The article provides a critical analysis of current trends in the sphere of legal liability of civil servants and the sphere of employment law of Ukraine. It is established that the inconsistency and incompleteness of the national legislation on public service has a negative impact on the effectiveness of legal liability of public servants. A small number of works in administrative law which, firstly, solve the conceptual problems of administrative law, and secondly, combine knowledge of the theory of law, the science of administrative law and the work of other branches of science. It is concluded that official law should be considered as an institution of administrative law, which has a cross-sectoral nature. The legal responsibility of public servants is a sub-institute of service law of Ukraine. The cross-sectoral nature of service law is due to the fact that today it combines the rules of administrative, constitutional, labor, civil and criminal law. It was found that the content of national legislation allows to distinguish the following types of legal liability of public servants: 1) disciplinary liability, which is regulated mainly by the rules of administrative law; 2) disciplinary liability, which is regulated by labor law; 3) administrative liability, which is regulated by the rules of administrative tort law; 4) material liability, which today is partially regulated by the rules of administrative law (we are talking about the procedure for voluntary compensation for material damage) and mainly by the rules of civil law (we are talking about the procedure for forced compensation for material damage); 5) criminal liability, which is provided by the norms of criminal and criminal procedural legislation. It is established that the legal liability of public servants can only be retrospective, that is, used only for the commission of illegal acts by these employees. Arguments are given regarding the lack of positive responsibility of public servants. The use of this concept in the scientific literature is due only to the reluctance of scientists to break away from the archaic ideas about the structure of the rule of law, legal sanctions and incentives.

No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of the article is to study the monitoring of higher education quality in Ukraine and to develop certain directions for improving its procedure. The authors have used the following scientific methods: dialectical, logical-legal, structural-functional, formal-logical modeling, analysis and synthesis. Based on research results, the main directions for improvement of monitoring procedure of higher education quality are outlined. The concept and features of monitoring as an administrative procedure in the field of higher education are defined. The general principles, main tasks and functions of monitoring the higher education quality are highlighted. The selected provisions of legal regulatory acts which declare the need to promote an adequate level of higher education quality, its monitoring and evaluation are presented. It is asserted that nowadays there is actually no system of monitoring higher education quality in Ukraine. Regarding the analysis of current legislation provisions of Ukraine in the field of higher education, as well as accepted scientific approaches to determining the implementation structure of monitoring procedure of higher education quality, three of its general phases are distinguished. These phases are as follows. I. Preparatory phase, which involves the implementation of a series of appropriate actions, combined into the following main stages: initiating the monitoring procedure; monitoring planning; development of monitoring technology. II. Practical phase, which includes the following main stages: preparation of selected research participants; conducting research. III. Analytical phase, consisting of the following stages: information processing; recommendations development; adjustment and control; research results publishing. It is indicated that each of these phases is a relatively independent and complete part of the procedure, which in turn consists of certain stages, each of which fulfills the corresponding intermediate purposes directed at solving the tasks of this administrative procedure phase.

The article reveals the main directions of improving the national legislation on administrative responsibility. It has been established that the current administrative-tort legislation of Ukraine does not meet the needs of today, either in content or in form. Its norms require a radical revision, and the systematization of legislation on administrative responsibility is the only way to improve the work of legal entities empowered to bring individuals to administrative responsibility. The following problems of a theoretical and practical nature that impede the improvement of administrative tort law: 1) lack of a clear understanding of the legal nature of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses; 2) tendencies towards refusal from the synthesis of material and procedural norms in the codified normative legal act on administrative responsibility; 3) duplication in the administrative-tort legislation of ideas, principles and provisions that ensure the effectiveness of criminal liability; 4) artificial limitation in the legislation of the circle of persons to whom administrative penalties can be applied; 5) imperfection of the procedure for bringing a person to administrative responsibility; 6) ineffective and unreasonably extended system of administrative penalties; 7) an imperfect and ineffective system of bodies authorized to bring persons to administrative responsibility. It was argued that administrative responsibility is, in fact, a prompt reaction of the state or other authorized bodies to violations of the law, and therefore “simplified proceedings” should be widely used in addition to “ordinary proceedings”. However, over the years of Ukraine’s independence, “simplified proceedings” have gradually disappeared from the law enforcement activities of administrative and judicial bodies. It is emphasized that the specificity of administrative responsibility lies in the fact that the subject, who has the right to initiate an administrative offense case, is often the subject considering the case on the merits. Therefore, knowledge of the material part of administrative tort law helps such a subject to determine the preliminary qualification of an offense, and knowledge of its procedural part – to consider the case and impose on a person one of the types of administrative penalties. It has been proved that “simplified proceedings” should be the key procedural form of bringing persons to administrative responsibility. It is noted that the codification of administrative tort law is a painstaking and systematic work in which well-known scientists who have been working on the problem of administrative responsibility for many years should participate.