Administrative discretion in states of full democracy and hybrid regime: the example of Germany and Ukraine

The study's urgency is stipulated by the need to clarify the features of administrative discretion in states with different democracy indices (different political regimes) and to describe the verification of compliance with the limits of discretion. The article's purpose is to clarify the correlation between the understanding and administrative discretion boundaries and the type of state according to the level of democratic development. The research is based on the democracy index, determined annually by the Economist Intelligence Unit, according to which states are divided into four types: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes. A comparative method, which was used to compare the perception of administrative discretion in Germany and Ukraine as typical states of full democracies and hybrid regimes, is the basis of the research. The article clarifies that administrative discretion should be understood as a way of exercising the powers of administrative authorities, which involves choosing one of several possible options for behavior in a specific case and is carried out in compliance with the rule of law, human rights, principles of administrative procedures, and the purpose of powers; it is substantiated that in the states of hybrid regimes, the institution of administrative discretion is poorly developed, there are no clear criteria for the discretion boundaries, the issue of judicial control over decisions made by uncertain discretion, and there is excessive bureaucracy. The main provisions of the article can become guidelines for hybrid regime states to improve legislation in the area of discretion implementation.