Annotation: Despite the legislative recognition of self-employed citizens, their legal status in civil law remains ambiguous. The absence of clear legal norms and insufficient regulation of the specifics of their activities create difficulties in establishing rights and obligations, protecting interests, as well as in issues related to taxation and civil liability. To identify the features of the legal status of self-employed citizens in civil law, determine problematic aspects, and propose recommendations for improving legislative regulation. The study employs comparative, historical-legal, systemic, and normative-legal approaches to analyze legislation, its development, and application in judicial practice, as well as to identify the features of the legal status of self-employed citizens in civil law. The analysis of the legal status of self-employed citizens in civil law revealed key problems: insufficient regulation of civil-law relations involving the self-employed, uncertainty in contract execution and protection of their rights, and the absence of unified law enforcement practice. Furthermore, there is insufficient legal awareness among self-employed citizens and their counterparties, leading to frequent disputes and legal uncertainty. Resolving these issues requires a comprehensive approach, including improving the normative framework, developing standard contracts and recommendations for interaction with the selfemployed, as well as raising the level of legal education among participants in civil-law relations. The significance of these results lies in their potential to enhance the legal protection of selfemployed citizens, improve the quality of civil-law transactions, and reduce the number of conflicts and court disputes. This, in turn, promotes the development of individual entrepreneurial activity, strengthens trust among market participants, and increases the effectiveness of legal regulation in the field of self-employment.

Annotation: The current system of state control in the migration sphere is insufficiently effective. The absence of a clearly defined system for delineating powers among bodies involved in regulating migration processes, fragmentation of control mechanisms, as well as a weak legislative and regulatory framework significantly reduce the effectiveness of supervision in this area. Alongside this, the interaction between officials of control bodies and public oversight institutions remains fragmented and unregulated, hindering the formation of a fair and transparent migration policy. The purpose of this article is to analyze the activities of officials of control and supervisory bodies in the migration sphere and to identify ways to improve the effectiveness of their interaction with public oversight institutions. Special attention is given to the problem of legal regulation of the powers of these subjects and the development of recommendations for improving coordination and transparency in the migration sphere. This study applies systemic, regulatory-legal, comparative-legal, and institutional methods. Current regulatory acts, the structure of interaction between state and public institutions, as well as examples of law enforcement practice are analyzed. The research revealed key problems: unclear competencies among bodies exercising migration control; lack of sustainable interaction between state and public structures; and a weak regulatory framework governing such coordination. Proposed reforms include clarifying and legally consolidating the powers of migration control participants, creating mechanisms for institutional cooperation with public organizations, and expanding the involvement of civil society in monitoring migration processes. The significance of the results lies in the formulation of proposals aimed at creating a more transparent and fair migration policy. Improving the effectiveness of interaction between state and public institutions will not only strengthen control over migration flows but also ensure the protection of the rights of both citizens and migrants, thereby reinforcing the rule of law and trust in state bodies.