The dissertation provides a comprehensive study of the organisational and legal aspects of implementing the principle of transparency in the activities of public authorities in Ukraine. Scientific approaches to understanding the essence of the principle of transparency, its legal nature and features, as well as its place within the system of exercising public authority, are analysed. It is proved that its content encompasses interconnected elements of information accessibility, procedural openness, public communication, accountability, public participation, and the possibility of effective external oversight over the exercise of public authority.
The correlation between the concepts of «transparency», «openness», «clarity», «publicity», «accountability» and «access to public information» is analysed. It is found that these categories are not identical; however, they constitute a common conceptual field within which transparency performs an integrative function. It is concluded that the principle of transparency should be regarded as an independent principle governing the activities of public authorities, which determines the requirements for the organisation of public authority, the procedure for decision-making, the scope and quality of information subject to disclosure, as well as the forms of public participation in oversight of public administration.
The legal nature of transparency in public authority activity is examined. It is established that it has a complex character and manifests itself simultaneously as a value-based foundation of the democratic organisation of authority, as a functional regime of openness in the activities of public authorities, as a legally defined obligation to ensure information accessibility and procedural intelligibility, and as an instrument for preventing abuses and strengthening trust in public institutions. It is proved that transparency belongs to the basic principles of democratic governance. It is substantiated that the implementation of this principle ensures the legitimacy of authoritative decisions, sustainable feedback between the state and society, and a proper balance between private and public interests.
The organisational and legal support for the principle of transparency in the activities of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine, and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is analysed. It is established that parliamentary transparency is manifested through the openness of plenary sittings, the accessibility of draft laws, voting results, committee activities, as well as through the digital support of the legislative process. At the same time, it is revealed that certain elements of openness in parliamentary activity require further unification and procedural detailing. With regard to the institution of the presidency, it is clarified that the actual level of its openness largely depends on the institutional capacity of auxiliary bodies and on the modernity of mechanisms for the official publication of acts of the Head of State. It is proved that the current regulation of the publication of acts of the President of Ukraine requires updating in light of the conditions of the digital state. With regard to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, it is established that governmental transparency is predominantly administrative and procedural in nature, as its foundation consists in the openness of the preparation of managerial decisions, the digitalisation of meetings, consultations with the public, the functioning of governmental portals, and electronic services for communication with citizens.
The organisational and legal support for the principle of transparency in the activities of judicial authorities is analysed. It is established that judicial transparency combines procedural publicity, openness of information about the functioning of the judicial system, accessibility of court decisions, and the requirement of their proper reasoning. It is concluded that the transparency of procedures and the reasoned nature of judicial decisions are key factors of trust in the judiciary.
