“PROPORTIONALITY TEST” IN THE LEGAL REGULATION OF RESTRICTION AFTER THE TERMINATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE CAREER: SEARCH FOR AN OPTIMAL MODEL

  • Tetiana Kolomoets Zaporizhzhya National University
Keywords: private sector corruption, filter, expediency, need, balance between public and private interests, legislation, standards, elements

Abstract

Purpose – the substantiation of the expediency to set restriction after the termination of the public service career, which is based on “the proportionality test”, distinguishing the unified standards for the consolidation of its elements.

Research methods. The paper is executed by applying the general research and special methods of scientific cognition. The dialectical method, as a basic one, allows the author to find out the essence of proportionality test, its narrow and broad sense, to justify its fundamental value for the model of legal regulation of a relevant restriction. The Aristotelian method makes it possible to study the challenging issues of standardizing the principles of its restriction that has caused “defectiveness” of its comprehension and application. Using the logical-semantic method, the author specifies the concepts list, comparative-legal – special features of perception of elements of the proportionality test in the rulemaking practice of countries of the world. Using the forecasting and modeling – the proposals on basic standards of the model of the relevant legal regulation are formulated.

Results. The article analyses the basic doctrinal approaches for the understanding of proportionality test, its narrow and broad versions, justifies its basic role for the shaping of a model of legal regulation of the restriction as an instrument for corruption prevention in the legal area. Based on the analysis of rulemaking practice of countries of the world, it is proved the availability of a steady trend towards the perception (non-system, differing degree of the manifestation and consolidation) of the elements of proportionality test in the legal regulation of the restriction, which has resulted in excessive interference in the private autonomy of an individual, discrimination of the latter. The author marks particular cases of the subject-related rulemaking practice of different countries and renders the standards of the model of legal regulation of the restriction.

Conclusions. In the context of active use of a unique resource of the restriction after the termination of public service career as an instrument for corruption prevention in the private sector, “the proportionality test” in its broad sense, as the mix of several obligatory complex elements, should be the basis for shaping model of its legal regulation which is perfect in content and effective in use. The author proposes to consider the following as the standards of such regulation: 1) legislative (along with a simultaneous correlation with the codes of conduct for public servants) consolidation of the provision of absolute determination of the content (excluding the opportunity to use evaluative provisions) towards all elements of the mechanism of the specific restriction; 2) absolute determinacy of the fixed basic standards-definitions; 3) unification of the provisions about the subject of restriction with the elimination of any preconditions for possible discrimination; 4) specification of the scope for interference including “the former” public service of an individual, as well as the minimization of restriction validity (one year); 5) standardization of the provisions on the legitimate goal of the restriction, the content of which is relevant to all elements of the latter; 6) detailed elaboration of the regulation of the procedure for the individual’s employment after the termination of public service career; 7) corresponding tie between a subtle provision and instructions of guaranteeing appeals and redress related to the use of the restriction resource.

References

Holovkin, B.M. (ed.) (2019). Corruption prevention: textbook. Kharkiv: Pravo [Запобігання корупції : підручник / Б.М. Головкін, В.Ф. Оболенцев, М.В. Романов та ін. ; за заг. ред. Б.М. Головкіна. Харків : Право, 2019. 296 с.].

Kolomoiets, T.O. (ed.) (2019). Restrictions for persons authorized to perform the functions of the state or local self-government as a means for prevention of the conflict of private and public interest: legal aspect: scientific and practical essay. Zaporizhzhia: Helvetyka [Обмеження для осіб, уповноважених на виконання функцій держави або місцевого самоврядування, як засіб запобігання конфлікту приватного та публічного інтересу: правовий аспект : науково- практичний нарис / Т.О. Коломоєць, Р.О. Кукурудз, С.М. Кушнір ; за заг. ред. Т.О. Коломоєць. Запоріжжя : Видавничий дім «Гельветика», 2019. 80 с.].

