Legislative Pillars of Administrative Bodies’ Functioning and Organizational Behavior Under recent Reforms

Vitalii Vdovichen¹ , Stanislav Sokha², Yevhenii Radzikhovskyi³, Dymytrii Grytsyshen⁴ and Oleksandr Zinevych⁵
1. Doctor of Law, Professor, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University, Chernivtsi, Ukraine
2. Candidate of Law Sciences, Doctoral Student of the Department of Law and Law Enforcement, Department of National Security, Public Management and Administration, Faculty of National Security, Law and International Relations, Zhytomyr Polytechnic State University, Zhytomyr, Ukraine
3. Master’s Degree, PhD Student, Department of Public Administration, Educational and Scientific Institute of Public Administration and Civil Service, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
4. Doctor of Sciences in Public Administration, Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor, Vice-Rector for Scientific and Pedagogical Work and Innovative Development, Zhytomyr Polytechnic State University, Zhytomyr, Ukraine
5. PhD in Law, Associate Professor, Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, Kyiv, Ukraine
Correspondence to: Vitalii Vdovichen, v.vdovichen@ujis.in.ua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.70389/PJS.100157

Additional information

• Ethical approval: N/a
• Consent: N/a
• Funding: No industry funding
• Conflicts of interest: N/a
• Author contribution: Vitalii Vdovichen, Stanislav Sokha, Yevhenii Radzikhovskyi, Dymytrii Grytsyshen and Oleksandr Zinevych – Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, review and editing
• Guarantor: Vitalii Vdovichen
• Provenance and peer-review: Unsolicited and externally peer-reviewed
• Data availability statement: N/a

Keywords: Administrative-legal status of public authorities, Principles-based public administration reform, Institutional-organizational reform conditions, Value-oriented governance principles, Decentralization and digitalization in governance.

Peer Review
Received: 17 September 2025
Last revised: 8 October 2025
Accepted: 8 October 2025
Version accepted: 4
Published: 28 October 2025

Plain Language Summary Infographic

Highlights of the Research

• Defines the legal status of administrative bodies as a multi-level structure integrating legal, functional, and institutional aspects.
• Proposes a three-level classification of principles (basic, special, value) to guide public administration reform.
• Identifies five groups of reform conditions linking legal norms with managerial and institutional factors.
• Expands the concept of legal status to include social responsibility, value orientation, and digital competence.
• Demonstrates that effective reform requires balancing normative, institutional, and ethical components of governance.

Introduction

In the current context of public administration transformation, accompanied by decentralization (the need to ensure a balanced distribution of powers between the center and the regions), digitization (the introduction of transparent and convenient administrative services), human resource challenges (a shortage of professional and honest personnel), a crisis of trust (low legitimacy of management decisions), and the need for legal adaptation to European standards (harmonization of structures and procedures with the acquis communautaire), it is becoming increasingly important to clearly define the conditions on which the effectiveness of reforms depends. In this context, an important scientific task is to identify and substantiate principles that not only reflect regulatory requirements but also ensure the implementation of reforms in the institutional, organizational, human resources, political, legal, technological, and social spheres. It is precisely these principles, adapted to modern management realities, that form the normative core of effective and legitimate public administration.

The reform of public administration is accompanied by a number of challenges that require a rethinking not only of the legal status of administrative bodies, but also of the conditions under which this status can be realized in the reform process. There is a growing need to clarify and structure conditions such as the institutional organization of bodies, human resource capacity, political and legal support, digital infrastructure, and the level of interaction with the public. It isthese conditions that determine the effectiveness of reforms and their ability to ensure the stability and legitimacy of public authority in the new management realities. The existing models of administrative and legal status do not fully cover the institutional changes accompanying the current processes of public administration reform. The dominance of a formal-normative approach (focusing solely on rights and obligations) limits the understanding of the status of an administrative body as an active participant in public governance, capable of performing functions adapted to the dynamics of social needs and challenges.

This article outlines the goal of exploring the administrative and legal status of executive bodies in the context of reform, particularly through the lens of five key conditions (institutional and organizational, personnel, political and legal, technological, and social and public), and to justify the special principles that should ensure their implementation. To this end, three levels of principles were characterized: basic (legality, legal certainty, equality, access to justice), special (continuity, unity of command, legal consequences of illegal acts, etc.) and new value-oriented principles (integrity, equality, responsiveness), which together form the normative and functional basis for effective, transparent, and legitimate public administration.

In this article, the notion of “administrative bodies” is used to denote those entities that directly exercise executive power or perform public administration tasks on behalf of the state. While “public authorities” is a broader category encompassing legislative, executive, judicial, and local self-government institutions, this study focuses specifically on administrative bodies as the core executive and managerial actors in the system of public authority.

Literature Review

The legal status of administrative bodies and the principles of their organization are actively studied in European and Ukrainian academia. Contemporary approaches converge in understanding legal status as a multidimensional construct combining legal, organizational, institutional, and ethical elements. Within the normative approach, Topolevskyi and Fedina¹ emphasize the set of rights, freedoms, and responsibilities as the basis for participation in legal relations. Dniprov² supplements this view with organizational and resource characteristics. In turn, Zaichuk and Onishchenko³ expand the vision of status to the socio-functional level, while Kolesnikova⁴ emphasizes its applied orientation towards civil society.

In the European doctrine of the legal status of administrative bodies, there is a growing focus on value-oriented principles of normative significance. Addink⁵ proposes the principles of integrity, responsiveness, and equality as a new generation of administrative and legal guidelines. Similar ideas are developed by Stelkens,⁶ who, within the framework of a comparative analysis, justifies the need to adhere to the principle of legal reservation and responsibility for illegal administrative acts as the foundations of a democratic administrative culture. Heath⁷ analyzes the evolution of the role of administrative bodies in liberal democracies, pointing to their growing normative weight in policy-making. Bakhtina⁸ emphasizes the risks of discretion in hybrid regimes, stressing the need for legal control.

