Theoretical and practical aspects of the implementation of administrative acts

Abstract

The extended abstract provides a comprehensive insight into the research dedicated to the theoretical foundations and practical application of the execution of administrative acts in Ukraine, following the enforcement of the Law of Ukraine «On Administrative Procedure» (LAP). The methodological framework of the study is based on comprehensive, systemic-structural, comparative-legal, formal-dogmatic methods, as well as the method of legal differentiation. The study highlights that the entry into force of this framework law marked a crucial milestone in shifting the paradigm of public administration toward a human-centric approach and adherence to European standards of good governance. The author defines the execution of an administrative act as the final and critical stage of administrative proceedings, which ensures the actual implementation of legal rights or the protection of public interests. The paper emphasizes that the LAP integrated the Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, balancing the state's capacity to enforce decisions with strict guarantees of predictability and fairness for private individuals.

A significant portion of the article focuses on distinguishing between positive administrative acts, which are executed voluntarily by the beneficiaries, and negative administrative acts, which impose specific duties or restrictions and require mandatory enforcement in case of non-compliance. The author examines the newly introduced toolset given to administrative bodies, enabling them to act as enforcement authorities without initially relying on judicial intervention, which used to be a major source of legal uncertainty. These enforcement tools include performing actions at the expense of the obligated person, imposing monetary penalties, and exercising direct physical or psychological impact as a measure of last resort.

Furthermore, the research underscores the vital importance of procedural guarantees, specifically the requirement of a mandatory written warning prior to applying any enforcement measures. This warning must specify reasonable timeframes, an itemized estimate of potential costs, and the exact type of sanctions to prevent unexpected or arbitrary state actions. The author addresses the application of discretionary powers by public authorities during this stage, arguing that principles of proportionality, reasonableness, timeliness, and legal certainty must strictly guide their choices to minimize harm to individuals and assets.

Finally, the study thoroughly assesses the dualistic mechanism of interaction between administrative authorities and the State Enforcement Service. It differentiates between direct enforcement, where an administrative decision on financial penalties serves directly as an enforcement document, and indirect enforcement, which requires a court order to recover expenses after the administrative body executes the act independently. The author concludes by identifying key practical gaps, such as the lack of established administrative practices and the risks of excessive administrative discretion stemming from the wide legal range of monetary fines without predefined criteria for their assessment.