Luchenko, M.M. (2019). Proportionality principle in administrative proceedings (Extended abstract of candidate’s thesis). Zaporizhzhia [Лученко М.М. Принцип пропорційності в адміністративному судочинстві : автореф. дис. … канд. юрид. наук : 12.00.07. Запоріжжя, 2019. 18 с.].

Pohrebniak, S.P. (2012). Proportionality test in Ukrainian legal practice and the ECHR practice. Legal support of an effective use of decisions and application of the ECHR practice: collection of scientific articles of International scientific-practical conference (Odesa, March 15, 2012). Odesa: National University “Odessa Law Academy”, pp. 294–310 [Погребняк С.П. Принцип пропорційності в українській юридичній практиці та практиці ЄСПЛ. Правове забезпечення ефективного використання рішень і застосування практики ЄСПЛ : збірник наукових ред. С.В. Ківалова. Одеса : Національний університет «Одеська юридична академія», 2012. С. 294–310]. статей Міжнародної науково-практичної конференції, м. Одеса, 15 березня 2012 р. / за заг.

Suslova, I.M., Fluri, F., Badrak, V.V. (eds.) (2017). Parliamentary ethics in Ukraine. Realities of the needs, prospects (according to the research of the NGO “Center for Army, Conversion and Disarmament Studies” and the Institute of Social Technologies “Sociopolis”). Geneva, Kyiv [Парламентська етика в Україні. Реалії потреби, перспективи (за матеріалами дослідження ГО «Центр досліджень армії, конверсії та роззброєння» та Інституту соціальних технологій «Соціополіс») / пер. з англ. за заг. ред. І.М. Суслової, Ф. Флурі, В.В. Бадрака. Женева ; Київ, 2017. 56 с.].

Tatsii, V.Ya., Petryshyn, O.V. (eds.) (2017). Great Ukrainian legal encyclopedia: in 20 vol. Kharkiv: Pravo, vol. 3: General theory of law [Велика українська юридична енциклопедія : у 20 т. / редкол. : В.Я. Тацій, О.В. Петришин та ін. Харків : Право, 2017. Т. 3 : Загальна теорія права. 932 с.].

Totskyi, B.A. (2013). Proportionality test: historical aspect and theoretical components. Journal of Kyiv University of Law, no. 3, pp. 70–74 [Тоцький Б.А. Принцип пропорційності: історичний аспект і теоретичні складові. Часопис Київського університету права. 2013. № 3. С. 70–74].

UN Development Program in Ukraine (2016). Lifestyle monitoring: review of the international practice in Ukraine. Kyiv [Моніторинг способу життя: огляд міжнародної практики, можливість застосування в Україні / Програма розвитку ООН в Україні. Київ, 2016. 36 с.].

Villoriia, M., Synnestrom, S., Bertok, Ya. (2010). Civil service ethics: prevention of conflict of interests and requirements for the legislation. Kyiv: Center for Civil Service Adaptation to EU Standards [Віллорія М., Синнестрьом С., Берток Я. Етика державної служби: запобігання конфлікту інтересів та вимоги до законодавства / пер. з англ. І.С. Чуприни. Київ : Центр адаптації державної служби до стандартів ЄС, 2010. 104 с.].

Yevtoshuk, Yu.O. (2015). Proportionality test as an essential component of the rule of law (Extended abstract of candidate’s thesis). Kyiv [Євтошук Ю.О. Принцип пропорційності як необхідна складова верховенства права : автореф. дис. … канд. юрид. наук ; 12.00.01. Київ, 2015. 16 с.].
Published
2020-06-25
How to Cite
KolomoetsT. (2020). “PROPORTIONALITY TEST” IN THE LEGAL REGULATION OF RESTRICTION AFTER THE TERMINATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE CAREER: SEARCH FOR AN OPTIMAL MODEL. Administrative Law and Process, (4(27), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.17721/2227-796X.2019.4.06
Section
Special administrative law