The concept of the rule of law plays a decisive role in shaping the operational framework for administrative bodies. The Venice Commission⁹ identifies five key elements: legality, legal certainty, prevention of abuse of power, equality, and access to justice. These criteria were further developed in the works of Stein,¹⁰ who sees the rule of law as the basis for the functioning of the state, and Dyzenhaus,¹¹ who interprets it as an ethical constraint on state action. Much of the current research also focuses on the conditions for public administration reform. UNDP¹² emphasizes the need for institutional capacity, political support, and the avoidance of excessive centralization. Cohen¹³ analyzes resistance to reform from influential groups, pointing to a lack of “maintenance activities” after a change of government. Popa¹⁴ details four components of administrative capacity, among which human resources and the institutional environment are key. Shevchuk and Kravchenko¹⁵ propose digitalization, deregulation, and integrity as priorities for transformation.

The digital dimension of reforms is also given due scientific attention. Zhuk et al.¹⁶ examine the impact of digital tools on financial administration, while Semenets-Orlova et al.¹⁷ explore the role of access to public information in strengthening accountability. Chernov et al.¹⁸ justify the effectiveness of the project approach as a means of legitimizing local authorities. The scientific literature lacks a proper systematization of the principles that ensure the conditions for reforming administrative bodies. Studies focus on general theoretical aspects of legal status or on individual applied reform practices, leaving aside the specific principles that determine the effectiveness of changes in the context of administrative governance. The classification of reform conditions and corresponding principles proposed in this article forms the model that allows for a comprehensive characterization of the legal status of administrative bodies in the context of contemporary challenges in public administration.

To ensure methodological transparency, the literature review combined doctrinal and institutional sources retrieved from academic search engines (primarily Google Scholar), open-access legal databases (including zakon.rada.gov.ua for Ukrainian legislation), and the official repositories of international organizations such as the Venice Commission and the European Union. The selection of sources was guided by the criteria of relevance and topical alignment with the research objective—namely, the legal status and functioning principles of administrative bodies in the context of public administration reform. Priority was given to recent publications (2020–2024) that capture the latest reform debates, while foundational works from the 2000s and 2010s were included to ensure conceptual and historical continuity. The comparative scope deliberately encompassed Ukrainian, European, and selected Western jurisdictions (notably Germany, France, and the United Kingdom) in order to reflect both national transformation dynamics and European standards of administrative governance. Inclusion criteria covered scholarly articles, monographs, and official reports directly addressing the research topic, whereas non-scholarly or outdated sources were excluded. Accordingly, the study is best framed as a doctrinal–conceptual synthesis integrating national and European perspectives on administrative law and reform.

Aims of the Study

The study aims to analyze the conditions for reform and the system of principles that ensure the effective organization and functioning of administrative bodies in the context of public administration reform. The main focus is on identifying and structuring five groups of conditions for public administration reform: institutional and organizational, human resources, political and legal, technological, and social and public. Within each of these groups, characteristic principles are identified that detail the mechanisms for implementing reforms. At the same time, three levels of principles for the functioning of administrative bodies have been conceptualized: basic (universal principles of the rule of law), special (organizational and legal parameters of activity), and new value-based (ethical and normative guidelines for democratic governance). A new group of principles characteristic of the period of public administration reform has been proposed. The result of the study is a theoretically sound system of interrelated conditions and principles that allows not only to rethink the legal status of administrative bodies in the new management realities, but also to formulate practical guidelines for further reform of public administration.

Research Methods

The study is based on an interdisciplinary analysis of legal, administrative, and political sources related to the functioning of administrative bodies in the public administration system. The work uses comparative materials from European administrative law doctrines (Addink,⁵ Stelkens,⁶ Stein,¹⁰ Zehetgruber¹⁹), as well as empirical data from the Ukrainian legislative base (laws of Ukraine on the Cabinet of Ministers, local state administrations, central executive bodies). The methodological basis consists of a formal legal method (for analyzing the regulatory framework governing the status of bodies), a structural-functional approach (for studying organizational models), logical-semantic analysis (for identifying and clarifying the content of principles), and a comparative method (for comparing national and foreign concepts of the principles of functioning of administrative bodies).

Results of the Study

In the Ukrainian system of public authority, administrative bodies include entities that directly exercise executive power or carry out tasks in the field of public administration on behalf of the state. The basis of this system is the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as the highest body in the executive branch, which coordinates the activities of all ministries, services, agencies, and other central executive bodies.²⁰ Administrative bodies also include ministries (and other central executive bodies that may have special status or be subordinate to ministries.²¹ At the regional level, administrative functions are carried out by local state administrations.²² Heath⁷ emphasizes that administrative bodies play a key role in ensuring effective governance, acting not only as executors but also as active participants in policy-making, committed to fundamental liberal principles. All these entities have legal status and operate in the sphere of public authority and state administration. Legal status is a key element through which the relationship between the organizational structure of power and the legal regulation of its activities is realized.

Here are some views from authors who see legal status as a normative, functional, or institutional construct that defines the place of an administrative body in the public administration system and its ability to perform functions on behalf of the state (Table 1). Thus, legal status is a legal position defined by law that encompasses a system of rights, duties, powers, responsibilities, and institutional characteristics (including functions, place in the system of public authority, organizational structure, and resources) that ensure its ability to act on behalf of the state, perform state functions, interact with civil society, and ensure the interests of the individual and the state.

Table 1: Comparative characteristics of the interpretation of the legal status of a subject.
Author(s)	Main Components of Legal Status	Key Idea / Features of the Approach
Topolevskyi and Fedina1	Rights, freedoms, duties, legal responsibility	The normatively defined scope of legal capabilities and obligations as the basis for participation in legal relations
Dniprov2	Rights, responsibilities, institutional characteristics, functions, structure, resources, competence	A multi-component legal structure that ensures the ability to act on behalf of the state
Kolesnikova4	Rights, freedoms, responsibilities	A functional model focused on interaction with civil society
Zaichuk and Onishchenko3	Possible and necessary behavior	A socio-functional model that goes beyond a purely legal interpretation
Source: Systematized by the author based on the positions of domestic scientists

In scientific literature, there are several approaches to defining the concept of administrative and legal status, which can be grouped according to criteria focusing on the structural elements of status, functional purpose, and organizational and legal characteristics of the subject of public administration:

1.  Formal-normative approach (right – obligation) – this group of definitions is united by an understanding of administrative and legal status as a set of rights and obligations established by administrative and legal norms. The emphasis is on the legal consolidation of status within the framework of administrative legislation. Averianov²³ points out that administrative and legal status encompasses a set of specifically defined subjective rights and obligations that operate within the framework of administrative law, as well as administrative legal capacity; Hlybina²⁴ considers administrative and legal status to be a set of rights and obligations that are exercised within the framework of public administration; Fedevych²⁵ emphasizes that the legal status of an executive body is manifested in administrative legal personality and is exercised through rights and obligations.

