In the publication the author considers the concept and content of administrative control (supervision) in the context of European experience. In contrast to the domestic approach, the doctrine and legislation of European countries mainly use the term “administrative control” in the opposite sense - as control over public administration, and not vice versa, as the administration’s control over society and its individual representatives. Such a definition of control (supervision) in Ukraine has a negative consequence in the form of combining within one legal institution two different forms of activity - control over the administration and inspections of individuals. It also leads to a distinction between inspection activities and the provision of administrative services. This loses the mission of the administrative body - either to provide services or to carry out inspections. These types of administrative activities are fundamentally different and can not be performed by the same representatives of the same department. There are such differences: - initiation of proceedings (in the procedure of providing services - a person, and in the procedure of inspection - the administrative body); - completeness of the necessary documents for decision-making (in the procedure of providing services - the list of documents is provided by the person, and during the inspection - the body independently determines the amount of documents in accordance with the law); - the need of involving other interested persons (in the procedure of providing services - it is preferable to involve interested persons, and during the inspection - such persons are usually not needed). According to the Law of Ukraine “On Central executive bodies” the executive body is formed as an inspection if only most of its functions are control and supervisory functions for compliance by state bodies, local governments, their officials, legal entities and individuals of acts of legislation (article 17 of the Law). Ukrainian legislation does not comply till now with this concept and allows inspections not only by inspections, but also by other state bodies (ministries, agencies and services). In this case, there is currently a nonconformity between the name of the public authority and the powers it exercises. To correct these shortcomings, it is proposed to change the name of this activity to “coercive powers”, “interfering powers”, “police powers”. Each of the proposed terms has certain advantages and disadvantages, but they all have a positive in comparison with the current situation, when the concept used is contrary to the European administrative and legal tradition. The analysis of the concept of administrative supervision and control in Ukraine and the relevant european experience shows the following conclusions: - inconsistency of the ukrainian understanding of administrative control (supervision) with european legal doctrine and practice; - the need for using of the concept “administrative control (supervision)” only for control over the activities of the public administration; - the need of implementation new term for inspections of administrative bodies vs. individuals. The best term will be “inspection powers”; - incorrect consideration of the procedure for providing administrative services as part of the control procedure.
