English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The concepts of «supervision» and «control» are not defined in Russian legislation, but they are widely used, especially in the names of national and municipal authorities. The problem of distinguishing these concepts has been debated in the scientific literature for many years, and at least four approaches to solve it have been recorded. Moreover, supporters of different approaches are critical of any new attempt to delimit control and supervision at the legislative level. They recognize only their position. This means that it is difficult for them to agree among themselves. Inflexibility makes the problem deadlocked. It is established that all the existing approaches that identify special features of control and supervision are based on an analysis of modern normative legal acts, without taking into account the general meaning of these words. In this regard, a retrospective analysis of the use of the concept «supervision» on the example of prosecutor's supervision is proposed. The conclusion was reached not only on the nature of prosecutor's supervision, but also on the nature of supervision as a legal phenomenon.

THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE ACTIVITY IN THE CONTEXT OF DEBATES ON THE NATURE OF CONTROL AND SUPERVISION