Concepts and signs of a public legal dispute regarding the access of citizens of Ukraine to the diplomatic service

The article determines the state of scientific research into the organisation of the institute and the specific features of the diplomatic service. The study establishes that a characteristic feature of a public law dispute regarding access of Ukrainian citizens to the diplomatic service is special participants in public-power relations, since at least one of the parties to the dispute must be a subject of authority, i.e. an institution/official who makes public decisions or takes appropriate actions aimed at exercising competences in the field of diplomatic service. Such entities are the President of Ukraine, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, foreign diplomatic missions, their officials, etc. A party to a public legal dispute whose rights or interests are violated is an individual who is not a public servant in the case of admission to the diplomatic service, as well as a public servant himself. A public law dispute over access to the diplomatic service is based on the public interest in ensuring that the diplomatic service, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, and foreign diplomatic missions (consulates general, consulates, embassies) are properly staffed with qualified and professional personnel to represent Ukraine’s interests abroad and to provide consular protection to Ukrainian citizens and legal entities registered in Ukraine abroad. Also, after processing the data from the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, it was established that there are widespread disputes in areas related to: 1) the issue of assigning diplomatic ranks; 2) the issue of contesting the procedure for conducting rotations of diplomatic employees, recognizing them as illegal, adjusting rotation plans, etc.; 3) the issue of procedural violation of registration of long-term business trips of officials of the diplomatic service; 4) issues of social protection, social guarantees of officials of the diplomatic service; 5) the issue of bringing diplomatic officials to disciplinary responsibility; 6) recognition of dismissal from positions, reinstatement in positions of the diplomatic service, as well as collection of average earnings during forced absenteeism as illegal.