2.  Functional-competence approach – representatives of this approach include in the concept of administrative and legal status not only rights and obligations, but also powers, competence and ability to act within the framework of public administration. This approach allows for a better understanding of the institutional content of the status of an authority. Dmitriev²⁶ considers administrative and legal status to be a legally established position of a subject of administrative law, which is determined by the system of its powers, rights, and obligations. Konstantinov²⁷ adds responsibility to the status, which reflects the practical ability of an authority to perform public functions in accordance with the law. Drozd et al.²⁸ define administrative and legal status as a type of legal status that encompasses the rights, duties, powers, and responsibilities of a subject in the field of public administration. Chernov et al.¹⁸ demonstrate how the content and structure of an authority can change depending on management objectives, allowing authorities to be viewed not only as formal structures but also as carriers of management functions. Semenets-Orlova et al.²⁹ focus on the development of human potential in public administration, which allows for the interpretation of bodies through their human resource capacity, i.e., functional efficiency.

Thus, two main groups of approaches to determining administrative and legal status have emerged in scientific doctrine: formal and normative, which is limited to describing rights and obligations as the basic elements of status; functional and organizational, which covers a broader range of institutional and procedural characteristics (powers, competence, accountability, management objectives, human potential) that reflect the practical implementation of public administration.

Administrative bodies are the main entities of governance, entrusted with the key function of ensuring public authority and the material and legal protection of human rights within the framework of administrative and legal regulation. It is through their legal status that the limits, competence, and principles of the activities of bodies are established, ensuring their legitimacy and accountability in public administration, and the performance of administrative functions is possible only when the body has the appropriate legal personality and acts within the limits of its legally defined powers.²⁷ The principles of functioning of administrative bodies not only specify the content of their legal personality, but also determine the permissible limits of interference in the sphere of human rights and freedoms.

The principle of the rule of law, which was discussed in detail by the Venice Commission in its 2011 report. The Commission identified five basic components: legality, legal certainty, prevention of abuse of power, equality before the law, and access to justice. The Rule of Law Checklist also covers contemporary challenges such as corruption, conflict of interest, state surveillance, and personal data protection, which complement the structure of the principle.⁹ These criteria form the basis for the functioning of administrative bodies. Dyzenhaus¹¹ notes that administrative law is the most vulnerable area for abuse, so the rule of law must be an internal constraint on public authorities, guaranteeing procedural rights and the legitimacy of their actions. Stein¹⁰ supports this position, calling the rule of law the foundation of effective state power. Dreval³⁰ considers the rule of law to be a system-forming element of public administration and a source of legitimacy for the actions of administrative bodies. Dyzenhaus¹¹ emphasizes that this principle sets limits on interference with citizens’ rights and requires administrative bodies to act not only formally in accordance with the law, but also in accordance with justice, legal certainty, and respect for human dignity.

The principle of legality requires administrative bodies to act exclusively within the limits of existing law. In the German Constitution, this principle is enshrined as Gesetzmäßigkeit der Verwaltung, which includes the requirements of a legal mandate (Vorbehalt des Gesetzes) and compliance with the law (Vorrang des Gesetzes).³¹ Zehetgruber¹⁹ emphasizes that administrative bodies must not only respond to individual violations but also act proactively in accordance with the practice of the ECtHR (Erga Omnes function), which requires conventional compliance, review of practice, and limitation of discretion.

The principle of legal certainty (Legal Certainty) provides for the accessibility, predictability, and comprehensibility of norms for their addressees. This guarantees stability and allows individuals to predict the consequences of their actions. Shcherbanyuk et al.³² point out that legal certainty ensures the proper functioning of administrative authorities, while Rodríguez³³ adds that it balances the effectiveness of EU law and the protection of legitimate expectations. Prevention of Abuse of Powers requires the establishment of clear limits on discretionary powers, procedural accountability, and transparency. It is important to act on the basis of public interest and predictable rules.

Equality before the law and non-discrimination are an integral part of the rule of law, which requires equal legal status and access to legal protection for all without exception. Only justified positive measures that comply with the principle of proportionality are permitted. Access to justice guarantees the possibility to appeal administrative decisions in an independent and impartial court. This is the basis for protecting citizens from abuse and builds trust in the administrative justice system in the context of public administration reform. Particular attention should be paid to the specific principles governing the legality, limits of powers, and legal consequences of administrative decisions. They form the internal legal structure that ensures effective, fair, and legitimate governance. Tkalia and Sheludko³⁴ highlight the principles of continuity, unity of command, and unity of state policy as the basis for the functioning of individual administrative bodies.

Stelkens6 emphasizes the importance of the principle of legal reservation—administrative intervention is only possible on the basis of a clearly formulated norm. This is particularly important in socially sensitive areas where individuals are not equal to the state. Bakhtina8 warns that in the absence of clear limits on discretion, it can become an instrument of arbitrariness, so transparency, accountability, and control are important safeguards. Another key principle is determining the consequences of illegality: unlawful decisions must be revoked, reviewed, or result in accountability for officials. Konstantinov²⁷ adds the principles of consistency, competence, and accountability, and emphasizes access to public information as a tool for building trust. Semenets-Orlova et al.¹⁷ highlight the importance of digital tools for processing requests and open communication.

