The article discloses the subject composition of the procedure of conciliation of the parties in the administrative proceedings of Ukraine and EU member states. It is noted that the main subjects of the procedure of conciliation of the parties in administrative proceedings are the parties to the dispute themselves, who wished to reconcile, and the legislation should influence these subjects only with the aim of facilitating their achievement of peace. It is indicated that today the judge appears in the conciliation procedure as: 1) "relatively active conciliator"; 2) the subject of judicial control over compliance with legality in the reconciliation procedure; 3) the legalizer of the terms of reconciliation. In practical reality, this role of the judge is manifested in the fact that the terms of reconciliation of the parties to a public-law dispute, which they set out in the application for reconciliation, acquire legal significance for them (create real legal obligations for the parties, which they must comply with) only after , as the judge approves them. It was established that in Ukraine there is a simple model of the subject composition of the parties' reconciliation in administrative proceedings, which is characterized by certain elements of a relatively complicated model of the corresponding subject composition (the judge encourages the parties to try to reconcile, however, does not provide them with certain options for reconciliation, which they should be considered). It is noted that, unlike in Ukraine, a judge in the French Republic can not only suggest that the parties to the dispute resort to the conciliation procedure, but also oblige them to try to reconcile when he sees this as a real possibility. It was concluded that in some EU member states (for example, in the Kingdom of Spain), in which public-law disputes can be resolved through judicial conciliation (conciliation in administrative proceedings), a judge can act as a "relatively active conciliator", who, having convinced himself of the possibility to reconcile the parties to the dispute, can form for them an option (options) of reconciliation that can be accepted (modified, rejected). In addition, in some EU member states (French Republic and Kingdom of Spain), the activity of conciliators, who are certified lawyers (as a rule, lawyers), is provided for.
1. Zheltobryux I. L. (2020). Superechnosti mizh naukovoyu terminologiyeyu ta terminologiyeyu zakonodavstva shhodo vy'znachennya sub'yektiv ta uchasny'kiv administratyvnogo procesu. [Contradictions
between scientific terminology and legislative terminology regarding the definition of subjects and participants in the administrative process]. Aktualni problemy vitchyznyanoyi yury sprudenciyi. No. 5. P. 70-73. doi:10.15421/391960 https://doi.org/10.15421/391960 [in Ukrainian].
2. Zheltobryux I. L. (2019). Struktura procesualnyx vzayemozv'yazkiv, yaki vynykayut mizh sub'yektamy j uchasnykamy administratyvnogo procesu. [The structure of procedural relationships that arise
between subjects and participants of the administrative process]. Naukovyj visnyk Uzhgorodskogo nacionalnogo universytetu. Seriya : Pravo. Vyp. 58, T. 2. P. 23-26. doi:10.32782/2307-3322.58-2.4 [in Ukrainian].
https://doi.org/10.32782/2307-3322.58-2.4
3. Joly-Hurard J. (2003). Conciliation et mediation judiciaires. Aix-en-Provence : Presses universitaires https://doi.org/10.4000/books.puam.679 d'Aix-Marseille. 476 p. URL : https://books.openedition.org/puam/679 (accessed: 23.01.2023) [in France].
4. Développer la médiation dans le cadre de l'Union européenne: Étude du Conseil d'État remise au Premier ministre le 30.07.2010 à sa demande. Paris : Conseil d'État, 2010. 90 p. [in France].
5. Karpa M. I. (2017). Publichno-pravovyj spir yak sposib vstanovlennya ta rozmezhuvannya kompetencij organiv publichnoyi vlady (teoretychni aspekty). [Public legal dispute as a method of establishing
199 and delimiting the competences of public authorities (theoretical aspects)]. Derzhavne upravlinnya ta misceve samovryaduvannya. No. 3 (34). P. 26-34 [in Ukrainian].
6. Gladkyj V. V. (2019). Znachennya ta znachy'mist' pravovogo statusu v yurydychnij nauci ta praktyci. [Meaning and significance of legal status in legal science and practice]. Teoriya ta praktyka suchasnoyi
yurysprudenciyi : mater. XX Vseukr. nauk.-prakt. konf. (Xarkiv, 30 trav. 2019 r.). Xarkiv : NYuU. T. 1. P. 30-33 [in Ukrainian].
7. Tymoshenko V. O. (2020). Xarakterystyka pravovogo statusu sub'yekta kadrovogo zabezpechennya diyalnosti Derzhavnogo byuro rozsliduvan. [Characteristics of the legal status of the subject of personnel support
of the State Bureau of Investigation]. Naukovyj visnyk publichnogo ta pry'vatnogo prava. Vyp. 4. P. 156-160. doi:10.32844/2618-1258.2020.4.27 [in Ukrainian]. https://doi.org/10.32844/2618-1258.2020.4.27
8. Slyvka V. V. (2020). Pravovyj status storin publichno-pravovogo sporu, shho prymyryayutsya. [The legal status of the parties to a public-law dispute who are conciliating]. Pravova systema Ukrayiny: suchasni
tendenciyi ta faktory rozvytku : materialy mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf. (m. Zaporizhzhya, 27-28 bereznya 2020 r.). Zaporizhzhya : Zaporizka miska Gromadska organizaciya "Istyna". P. 87-90 [in Ukrainian].
9. Tereshhuk V. V. (2020). Pravovyj status sub'yektiv publichnogo administruvannya. [Legal status of subjects of public administration] : dys. ... kand. yuryd. nauk : 12.00.07. Ternopil. 270 p. [in Ukrainian].
10. Timashov V. O. (2018). Administratyvno-pravove zabezpechennya prav gromadyan Ukrayiny v umovax yevrointegraciyi: doktrynalni polozhennya. [Administrative and legal protection of the rights of citizens
of Ukraine in the conditions of European integration: doctrinal provisions] : avtoref. dys. ... d-ra yuryd. nauk : 12.00.07. Kyyiv. 45 p. [in Ukrainian].
11. Alforov S. M., Vashhenko S. V., Dolgopolova M. M., Kupin A. P. (2011). Administratyvne pravo. Zagalna chastyna. [Administrative Law. General part] : navchal. posib. Kyyiv : Centr uchbovoyi literatury. 216 p.
[in Ukrainian].
12. Malyarchuk I. A. (2012). Platny'k podatkiv yak sub'yekt podatkovogo prava. [The taxpayer as a subject of tax law]. Derzhava i pravo. Vyp. 56. Р. 356-361 [in Ukrainian].
13. Ley, reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-administrativa. (1998). No. 29/1998. Julliet, 13 (última actualización publicada el 19.09.2020). Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. URL :
https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/1998/BOE-A1998-16718-consolidado.pdf (accessed 23.01.2023) [in France].
14. Code des relations entre le public et l'administration. (2020). Legifrance. URL : https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/texte_lc/LEGITEXT000031366350/2020-... (accessed: 23.01.2023) [in France].
15. Conseil d'Etat statuant au contentieux. (2002). No. 249153. Legifrance. URL : https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ceta/id/CETATEXT000008131774/ (accessed: 23.01.2023) [in France].
16. Kodeks administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrayiny. (2005). No No. 2747-IV. [Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine]. URL : https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2747-15#Text (accessed 23.01.2023) [in Ukrainian].
17. Relative a l'organisation des juridictions et a la procedure civile, penale et administrative : Loi No. 95-125 du 08.02.1995. (2020). Legifrance. URL : https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000024021430/
(accessed: 23.01.2023) [in France].