ON THE ISSUE OF DEFINITINESS OF CONCEPTS OF CONTROL AND SUPERVISION

Abstract

The article first outlines the role and importance of control and supervisory activities: it is asserted that control and supervision are independent (autonomous) forms of state-significant activity, therefore it is important not to confuse these concepts having different intension. Further it is noted that in the legal conception in the study of control and supervision the view of these concepts as equivalent prevails. In its turn, the current legislation does not provide an answer to the question of where and when control is exercised, and under what circumstances supervision is exercised. The paper contains examples that confirm the thesis that legislators use the concepts of control and supervision as synonyms. The author's view of the problem lies in the fact that it is necessary to distinguish these concepts in accordance with certain criteria. And this is important for practical activities, since such a distinction makes it possible to define the functional identity of control and supervision bodies clearly, "arm them with specific goals", tasks, forms and methods of implementing both control and supervisory activities. Circumstances and conditions which can be taken into account to distinguish the concepts of control and supervision and their essence (functional focus) are characterized. A drastic proposal was made, according to which it is necessary to assign supervisory powers at the legislative level to the prosecution service solely, and all the rest, today called supervisory bodies, should be considered only control ones. This proposal is justified on the basis of the current legislation and the actual situation in the implementation of control and supervision.