Addink⁵ identifies new ethical principles: égalité as the basis for compensation for damage caused by lawful actions; integrity as openness and avoidance of conflicts of interest; responsiveness as the moral duty of authorities to respond to citizens’ expectations. These principles are actively implemented in the Netherlands, in particular through the activities of the ombudsman and the concept of the “responsible state.” Thus, special principles complement the classical foundations of administrative law, facilitating the transition to a value-oriented model of public administration, which is critically important in the context of public administration reform. The principles listed above define the foundations for the organization and functioning of administrative bodies, but when reforming public administration, the set of principles expands to include conditions that must be taken into account during reform:

1. Institutional and organizational conditions: modernization of the public administration system; development of administrative capacity;¹⁴ strengthening of the institutional base;¹² reform of the executive vertical to achieve a balance between the center and the regions;³⁵ elimination of excessive centralization, which makes the system dependent on political approval;¹³ definition of general principles for the organization and functioning of administrative bodies in the new conditions;¹⁵
2. Human resources and professional conditions: qualified civil servants, effective human resources policy, staff training;^12,14 human capacity development;²⁹ formation of a professional and ethical civil service;15
3. Political and legal conditions: adaptation of the legal framework to established standards;¹⁴ political will and support for reforms on the part of the leadership;^12,13 support for reforms, avoidance of rollback after a change of government (“maintenance activities”) (countering resistance from organised groups (trade unions, bureaucracy).¹³
4. Technological and procedural conditions: digitization of administrative services; openness of procedures, reduction of regulatory burden; use of digital platforms as a tool for transparency and anti-corruption;¹⁵ introduction of digital tools in the field of finance.¹⁶
5. Social and community conditions: citizen participation in decision-making, building trust and legitimacy of authorities;^12,14 response to the crisis of legitimacy in the context of global information pressure.³⁶

The conceptual framework gains clarity when applied to specific reform areas, where the interaction of the five condition-groups and principle tiers can be observed in real-world governance practices. The ProZorro electronic procurement system represents a vivid illustration of how the principles of public administration reform can be operationalized in practice. From the perspective of institutional and organizational conditions, the system ensures systemic integration by covering all levels of contracting authorities – central and local executive bodies as well as state-owned enterprises – under a unified legal framework. The division of powers is clearly regulated between contracting authorities, the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, which is entrusted with the review of complaints, and the State Audit Service, which exercises control functions, thereby reflecting the principle of balance.³⁷

With regard to staffing and professional conditions, the law establishes the role of authorized procurement officers who are required to undergo training and act in accordance with standards of integrity and impartiality. This institutional design operationalizes the principle of professionalism and integrity by placing personal accountability on individual officials responsible for procurement.³⁷ In terms of political and legal conditions, the ProZorro system derives its legitimacy from a comprehensive legislative basis and the binding requirement for contracting authorities to publish information and reports. Such transparency mechanisms enhance political accountability and ensure compliance with international standards, including the Open Contracting Data Standard (OCDS).

The system also demonstrates the practical implementation of technological and procedural conditions. The principle of digital openness is fully realized through the slogan “everyone sees everything,” since all procurement data are publicly available on the national platform (https://prozorro.gov.ua). The regulatory efficiency of procedures is achieved by standardization, automation, and user-oriented digital design, reducing the opportunities for discretion and corruption. Finally, social and community conditions are reflected in the strong role of civil society organizations, particularly the DOZORRO community, which monitors procurement practices, submits feedback, and contributes to the accountability of contracting authorities. This aligns with the principles of participation, transparent communication, and restoring public trust.

Indicative metrics that demonstrate the operationalization of these principles within ProZorro include the share of procedures with effective competition (two or more bidders), the percentage of cost savings compared to the expected value, the number and outcomes of complaints resolved by the Antimonopoly Committee, and the proportion of procurement reports published within the statutory deadlines (Table 2).

Table 2: Principles and prozorro indicators in 2023.
Principle	Indicator	Data (2023)
Systemic integration & legal legitimacy	Share of procurement value conducted via Prozorro	72% of total announced public procurement value
Efficiency & integrity	Savings from competitive procurement	UAH 42 billion saved
Responsiveness & adaptability	Number of concluded contracts	270,000 contracts (+47% compared to 2022)
Equality & non-discrimination	Number of announced procedures	400,000 procedures (+25% compared to 2022)
Legal certainty & procedural stability	Success rate of procurement procedures	Increased from 54% (2022) to 68% (2023)
Source: Table compiled by the author based on statistical data from the ProZorro system38

Table 3 systematizes five groups of conditions that determine the effectiveness of public administration reform (institutional and organizational, personnel, political and legal, technological, and social and public), proposes a system of principles that specify the mechanisms for implementing each of them, and determines how the principles are implemented in the regulatory and legal acts of Ukraine.

