The countries of the European Union (EU) are united, but above all, each country is autonomous. EU Member States have different legislation on criminal offences. The EU authorities have already suggested the possibility of creating a single system for regulating legal provisions on criminal offences. Studying and comparing the legal systems and responsibilities for crimes against justice in individual countries will facilitate the analysis of the differences in the legislation of the EU countries. The purpose of this paper is to investigate crimes against justice in accordance with the laws of each individual European country. The paper considers the composition of such crimes, as well as the responsibility to which offenders can be brought in case of such crimes. The study uses the methods of analysis and synthesis, analyses legal provisions. General methods of scientific cognition used in this study include dialectical, historical, the Aristotelian method, method of systematic data analysis, formal legal method, method of legal modelling and comparative legal method. The study investigates the legal framework of European countries, in particular criminal codes and laws. This study systematises and groups the received information and data on criminal liability of judges for unlawful decisions. The European practices in punishing those who do not comply with court rulings and judgments are also analysed. A study of the legal system in individual EU countries will help distinguish between positive and negative aspects in the legislation. In addition, this study allows to consider and analyse the most effective laws, provisions, and principles that can be implemented in the current legal system of different countries of the world.

Terrorist threat act may lie not only in potential civilian casualties, but also in the investigation of acts that could in the long run lead to the implementation of terrorist intentions. The relevance of the study is determined by the fact that the possibility of preventing a terrorist act should be in the interdepartmental jurisdiction of law enforcement agencies not only as a task of emergency response, but also as a task of direct monitoring. The novelty of the study is determined by the fact that the authors consider the aspect of the formation of countermeasures against a terrorist act on the basis of liquidating the foundation of its social response. The very process of preventing a terrorist act predominantly affects only measures to destroy terrorists and reduce the number of potential victims. The paper demonstrates that in addition to this postulate, it is worth considering the need for an additional reduction in social resonance, which acts as an incentive. Formation of counteraction by law enforcement agencies allows to reduce the significance of the terrorist impact on society. The practical significance of the study is determined by the fact that each of the participants in countering the terrorist act is also capable of operative activities, which can also additionally level the structure for implementing the provisions of anti-terrorism legislation.

This article is considered to be the first attempt to examine the problem of HIV/AIDS spreading in detailed. The status, structure, dynamics and “geography” of the infection spreading as well as psychological mechanism of the relations between AIDS spreading in antisocial, immoral behaviour and crime are investigated in the article. The spread of AIDS in Ukraine is to some extent explained by the following points: AIDS are more urban than rural; the spread of AIDS is closely related to the life of resort towns, which characterises the development of a “leisure industry” and increases the influx of the immoral contingent. There are a lot of people in these regions who are not engaged in socially useful activities and who easily come in contact with visitors for the purpose of enrichment by their expense.

Comprehensive scientific analysis of the legal status and powers of prosecutors in European countries has been conducted. The position of the prosecutor’s office in the system of the state mechanism of the European countries has been investigated. The main criteria for determining the place of the prosecutor’s office in the system of state bodies have been given. Depending on the position occupied by the prosecutor’s office in the system of state bodies, four groups of states have been distinguished: 1) states where the prosecutor’s office is part of the Ministry of Justice (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland); 2) states where the prosecutor’s office is included in the judiciary (magistracy) and is in the courts (Bulgaria, Spain, Italy); 3) states where the prosecutor’s office is allocated to a separate system and is accountable to parliament (Slovakia, Hungary); 4) states where the prosecutor’s office as an independent body of the state is absent (England). It is stated that the issues of organization and activity of prosecutor’s offices in European countries are solved at the national level, but taking into account the common standards of functioning of prosecutor’s offices, which are developed at the international, supranational and regional levels. It is determined that the basic norms concerning the functioning of the prosecutor’s office in European countries are provided mainly in the acts of procedural legislation. It has been found that the prosecutor’s office in European countries has a fairly wide range of powers. They prosecute, monitor the activities of investigating judges and the judicial police, support prosecutions in court, participate in civil cases when the public interest so requires, and exercise many other powers provided by law to regulate the activities of the prosecutor’s office. It is concluded that the principles of objectivity, impartiality and independence of the prosecutor’s office are enshrined and implemented in practice in the legislation of almost all European countries. It is concluded that the general trend of development of the Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine should be the expansion of its functions, non-interference of the legislative and executive authorities in the substantive activities of the Prosecutor’s Office.