The article is focused on the analysis of set of facts of an administrative offense for contempt of court or the Constitutional Court of Ukraine under the Art. 185-3 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. The author has revealed the content of the main elements of the set of facts of an administrative offense for contempt of court or the Constitutional Court. It has been indicated that, unlike the established affirmation, the object of an administrative offense is not public relations in the field of judicial proceedings, but their specific element – it is the obligation of participants of the trial to comply with the established rules of conduct as part of the content of procedural legal relations. It has been clarified that the action, as a feature of the objective aspect of the offense under the Art. 185-3 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses can be manifested either in the action or omission. The main possible manifestations of actions and omission as manifestations of contempt of court or the Constitutional Court of Ukraine have been highlighted. The author has supported propositions on formalization of general rules of conduct in court and during court hearings. The author has proved the necessary to study the correlation of procedural and administrative offences committed during a court hearing, as well as the ratio of procedural coercive measures with administrative liability measures for contempt of court or the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The author has clarified the expediency to unify approaches on determining the concept of “malicious evasion from appearing in court” in terms of the multiplicity of committing the offense. It has been stated that subjects of an administrative offense for contempt of court can be divided into general and special ones. It has been emphasized that an expert as a special subject of an administrative offense under the Art. 185-3 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses is solely responsible for contempt of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Therefore, the author has offered to admit an expert as a special subject of administrative liability for contempt of court.