Table 3: Principles for implementing public administration reforms in the context of key conditions.
Conditions for Implementing Public Administration Reform	Characteristic Principles	Implementation of Principles in Legal Acts
Institutional and organizational conditions	The principle of systemic integration – reform must cover all levels and links of the administrative system, ensuring their coordinated functioning. The principle of structural adaptability – the organizational structure of administrative bodies should respond flexibly to changes in security, social, and economic challenges. The principle of subsidiarity – powers should be exercised at the level where they can be most effectively implemented. The principle of balance of power – ensuring a clear division of functions and responsibilities between the center and the regions.	Defining a comprehensive model of administrative-territorial structure with three levels (basic, district, regional), forming a system of local self-government and executive authorities at each level, reviewing the structure of local self-government and executive authorities, creating capable communities, reorganizing authorities on a new territorial basis, adapting the system of public service delivery to demographic, social, and economic changes, and the division of powers between levels of government in accordance with their human, financial, and infrastructural potential.39
Staffing and professional conditions	Principle of professionalism – formation and maintenance of a highly qualified and competent civil service. Principle of integrity – civil servants must act responsibly, ethically, and accountably to society. Principle of educational innovation – continuous development of personnel through modern forms of professional training and digital tools. Principle of personnel stability – assurance of transparent procedures for selection, rotation, and career development of personnel.	Attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel in the civil service, raising their salaries to competitive levels (in particular, the plan is to reach 70–90% of private sector wages), introducing job classifications based on skill level, job complexity, and scope of responsibility, and developing a fair and transparent wage system that reduces corruption risks preventing manipulation of bonuses and incentive payments, focusing on transparent job classification mechanisms, standardizing the number of civil servants, limiting the practice of formally retaining vacant positions, and making the civil service more attractive to university graduates.40
Political and legal conditions	The principle of political accountability – the government must be accountable for initiating, implementing, and ensuring the effectiveness of reforms. The principle of legal legitimacy – all transformations must be carried out within the framework of the law and in accordance with international standards. The principle of institutional continuity – reforms must be accompanied by stable support regardless of changes in the political elite. The principle of neutralizing conflicts of interest – minimizing the influence of organized groups that block reforms in order to preserve the status quo.	Call on the President and Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to take concrete steps to implement the Association Agreement with the EU and ensure the course towards European integration, demonstrating the personal responsibility of the state leadership for the implementation of reforms, confirming the irreversibility of the course towards European integration, regardless of changes in the political situation, returning illegally withdrawn assets and combating corrupt practices.41
Technological and procedural conditions	The principle of digital openness – digital tools should ensure accessibility, transparency, and convenience in interactions with public authorities. Principle of regulatory efficiency – administrative procedures should be simplified, logical, and user-friendly. Principle of technological neutrality – the introduction of IT should meet the real needs of citizens and not create new barriers. Principle of cybersecurity and reliability – ensuring the secure functioning of digital infrastructure.	Creating public platforms for visualizing data on expenditures and budgets, increasing the level of transparency and openness of data using information technologies, simplifying procedures, making them logical and user-friendly, creating conditions for electronic interaction between system participants in order to reduce time and financial costs for information and analytical activities, using open source code, creating a competitive environment for IT solutions, using international information security standards ISO/IEC 27000, cryptographic protection, electronic user identification, and full transaction auditing.42
Social and community conditions	The principle of participation – citizens should be actively involved in the decision-making process. The principle of transparent communication – administrative bodies must regularly, openly, and honestly inform the public. The principle of responding to public needs – public authorities must be sensitive to changes in public expectations. The principle of restoring trust – the actions of the authorities must be aimed at overcoming the crisis of legitimacy and enhancing the authority of institutions.	Conducting public consultations, regular public events, annual conferences, creating a web portal, information campaigns and internal communication systems, surveying target audiences, evaluating procedures and developing e-services taking into account life situations.43
Source: Compiled by the author based on Kuznetsova,44 OECD45 and reform practices

The Table 4 below operationalizes the proposed principles by linking them to indicative measurable indicators and relevant data sources. This integration demonstrates how the conceptual–doctrinal framework can be applied in practice and clarifies the empirical basis for assessing the functioning of administrative bodies in the context of reform.

Table 4: Principles of administrative bodies’ functioning: indicators and data sources.
Level of Principles	Principle (Integrating Technological & Socio-Civic Dimensions)	Indicative Indicators	Data Sources
Basic principles	Legality – compliance with the law, incl. digital transparency of procedures	Number of annulled acts; % challenged decisions; share of procedures digitalized	Constitution of Ukraine; Grundgesetz (1949); Venice Commission (2016); Strategy for Digital Development (2021)
	Legal certainty – predictability of norms, incl. online accessibility of legislation	Frequency of amendments; availability of updated legal databases	Shcherbanyuk et al. (2023); Rodríguez (2016)
	Equality & non-discrimination – equal access to justice, incl. participatory mechanisms	Equality index; number of consultations with citizens; ECtHR cases on discrimination	Venice Commission (2016); Addink (2025); UNDP (2003)
	Access to justice – independent review of administrative acts, incl. e-justice	Number of administrative claims; average duration of cases; share of e-court services	Unified State Register of Court Decisions; Stein (2019); Dyzenhaus (2015)
Special principles	Systemic integration – coherence across all administrative levels	Share of reorganized bodies; cross-level consistency of acts	Concept of Local Self-Government Reform (2014); Tkalia & Sheludko (2019)
	Structural adaptability – organizational flexibility incl. IT solutions	Time of response to crises; implementation of digital tools; use of open-source	Shevchuk & Kravchenko (2023); Cohen (2022); Strategy for Digital Development (2021)
	Personnel stability – transparent HR policy, incl. digital HRM tools	Turnover rate; average tenure; % staff trained with e-learning	Concept for Civil Service Remuneration Reform (2020); Semenets-Orlova et al. (2022)
	Legal legitimacy – compliance with international standards, incl. cybersecurity	% harmonized acts with EU acquis; compliance with ISO/IEC 27000	Resolution on EU Integration (2014); Popa (2013); Strategy for Digital Development (2021)
	Consequences of illegality – sanctions for unlawful acts, incl. public reporting	Number of repealed/revised decisions; public disclosure of violations	Stelkens (2020); Bakhtina (2023)
Value-oriented principles	Integrity – avoidance of conflicts of interest, incl. digital anti-corruption tools	Number of conflict-of-interest reports; use of open procurement platforms	Transparency International; Prozorro
	Responsiveness – sensitivity to social needs incl. feedback tools	Average time of response; % of satisfied requests; implementation of citizen-oriented services	Ombudsman reports; Semenets-Orlova et al. (2022); Addink (2025)
	Transparent communication – open dialogue with society incl. e-participation	Number of consultations; frequency of reports; online communication platforms	Strategy for Public Procurement Reform (2024); Chernov et al. (2023)
	Restoring trust – legitimacy of government actions in crisis	Public trust index; legitimacy perception; long-term support for reforms	Dovhy et al. (2023); Transparency International
Source: Compiled by the author based on scholarly positions and normative legal acts of Ukraine and other States.

Discussion

The results obtained confirm that the legal status of administrative bodies should be viewed as a multi-level structure combining formal, functional, and value aspects. Within this status, not only rights and obligations play a key role, but also institutional characteristics such as functions, structure, resources, competence, and responsibility. The interpretation proposed in the study allows us moving from a purely legal to a managerial-institutional model of analysis of the activities of administrative bodies. Compared to previous studies, which focused mainly on the classical legal elements of status,^23,24,25 this work summarizes the principles that ensure the effective functioning of public authorities in the context of reform. The author’s classification of principles into three levels (basic, special, and new value) is a new element that allows structuring the system of normative guidelines.

