Thesis for a Candidate Degree in Law in specialty 12.00.07 – administrative law and process; finance law; information law. – Research Institute of Public Law, Kyiv, 2026.
Based on the analysis of scholarly works, four stages in the emergence and development of the institution of administrative jurisdiction in police activity have been identified, namely: (late 18th century – early 20th century) is associated with the formation of police jurisdiction as a component of public authority and the development of ideological, legal, and organizational prerequisites for administrative-jurisdictional activity of the police, which at this stage was fragmented and predominantly supervisory-punitive in nature. The second stage (1920s – early 1990s) is characterized by the institutionalization of administrative liability and the normative consolidation of the powers of internal affairs bodies to consider cases of administrative offenses, which led to the expansion of the functional orientation of the police (militia) through the combination of public order protection tasks with administrative-jurisdictional powers. The third stage (early 1990s – 2015) reflects a systemic renewal of the administrative-jurisdictional mechanism in the context of legal reform, the reorientation of administrative law toward a human-centered model, the formation of police law as a distinct area of administrative-legal science, and the gradual reconsideration of administrative-jurisdictional functions of the police through the prism of the rule of law and procedural guarantees. The fourth stage (from 2015 to the present) is associated with the functional and procedural transformation of administrative jurisdiction in the context of reforming the National Police of Ukraine, European integration processes, and the operation of special legal regimes, which has led to a rethinking of the role of administrative jurisdiction in police activity, strengthening of the preventive component, standardization of procedures, and an increased influence of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on defining the limits and methods of exercising administrative-jurisdictional powers of the police.
A broad and a narrow approach to understanding the legislation of Ukraine in the field of implementation of administrative jurisdiction in police activity are formulated, and the expediency of applying the broad approach is substantiated as one that most fully reflects the specifics of administrative-jurisdictional legal relations and corresponds to the current state of the system of sources of administrative law. It is proved that limiting legislative regulation exclusively to laws does not ensure an adequate level of stability of legal acts in the field of administrative jurisdiction of the National Police of Ukraine, given the complexity, multi-level nature, and dynamism of administrative-jurisdictional legal relations. In this regard, it is established that effective implementation of administrative jurisdiction in police activity objectively requires the involvement of subordinate regulatory legal acts, which perform the function of detailing, specifying, and procedurally supporting the provisions of laws and constitute an integral element of the normative mechanism of administrative-legal regulation.
The priority directions for improving the legal regulation of administrative-jurisdictional legislation in the context of its systematization are determined, namely: (a) ensuring structural interaction between general and special administrative-delict legislation, since the current Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses acts as a basic codified act, while a significant body of administrative-jurisdictional norms is unjustifiably enshrined in special legislation, which creates preconditions for inconsistent interpretation and application of administrative law norms; (b) the need to unify terminology and procedural standards applied in the implementation of police administrative jurisdiction, manifested in the existence of heterogeneous and often incompatible definitions, procedural approaches, and requirements for documenting and evaluating procedural actions; (c) defining optimal limits of administrative-jurisdictional powers of officials of bodies (units) of the National Police and preventing the risks of their “functional expansion” (when interrelated powers are concentrated in a single subject: from recording an event and collecting evidence to making an administrative decision, applying restrictive measures, and controlling their execution); (d) integration of European standards of good administrative procedure, in particular the requirements of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
