaints - may have signs of unjustified restriction of access to the court. Procedural deadlines, violated for valid reasons, are also subject to renewal. Such reasons can be: air strike, lack of electricity supply, impossibility of using transport, communication, missile or other armed damage to the territory where the party to the case, its representative, subject of authority, occupation of the territory is located. The administrative courts ensure the implementation of the principle of the rule of law during the protection of the rights, freedoms and interests of a person in the sphere of public-legal relations. In order to increase the effectiveness of administrative proceedings under martial law and the proper protection of the rights, freedoms and interests of individuals, a number of issues require legislative improvement and finalization. Among them are issues of ensuring access to justice, calculation and extension of terms; the possibility of stopping the proceedings in the case due to martial law; improving the issue of summonses, notices, delivery of decisions to the parties in the case. After the introduction of martial law, no changes were made to the procedural legislation regarding terms. Each public legal dispute, each claim must be considered taking into account the circumstances of the case and the circumstances in which the participants of the court process found themselves. The application of the norm with the most favorable interpretation for the person in a public legal dispute can be justified by the provisions of Art. 129 of the Constitution of Ukraine, because a judge, while administering justice, is independent and governed by the rule of law. Key words: the rule of law, martial law, regional court, access to justice, procedural terms, court practice.

The publication deals with the concept and features of the Supreme Court's decision in the model case as a judicial precedent. The judicial precedent in the legal system of Ukraine is the Supreme Court's decision in an exemplary case, which contains conclusions on the application of the rules of law and a formulated rule. After the adoption of the new version of the Code of Administrative Judiciary of Ukraine and the direct introduction of the mechanism of decision-making in the model case and the actual systematic review by the courts of first instance of numerous typical cases on the basis of the model case, it can be concluded that in the legal system judicial precedent becomes a source of law in the administrative proceedings. In the countries of the Anglo-American system of law, the Supreme Court ensures the unity of the case law at the highest level. The precedent system is vertical and requires judges to adhere to the decisions of high courts. Today in Ukraine, belonging to the countries of the Romano-German legal family, one can already speak about the official use of precedents in the administrative process, namely the informal application of precedents in the decisions the Supreme Court in model cases. The main features of judicial precedent are the fact that it is created when considering a particular case, combines individual-legal and normative-legal features, dynamism and a high degree of specification of the legal norm, which is objectified in the judicial precedent. Such decisions are always reasoned, authoritative and public. A model decision contains the circumstances of a model case, which determine the typical application of substantive law and the procedure for applying such rules by courts and the subject of power, as well as the decisions in exemplary cases substantially optimize, refine and facilitate the judicially procedure in typical cases by a regional courts. Key words: court precedent, model case; a typical case; Supreme Court decision in an exemplary case, source of law.

No abstract