ЗВУЖЕННЯ ПРАВ МЕЖ РОЗСУДУ ЗА ВТРУЧАННЯ У ПРАВА І СВОБОДИ ЛЮДИНИ – ЗАКОН УКРАЇНИ «ПРО АДМІНІСТРАТИВНУ ПРОЦЕДУРУ» І СУДОВА ПРАКТИКА У ФРН СТОСОВНО ЗВУЖЕННЯ МЕЖ РОЗСУДУ

Abstract

Goal. To determine the conditions and limitations during the application of administrative discretion, which are determined by the Constitution of Ukraine. Methods. The scientific provisions presented in the article are based on the use of general and special methods of scientific knowledge (logical-co-semantic method, comparative-legal, systematic, methods of analysis and synthesis, etc.), the choice of which was determined by the purpose and tasks of the research, its object and subject. The results. The article emphasizes that at the initial stages of the formation and development of European, in particular, German administrative law, the narrowing of discretion was not discussed in legal literature and law enforcement practice. However, the situation began to gradually change due to the strengthening of the importance and weight of fundamental rights, the observance of which during the exercise of discretionary powers is currently a mandatory standard. The author analyses the content of the duty of the administrative body to observe the human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine within the limits of administrative procedures. It is emphasized that for its implementation, the administrative body must clarify all the circumstances of the case, acting on its own initiative. The duty to establish the circumstances of the case is limited by what the administrative body is able to do and what is expedient in each specific situation. Particular attention is paid to the question of how the legal position of the addressee of the planned administrative act (action) should be taken into account in view of the provisions of the Constitution when making a decision on the basis of discretional powers. The author analyses the content of the following constitutional (fundamental) rights and principles (the right to equal treatment, proportionality) and formulates the positions that the administrative body should consider Conclusions. The central criteria for observing the rights and freedoms of the addressee of the event are the duty of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality. Since the reduction of discretion or narrowing it to zero is the result of the influence of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, the decision of an administrative body is considered legal if it was adopted within the available limits of discretion. And any other decision will be considered a significant interference with the addressee’s rights and freedoms and will no longer be proportionate. The same applies to the obligation to treat similar cases similar and treat different cases differently, because if the discretion of the administrative body is limited or reduced to zero, any other decision is a violation of the duty of equal treatment. These two criteria are clear requirements that administrative bodies must comply with when making decisions, and the verification of compliance with these criteria is carried out by administrative courts in accordance with Art. 2 KAS. This control applies to most cases of abuse of discretion, and therefore complex constructions of abuse of discretion are necessary only in some very special cases.