UNLAWFUL INACTION IN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES RELATED TO CORRUPTION: HISTORICAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION

The article provides a historical and legal analysis of the provisions of national legislationon illegal inaction in administrative offenses related to corruption. It is emphasized that modern law enforcement activities in the field of administrative liability suffer from the conceptually outdated content of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, and administrative tort law does not evolve due to the fact that the subject of legislative activity ignores the needs of society in improving the grounds, principles and procedure for bringing persons to administrative liability. It is found that the institution of administrative liability for violations related to corruption is quite new for the administrative tort law of Ukraine. In this regard, it is proposed to distinguish the following stages in the history of the development of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses on administrative liability for offenses related to corruption: 1) the first stage (from 1991 to 2008) was characterized by the absence of provisions on combating corruption in the codified regulatory legal act (the legislator established the features of bringing corrupt officials to administrative liability by a special law); 2) the second stage (from 2009 to 2010) was characterized by a chaotic definition of offenses related to corruption in the structure of the codified regulatory legal act; 3) the third stage (from 2011 to the present) is characterized by the fact that the legislator is trying to determine the number of illegalacts related to corruption and requiring the application of administrative liability measures. It is proven that today the administrative tort law provides for only four types of administrative offenses related to corruption, committed in the form of unlawful inaction. However, the legislative technique used in determining unlawful inaction needs to be improved, because the formulations proposed by the current Code of Administrative Offenses ignore the developments of both the doctrine of the types of administrative offense and the theory of administrative tort law on the distinction between two forms of corruptive acts – action and inaction.