SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES OF PUBLIC CONTROL OF JUDGES IN UKRAINE

Abstract

The article describes the system of various ways of carrying out administrative control procedures by civil society entities, in particular through such forms as monitoring (observation, analysis) and examination. It is noted that quite often the same method of control can correspond to multiple administrative procedures for its implementation. The author argues that in relation to other forms (verification, evaluation, correction of the personnel of the judicial corps, bodies of judicial administration and judicial self-government, leadership of the court and the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine, rulemaking), they are not peculiar to the administrative and legal status of subjects of public control.

It is established that the system of various ways of carrying out administrative control procedures within its forms (observation, analysis), expertise is a set of measures: 1) obtaining information from open or closed sources, by the results of sociological research, personal interviews (conversations, consultations) with third parties (including those subject to scrutiny), journalistic investigations, etc.; 2) intelligent, mental processing of the information received, including through innovative technologies and computer algorithms, with the formation of their own conclusions, reports, reviews, and other forms of expression of the results of analytical or expert work; 3) forwarding information (conclusions, materials) by any interested entity to the High Council of Justice within the framework of the disciplinary complaint procedure; 4) submission of a negative opinion by the Public Council of Integrity regarding the compliance of the judge (candidate for this position) with the requirements of professional ethics and integrity of the High Qualifications Commission of Judges; 5) creation and maintenance of specialized Internet sites that simplify (make more convenient and understandable) public access to relevant information about the court and judges; 6) publication of the results of analytical and expert work (consolidated information with conclusions, comments of interested parties in the media, in particular on television and on the Internet.