PROPORTIONALITY AS A STATUTORY “FILTER” FOR USING THE RESOURCE OF LIFESTYLE MONITORING

ubstantiation of the expediency of considering the resource of monitoring of lifestyle as an anticorruption means in the aspect of compliance with the requirements of proportionality in establishing its foundations in the legislation and its application in practice. The author notes that monitoring the way of life of a person authorized to perform state or local government functions is a “innovation” for domestic rule-making and law enforcement, which also determines the need for analysis and borrowing of relevant foreign experience, tested by time and practice and adapted to national needs of state-building and law making. The normalization of proportionality as a “filter” of using the resource of this medium allows for a “fair balance” of public and private interests, the impossibility of using the benefits of the public service for individuals to realize and protect their called interests or interests of their families and, at the same time, “arbitrary interference with the private autonomy” of these people. Proposed consideration of proportionality in the broad sense, with an emphasis on the resource of all three of its “basic” elements, among which: admissibility (legality, legitimacy, legitimate purpose, legal certainty), necessity (minimization of “interference in the called autonomy” of a person, advantage of less intrusive funds), a fair balance of public and private interests (the minimum negative result for the person and the positive result for the public interest, compensation for the harm done, the appeal of NSC acts, the elimination of the prerequisites for achievement of the result at any cost and impossibility to restrict the rights of individuals). Based on the analysis of the current legislation that defines the principles of monitoring lifestyle, the“defect” of using the resource of legal certainty and necessity, which in general affects the “filtering” of the resource of this anticorruption tool, creates the preconditions for the manifestation of the subjective resource in the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the law. In order to eliminate these gaps and to ensure maximum use of the resource of the “integrated model” of lifestyle monitoring (it is noted that there are several models of this anti-corruption tool – “desk research”, “field research”, “a mix of these two types, or a complex model”) , which was chosen by the domestic legislator, it is expedient to adjust the content of the current domestic legislation, which determines the bases of using the resource of the corresponding anticorruption means. In particular, it is proposed to consolidate the definition of “monitoring lifestyle”, “private life of a person”, to elaborate provisions on “monitoring selectivity”, “balance of the called and public interests”, “excessive interference”, to agree provisions of legislation on the definition of the legal status of the NSC and the scope of authority for the implementation of this body of its functional purpose, itsplace in the system of bodies of anticorruption purposeful activity; to consolidate the list of principles of the NSC, with the provisionof proportionality as one of these; coordinate the results of subordinate and interpretative activities of the NSCC regarding the procedural aspect of the life-saving monitoring resource with the requirements of the current national legislation, the practice of the ECHRand the Supreme Court positions, ensuring their maximum detail and, consequently, unification of the practice of using the life-savingmonitoring resource as an anticorruption tool in Ukraine.