Acts Incompatible with the Offi ce as the Ground for Constitutional and Legal Responsibility
The lawmaker has introduced numerous grounds for depriving a person of the right to hold a public or municipal office. Most of them include person’s guilty acts (omissions to act) the legal nature of which has not been defined yet. This constitutes an unconditional gap in the theory of legal science. Part of the grounds based on fault form constitutional offenses. It was appropriate to consider them in the context of general problems arising in establishing the grounds for the early termination of the authority of the official. As a result, the author in the paper highlights what types of duties of an official exist; why duties not related to the person’s target activity act as grounds for the termination of official powers (as well as the application of other possible sanctions); which acts incompatible with the office can be considered an offense, and how to single out constitutional offenses from them; what typesтof acts incompatible with the office exist according to the criterion of legal duty and the criterion of the degree of asociality. In addition, the author has determined the features and has categorized the legal obligations the violation of which represents the basis for imposing liability. The author has determined the defects in the normative definition of acts incompatible with the office, as well as the conditions for their application as a basis for imposing liability.