The principles, grouped into five types of reform conditions, form the basis of a normative model of public administration. This structuring allows not only to identify the key factors for the success of reforms, but also to link them to the relevant legal and managerial parameters. In particular, the principles of systemic integration, personnel stability, legal legitimacy, and digital openness have not been the subject of specific research within Ukrainian administrative and legal science. Their emergence is a response to contemporary management challenges, including rising public expectations, a crisis of legitimacy, and the need for transparency. Unlike traditional models of administrative law, the results obtained demonstrate the need to expand the concept of legal status to include elements such as social responsibility, value orientation, and digital competence. These conclusions are in line with pan-European trends in public administration outlined in the works of Addink,5 Stelkens,6 and Heath.⁷

The comparative mapping underlines the added value of the proposed framework in relation to the Venice Commission’s Rule of Law Checklist. While the Checklist highlights essential elements such as legality, legal certainty, equality, and access to justice, the present taxonomy extends this scope by integrating value-oriented principles of integrity, responsiveness, transparent communication, and digital openness. These additions capture reform-specific challenges in Ukraine and thus demonstrate both conceptual novelty and contextual adaptation beyond the traditional rule of law paradigm. To ensure the comparative validity of the proposed doctrinal–conceptual framework, the author conducted a structured mapping against three authoritative international reference systems: the Venice Commission’s Rule of Law Checklist,⁹ the OECD/SIGMA Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance,⁴⁵ and the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators.⁴⁶

This comparison highlights both the alignment of the proposed taxonomy with core international standards and its context-specific innovations adapted to Ukraine’s reform environment. While the cited frameworks predominantly approach governance from institutional or managerial perspectives, the present study reinterprets their content through a legal-doctrinal lens, translating general governance benchmarks into normative principles of administrative law. Table 6 summarizes this correspondence, emphasizing areas of convergence, conceptual novelty, and the author’s specific contributions to contextualizing global governance principles for the Ukrainian administrative reform framework.

Table 5: Comparative positioning of the author’s taxonomy and the Venice Commission rule of law checklist (2016).
Author’s Taxonomy (Principles and Conditions)	Corresponding Elements in the Venice Commission Rule of Law Checklist (2016)	Novelty & Added Value (Context-Specific Adaptations)
Basic principles: legality, legal certainty, equality, access to justice	Legality; Legal certainty; Prevention of abuse of powers; Equality before the law and non-discrimination; Access to justice	Direct alignment with the core dimensions of the rule of law; confirms theoretical validity of the taxonomy
Special principles: systemic integration, structural adaptability, personnel stability, legal legitimacy, consequences of illegality	Legality and control of discretionary powers; Accountability; Institutional balance	Novelty: explicit emphasis on organizational capacity, structural flexibility, and personnel stability, which are not detailed in the Checklist
Value-oriented principles: integrity, responsiveness, transparent communication, restoring trust	Corruption prevention; Transparency; Access to information; Fair procedures	Innovation: integration of ethical and communicative dimensions (trust-building, responsiveness to citizens) that go beyond the legal-institutional focus
Institutional-organizational conditions: decentralization, balance of power, division of competences	Checks and balances; Law-making process; Democratic legitimacy	Novelty: explicit operationalization of decentralization and functional division, adapted to Ukrainian administrative reform
Political-legal conditions: legitimacy of reforms, political accountability, neutrality of interests	Legality; Independence of the judiciary; Access to justice	Added value: highlights political will, continuity of reforms, and conflict-of-interest mitigation as prerequisites for rule-of-law implementation
Technological conditions: digital openness, cybersecurity, regulatory efficiency	Transparency; Access to information; Data protection and privacy	Innovation: incorporation of digitalization, e-procurement, and cybersecurity, absent in the 2016 Checklist but critical for modern governance
Social-public conditions: participation, communication, responsiveness, restoring trust	Transparency; Democratic participation; Access to justice	Novelty: accent on citizen trust and participatory governance, particularly relevant for post-crisis and transitional contexts
Source: Table compiled by the author based on a comparative analysis of the proposed framework of principles and their conditions with the Venice Commission’s Rule of Law Checklist9

Table 6: Reinterpretation of global governance frameworks through a legal-doctrinal lens: correspondence, conceptual convergence, and Ukraine-specific adaptations.
Framework/Source	Core Focus and Indicators	Correspondence with Author’s Model	Novelty and Ukraine-Specific Adaptation
Venice Commission (2016). Rule of Law Checklist Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2016	Defines five key components of the rule of law: legality, legal certainty, prevention of abuse of powers, equality before the law, access to justice.	Corresponds to the basic principles (legality, legal certainty, equality, access to justice) within the author’s taxonomy.	The author’s model extends the Checklist by incorporating ethical and technological principles (integrity, responsiveness, digital openness, cybersecurity).
OECD/SIGMA (2020). Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance OECD Publishing, Paris, 202045	Emphasizes institutional quality, strategic coordination, transparency, citizen participation, accountability.	Aligns with the author’s five condition-groups (institutional-organizational, personnel, political-legal, technological, and social-public).	Integrates OECD’s managerial principles with normative legal principles of administrative law; reflects the balance between subsidiarity and coordination in Ukraine’s reform.
World Bank (2023). Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI)46	Measures six governance dimensions: voice and accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, control of corruption.	Reflected in value-oriented principles (integrity, responsiveness, participation) and political-legal conditions ensuring legitimacy and accountability.	Adapts quantitative WGI indicators into qualitative legal principles; contextualizes “governance effectiveness” as legitimacy and integrity of administrative action.
Source: Compiled by the author.

Although the present study is primarily focused on the Ukrainian context, the proposed classification of reform conditions and the three-level system of principles may also hold broader relevance for Central and Eastern European countries, particularly EU candidate states (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye). Many of these countries face comparable challenges, including the need to balance decentralization with effective central coordination, ensure transparency in decision-making, and strengthen institutional legitimacy in times of social and political turbulence. At the same time, the Ukrainian case is marked by context-specific constraints such as the impact of military conflict, acute legitimacy crises, and accelerated digitalization under emergency conditions. These factors limit the direct generalizability of the framework, yet they also provide valuable lessons for jurisdictions undergoing rapid transformation or seeking to align their administrative systems with European standards.

