{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01826697892271663, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.300884955752212, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The concept of public control over judges’ activity and the system of subjects of its implementation

The author of the article substantiates the modern tendency of the formation, development and spread of an increasing number of levers and protectors from state’s abuse of power, change of the state’s essence and its purpose in the society. The public and various elements of its control and supervisory activity play a significant role in this. Theoretical aspects of the issue of public control in general or in the context of a certain sphere of state power functioning, in particular are studied. Considering this, the author offers own definition of the category of public control over judges (courts) in Ukraine. The system and the legal status of various public control subjects are briefly characterized, their classification is performed and the place of control over judges among other subjects is determined. 
It has been established that public control over judges (courts) in Ukraine is the system of statutory measures and procedures implemented by civil society subjects in relation to judges, candidates for judges positions, members of judicial administration and self-government agencies (candidates for these positions), courts as institutions in order to to ensure the conditions for the selection of professional and honest judges, the effective, impartial administration of justice and the objective informing the public about the current state of affairs in the judicial sphere. 
Summarizing the analysis of the system of public control subjects, their administrative powers and capabilities, the author has noted that their absolute majority, except the Public Integrity Council, is not endowed with real (or at least close to such) levers of influence on the processes in the judicial sector. Accordingly, the purpose of their functioning is reduced to a greater extent to the accumulation, analysis and dissemination of socially important information about courts and judges, to the formation of public resonance on the facts of their not fair practice, other cases of law or professional ethics’ violation.