Abstract: Subject of study. Provisions of Federal Law No. 248-FZ of 31.07.2020 "On State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control in the Russian Federation" concerning the procedure for implementing the powers of an inspector to engage an expert or expert organization to conduct an examination when carrying out a control (supervisory) measure.
The purpose of the study. Justification of the need to supplement and specify normative legal acts, in terms of establishing requirements to the execution of the inspector's decision to conduct an examination, the content of the expert assignment, the timing and method of sending it to the expert, the procedure for notifying the supervised person about the examination, the content and execution of the expert report.
The method and methodology of the study. The formal-logical, formal-legal, sociological methods of research, the method of system analysis and the method of legal interpretation were used during the study.
Novelty of research, conclusions. The article defines the place and importance of the institute of expertise in the sphere of control and supervisory activity. Expertise acts as an independent control (supervisory) action, providing research on issues, the resolution of which requires special knowledge in various fields of science, technology, arts or crafts. Organization of expertise in the sphere of control and supervisory activity is one of the important powers of an official of a control and supervisory body (inspector), the implementation of which allows getting a professional assessment of compliance with mandatory requirements by a supervised person.
In the course of a systematic analysis the basic provisions of expert activities in the field of state control and supervision were formulated, gaps in legislation were identified in terms of regulation of the procedure for implementing the powers of an inspector to engage an expert or expert organization to conduct an examination during the implementation of control (supervisory) activities. It is established that the normative provisions of expert activities in the field of state control and supervision require improvement. The author of the article substantiates possible ways to eliminate the identified normative gaps.

Abstract: The general tendency of the punitive policy formation in administrative responsibility legislation has influenced all the spheres of public management. The most serious administrative sanctions are established in the antimonopoly sphere, particularly for anticompetitive agreements. The Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation doesn’t differentiate them according to business entities, and it has a negative impact on the development of small and medium entrepreneurship in the Russian Federation. The author analyzes the introduced general and specific legal mechanisms of humanization of administrative responsibility and the problems of their practical realization. The research subject includes administrative norms regulating social relations in the sphere of imposition and implementation of administrative responsibility for anticompetitive agreements and realization of legal mechanisms of mitigation of legal responsibility and release from responsibility. The research object includes the article 14.32 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation and the articles, establishing general and special legal instruments of mitigation of responsibility and release from responsibility for anticompetitive agreements, the judicial practice in the sphere of application of the Code’s provisions, related to the imposition and mitigation of administrative responsibility for anticompetitive agreements. The article is based on general scientific (analysis, synthesis, the system-structural, formal-logical and other methods) and special scientific methods of cognition (logical and legal, comparative-legal the method of legal hermeneutics (interpretation) and descriptive method). The author comes to the following conclusions:
-         The influence of the general tendency of administrative-punitive state policy is observed in the sphere of imposition of administrative responsibility for anticompetitive agreements;
-         The administrative sanctions for anticompetitive agreements, provided by the article 14.32. of the Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation, are very serious; the Administrative Offences Code doesn’t differentiate them according to business entities and it has a negative impact on the development of small and medium entrepreneurship in the Russian Federation;
-         The legislation provides for general and specific mechanisms, aimed at the mitigation of administrative responsibility and release from it for anticompetitive agreements, but the practical implementation of some of them is quite problematic;
-         The introduction of more flexible criteria, helping take into account the property and financial status of various business entities, brought to administrative responsibility, seems to be reasonable;
-         In order to improve the legislation in this sphere and provide the uniformity of application of juridical terminology, the author proposes to insert the term “cartel” not only in the comment, but also in the disposition of the article 14.32. of the Administrative Offences Code; to differentiate the volume of sanctions depending on the category of business entities. 

Abstract: The research subject covers administrative procedural rules regulating a special group of homogeneous social relations arising, transforming, and ceasing in the process of disposition of controversial administrative cases, and form an independent legal institution of administrative law – the institution of administrative jurisdiction. The research object includes the subject and the method of legal regulation of administrative jurisdiction, the system of subjects of this legal institution, the role of administrative jurisdiction within administrative law. The study is based on general scientific methods of analysis, synthesis, the system-structural, formal logical and other methods, and special scientific methods including the legal logical, comparative legal, the method of legal hermeneutics (interpretation), and the descriptive method of cognition. The author concludes that:
1) at present the science of administrative law doesn’t contain any single position on the concept of administrative jurisdiction; the author supposes that it would be more correct not to reduce administrative jurisdiction to only one form of administrative procedure – legal proceedings on administrative violations.
2) the unification of administrative-jurisdictional rules regulating legal proceedings on administrative violations, legal proceedings on complaints, disciplinary proceedings, and conciliation proceedings into a special legal institution is conditioned by the recent situation in social relations having common features and requiring a special administrative-legal impact
3) the institution of administrative jurisdiction has its subject and method of legal regulation, subject matter and structure.
The research novelty lies in the author’s definition of the concept of administrative jurisdiction as one of the main institutions of administrative law.