{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04069355980184006, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.138888888888889, '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}}
“ANTI-CORRUPTION” RESTRICTIONS FOR PERSONS AUTHORIZED
TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE OR LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT: THE REALITIES OF THE USE OF THE “FILTER”
OF LEGAL CERTAINTY IN UKRAINE AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES

The article substantiates the expediency of considering “anti-corruption restrictions” in relation to persons authorized to perform the functions of the state or local self-government in the aspect of compliance with the requirements of legal certainty in the use of their resource. Legal certainty (juridical security) is considered as an integral component of the rule of law, which combines the “substantive” (“quality” of the regulatory framework for using the resource of “anti-corruption” restrictions) and “procedural” (“quality” of law enforcement with respect to relevant restrictions) components that only collectively shape the phenomenon of legal certainty of “anti-corruption” restrictions. We consider appropriate to use a “broad” approach to understanding the legal certainty of “anti-corruption” restrictions, which combines the “substantive” and “procedural” legal certainty of corresponding restrictions, and enhancing the “quality” of anti-corruption legislation in terms of defining “anti-corruption” restrictions and the “quality” of its application practice makes it possible to increase the effectiveness of these restrictions as an anti-corruption “tool”. The “defects” of the “substantive” and “procedural” legal certainty of domestic “anti-corruption” restrictions are distinguished and compared with the “quality” of the corresponding components of the legal certainty of “anti-corruption” restrictions in foreign countries. Specific proposals are formulated to improve the “quality” of anti-corruption legislation in terms of fixing “anti-corruption” restrictions, the “quality” of anti-corruption enforcement practices (in terms of the terminological framework, the use of valuation concepts, techniques and technologies of anti-corruption rulemaking in the part of “anti-corruption” restrictions, law enforcement unification). The article substantiates the expediency of prudent borrowing of positive, tested by time and practice foreign experience of anti-corruption rulemaking and anti-corruption enforcement in the use of the resource of “anti-corruption” restrictions (minimization of evaluation provisions, extended conceptual series, duplication of criteria for determining limits of restrictions, minimization of blanket and referral standards, clarity and transparency of regulations, thematic generalizations of law enforcement practices) by which it is possible to ensure compliance of the “quality” of legal certainty of “anti-corruption” restrictions in Ukraine with international legal standards, consistency with foreign analogues as an effective anti-corruption “tool”.