The results of the study also show that effective reform of public administration is only possible if the normative, institutional, and ethical components of administrative bodies’ activities are taken into account simultaneously. This approach opens up new opportunities for the formation of policies based on a balance between legal certainty and flexibility, centralization and subsidiarity, efficiency and fairness. While the framework provides a structured taxonomy of principles, it is acknowledged that tensions may arise among them. For instance, subsidiarity may conflict with the need for strong central coordination in crisis conditions, while strict integrity controls can slow down responsiveness and timely decision-making. The model therefore does not eliminate such trade-offs but emphasizes their contextual balancing: in emergencies, legality and coordination take precedence, whereas in stable conditions, participatory and decentralized principles gain greater weight. This highlights both the limitations and the adaptive potential of the proposed framework.

Although the framework provides a structured taxonomy of principles, it also acknowledges potential tensions and trade-offs among them. For instance, the principle of subsidiarity may conflict with the need for central coordination during crises, while strict integrity controls may temporarily reduce responsiveness and operational efficiency. In this regard, the framework emphasizes the contextual prioritization of principles: under crisis conditions, legality, coordination, and security prevail, whereas in stable environments, participatory, decentralized, and transparency-based principles gain greater importance. This balance demonstrates the adaptive nature of the proposed model and its applicability to diverse governance contexts. The limitations of the study are related to the predominantly doctrinal nature of the analysis. To further test the formulated model, it would be useful to empirically study the implementation of the principles in the practice of specific administrative bodies. In the future, the proposed principles could be used to prepare standards for public administration, develop regulations, and improve state control mechanisms.

Conclusion

The study confirmed that the legal status of administrative bodies is not only a formal legal construct, but also a key instrument for implementing public administration in the context of reforms. Its structure encompasses not only elements of rights, duties, powers, and responsibilities, but also functional, institutional, and organizational characteristics that ensure the ability of an administrative body to act effectively, transparently, and legitimately. The three-level differentiation of the principles of administrative bodies (basic, special, value-oriented) made it possible to comprehensively reveal the normative core of public administration. Each group of principles performs a separate function, from establishing general restrictions on intervention to ensuring ethical and managerial compliance.

The key outcome of the study was the identification of five groups of conditions for public administration reform – institutional and organizational, human resources, political and legal, technological, and social and public – and the principles that ensure their implementation. For the first time, special principles that arise specifically in the context of reforms have been systematized, including the principles of structural adaptability, personnel stability, neutralization of conflicts of interest, digital openness, participation, and responsiveness to public needs. These results correspond to the stated goal and hypothesis: the legal status of administrative bodies is transformed in line with new challenges and reform conditions, and the effectiveness of these transformations depends on clearly defined principles.

A new category of principles – reform principles – characterizes not only the stability of functioning, but also the ability of bodies to respond to changes in the management environment, institutional turbulence, and public expectations. Their further study can serve as a basis for developing standards for assessing the quality of administrative reforms. The study is limited by the lack of empirical indicators for measuring the implementation of the proposed principles in the national legal system. Further research should focus on developing such indicators and applying this model to specific types of administrative bodies.

References

1. Topolevskyi RB, Fedina NV. Theory of state and law: A textbook. Lviv: Lviv State Univ Internal Affairs; 2020.
2. Dniprov O. Competence as an element of the legal status of executive authorities. Sci Works Natl Univ Lviv Polytech. 2017;861(1):257–62. https://doi.org/10.23939/law2017.861.257
3. Zaichuk OV, Onishchenko NM. Theory of state and law. Academic course. Kyiv: Yurinkom Inter; 2006. Available from: https://surl.li/qjbvtw
4. Kolesnikova MV. Administrative legal status of local executive authorities. Acad Visions [Internet]. 2022;(12). Available from: https://www.academy-vision.org/index.php/av/article/view/774
5. Addink H. General principles of administrative law: An innovative approach. [Internet]. CERIDAP. 2025;2. https://doi.org/10.13130/2723-9195/2025-2-15
6. Stelkens U. General principles of law as a source of administrative law: With special reference to France, Germany and the United Kingdom. In: Eliantonio M, Korkea-aho E, Stefanelli J, editors. EU soft law in the member states. London: Bloomsbury; 2020. p. 329–52. Available from: https://www.uni-speyer.de/fileadmin/Lehrstuehle/Stelkens/Lehrveranstaltungen/General_Principles_of_Administrative_Law/2_AdministrativeLaw_council.of.europe.pdf
7. Heath J. The machinery of government: Public administration and the liberal state. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2020. p. 439. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197509616.001.0001
8. Bakhtina IS. Administrative discretion in states of full democracy and hybrid regime (on example of Germany and Ukraine). Persona e Amministrazione. 2023;12(1):727–57. https://doi.org/10.14276/2610-9050.4307
9. European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). Rule of law checklist. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 2016.
10. Stein RA. What exactly is the rule of law? Houston Law Rev. 2019;57(1):185–201. Available from: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/698
11. Dyzenhaus D. Dreaming the rule of law. In: Law, liberty and state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015. p. 234–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316144930.010
12. United Nations Development Programme. Public administration reform practice note [Internet]. New York: UNDP; 2003. Available from: https://www.undp.org/publications/public-administration-reform-practice-note
13. Cohen N. Public administration reform and political will in cases of political instability: Insights from the Israeli experience. Public Policy Adm. 2022;38(4):455–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767221076059
14. Popa F. Aspects of decentralization in the context of public administration reform. SEA Pract Appl Sci. 2013;1(1):126–33. Available from: https://ideas.repec.org/a/cmj/seapas/y2013i1popaf.html
15. Shevchuk OO, Kravchenko OO. Reforming public administration during the war. Int Sci J Graal Sci. 2023;26:107–9. https://doi.org/10.36074/grail-of-science.14.04.2023.016
16. Zhuk I, Khaletska A, Stepura T, Shchepanskiy E, Sadova U, Pyla V. Public administration system in the field of finance under the influence of digitalization. Econ Aff (New Delhi). 2022;67(3):225–31. https://doi.org/10.46852/0424-2513.3.2022.11
17. Semenets-Orlova I, Rodchenko L, Chernenko I, Druz O, Rudenko M, Poliuliakh R. Requests for public information in the state administration in situations of military operations. Anuario Fac Derecho Univ Extremadura. 2022;38:249–70. https://doi.org/10.17398/2695-7728.38.249
18. Chernov S, Bogutskij S, Gogol T, Hafurova O, Koshelenko A, Zemlianskyi O. Project approach in the executive bodies’ activity of united territorial communities as a modern mechanism of local public authorities’ legitimation in Ukraine. In: Radchenko O, Kovach V, Semenets-Orlova I, Zaporozhets A, editors. National security drivers of Ukraine. Cham: Springer; 2023. p. 219–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33724-6_13
19. Zehetgruber C. The ECHR, its legal status and the ECtHR’s decisions in the hierarchy of the German legal order. ZJS. 2016:52–60. Available from: https://www.zjs-online.com/dat/artikel/2016_1_974.pdf
20. Law of Ukraine “On the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine” (No. 794-VII) [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/794-18
21. Law of Ukraine “On Central Executive Authorities” [Internet]. 2011. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3166-17
22. Law of Ukraine “On Local State Administrations” [Internet]. 1999. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/586-14
23. Averianov VB, editor. Administrative law of Ukraine: Academic course. Vol. 1. General part. Kyiv: Legal Opinion; 2004.
24. Hlybina HM. The essence of the administrative and legal status of political parties in Ukraine. Legal Bull. 2011;1(18):39–41.
25. Fedevych OM. Administrative-legal status of the State Agency of Ukraine for Exclusion Zone Management [PhD thesis]. Kyiv; 2012.
26. Dmitriev AA. The administrative and legal status of executive authorities as a classical legal institution of administrative law. Eur Polit Law Discourse. 2015;2(4):297–301.
27. Konstantinov OF. The concept and structure of public administration subjects in Ukraine. Sci Notes VI Vernadskyi Taurida Natl Univ Ser Public Adm Adm. 2024;4:51–6. https://doi.org/10.32782/TNU-2663-6468/2024.4/05
28. Drozd OY, Soroka LV, Myskiv LI. General theoretical foundations of the concept of “administrative legal status of public service” considering its specifics based on the example of the State Executive Service. Legal Sci Electron J. 2023;5:2–23. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2023-5/126
29. Semenets-Orlova I, Shevchuk R, Plish B, Grydiushko I, Maistrenko K. Innovative approaches to development of human potential in modern public administration. Econ Aff (New Delhi). 2022;67(4):915–26. https://doi.org/10.46852/0424-2513.4s.2022.25
30. Dreval YuD. Confirmation of the principle of the rule of law in the field of public and administrative relations. State Build. 2024;2(36):34–41.
31. Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Internet]. 1949. Available from: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html
32. Shcherbanyuk O, Gordieiev V, Bzova L. Legal nature of the principle of legal certainty as a component element of the rule of law. Juridical Tribune. 2023;13(1):22–31. https://doi.org/10.24818/TBJ/2023/13/1.02
33. Rodríguez PM. The principle of legal certainty and the limits to the applicability of EU law. Cuadernos Eur Deusto. 2016;54:107–26.
34. Tkalia OV, Sheludko AM. General principles of the organization and functioning of the state apparatus. Sci Bull Uzhhorod Natl Univ Ser Law. 2019;57:122–6. https://doi.org/10.32849/2663-5313/2019.11.47
35. Liashenko TM. Reform of public administration in Ukraine: Decentralization experience. Reg Stud. 2024;38:100–5. https://doi.org/10.32782/2663-6170/2024.38.16
36. Dovgy S, Radchenko O, Radchenko O, Kuczabski A, Kryvoberets M. “Legitimacy crisis” and its impact on the stability and security of the system of public authorities of the state during the formation of the global information space. In: Radchenko O, Kovach V, Semenets-Orlova I, Zaporozhets A, editors. National security drivers of Ukraine. Cham: Springer; 2023. p. 237–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33724-6_14
37. Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement” [Internet]. 2015. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/922-19
38. Prozorro. Report. 2024. Available from: https://prozorro.gov.ua/en/news/zakupivli-u-prozorro-u-travni-ogolosyly-zakupivel-na-128-mlrd-grn
39. Concept of the reform of local self-government and territorial organization of power in Ukraine (Order No. 333-r) [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/333-2014-%D1%80
40. Concept for the reform of the remuneration system for civil servants (Order No. 622-r) [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/622-2020-%D1%80
41. Resolution on confirming Ukraine’s course toward integration into the European Union and priority measures in this direction. Off Bull Verkhovna Rada Ukr. 2014;16:Art. 584.
42. Strategy for digital development, digital transformations and digitalisation of the public finance management system until 2025 (Order No. 1467-r) [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.kmu.gov.ua/npas/pro-shvalennya-strategiyi-zdijsnennya-cifrovogo-rozvitku-cifrovih-transformacij-1467r-171121
43. Strategy for public procurement system reform for 2024–2026 and the adoption of the operational plan for its implementation in 2024–2025 (Order No. 76-r) [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://www.kmu.gov.ua/en/news/uriad-zatverdyv-stratehiiu-rozvytku-systemy-publichnykh-zakupivel-na-2024-2026-roky
44. Kuznetsova L. Decentralization reform and the quality of public services in Ukraine. Public Admin Aspects. 2021;9(5):45–56.
45. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Policy framework on sound public governance. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2020. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2020/12/development-co-operation-report-2020_f095d2a7/f6d42aa5-en.pdf
46. World Bank. Worldwide governance indicators (WGI). Washington (DC): World Bank Group; 2023. Available from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/worldwide-governance-indicators

Cite this article as:
Vdovichen V, Sokha S, Radzikhovskyi Y, Grytsyshen D and Zinevych O. Legislative Pillars of Administrative Bodies’ Functioning and Organizational Behavior Under recent Reforms. Premier Journal of Science 2025;14:100157

Export to EndNote Export to Mendeley