scholarly journals Constitutional aspects of defending of participants of shared-equity construction through the administrative coercion measures

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-170
Author(s):  
I V Ruzanov
Keyword(s):  
Transaction Costs ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Economic Life ◽  
Optimal Model ◽  
Shared Equity ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Code

The question about the conceptual bases of administrative influence on the participants of economic life is raised in the paper. It is suggested to use the methodology of economy, particularly the conception of transaction costs minimization as an aim of state, to work out the optimal model of economy regulation through the administrative measures. Based on this approach, the author analyses the article 14.28 of Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Authorities and Officials of the Prosecutor’s Office as Subjects of Protection and Subjects of Violation of the Constitutional Right of Citizens to Petition

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 33-43
Author(s):  
I. V. Timoshenko
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Public Power ◽  
The Status ◽  
Effective Instrument ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Objective Side ◽  
Administrative Code ◽  
The Right

The paper analyzes the status of bodies and officials of the prosecutor’s office as subjects of protection and subjects of violation of the constitutional right of citizens of Russia to petition as bodies exercising public power, whereas the very norm-principle of the basic Russian law on the right of citizens to petition is considered both as a constitutional right and as a constitutional safeguard. The author identifies the main practical problems, legal gaps and conflicts of law when citizens implement their constitutional right to petition and their reasons. The author proposes options for their elimination at the law-making and law-enforcement levels. It is noted that article 5.59 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences from 2011 providing administrative liability for violation of established procedure of consideration of citizens’ petitions, despite being a very effective instrument for the legal protection of the right under consideration, needs to be adjusted because its discretionary part contains only general language and does not reveal the objective side of this administrative offence. At the same time, prosecutor’s offices have long developed a certain practice concerning the application of Art. 5.59 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation as a means of public and legal protection of the violated right of citizens to petition. However, what should be done if the right of citizens to petition is violated by the prosecutors themselves with their special status as subjects of the offense, whereas it is the exclusive competence of prosecutors by operation of law to initiate cases under Art. 5.59 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation? The paper is devoted to the search for the answer to this question.

The Subject of a Crime Under Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 87-92
Author(s):  
E. G. Bykova ◽  
◽  
A. A. Kazakov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Code

The change in the disposition of Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation led to questions from law enforcement officers about from what moment a person is considered to be held administratively liable and what to mean by the commission of a similar act. The article carries out a systematic legal analysis of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in order to formulate proposals for solving the indicated problems. The fundamental method was dialectical. The formal legal method was used in the study of regulations governing certain aspects of the legal assessment of unlawful acts that take into account administrative precedence. Using a comparative legal method, a distinction was made between situations where a person was ordered to be held administratively liable and an administrative penalty was imposed. Scientific publications on the subject were analyzed. It was concluded that the current version of Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, containing a formally indefinite legal category, raises the problem of calculating the one-year period during which a person can be prosecuted under this norm if there is an administrative precedence. In addition, it is justified that a «similar act» should be understood only as an administrative offense, responsibility for which is provided for in Art. 20.3.1 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. The use of criminal law by analogy is unacceptable, therefore, it is proposed to amend the disposition of Part 1 of Art. 282 of the Criminal Code to eliminate the identified gap. The problem identified could be the basis for further scientific research. The practical significance is due to the fact that the positions formulated by the authors can be taken into account in the process of improving criminal law, when amending the relevant explanations of the highest court in this category of cases in order to form a unified practice of applying criminal law.

scholarly journals Criminal Responsibility for Collusions at Auctions

2019 ◽  
pp. 119-131
Author(s):  
A. V. Danilovskaya ◽  
A. P. Tenishev
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Commodity Markets ◽  
The State ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Code

The anti-monopoly practice concerning agreements prohibited by the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” traditionally defines the so-called collusions at tenders. Depriving the state of the opportunity to save budget funds, collusions at auctions do not only violate the procedure established by the law, but, by limiting competition, adversely affects the country’s economy.For collusion at an auction, both administrative (Article 14.32 “Conclusion of an agreement restricting competition, the implementation of concerted actions restricting competition, coordination of economic activities” of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) and criminal responsibility (Article 178 “Restriction of competition”, as well as Articles 159, 285, 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) is set.However, the current version of Article 178 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which is supposed to be the main one in the fight against anti-competitive agreements, has significant drawbacks that make the fight against these dangerous anti-competitive agreements ineffective. The damage from the activities of all cartels (in the commodity markets, during the procurements by state-owned companies and the state, during the bidding for the alienation of state property) is estimated at 1.5-2% of GDP.Meanwhile, when carrying out public procurement and procurement of companies with state participation consume up to 30 trillion rubles a year. If the bidding is held under collusion, the reduction in the initial (maximum) contract price hardly reaches 1%; if the bidding is held in a competitive environment, the price decline reaches 20-30%. Perhaps not so obvious, but this does not mean that the collusion at auctions has a negative effect on competition. Companies compete neither in price nor in quality. Access to the state order, and therefore, an undoubted competitive advantage in the commodity markets, is obtained not by those companies that are better and more efficient, but by those that have been able to come to an agreement. Only in 2016, due to the low level of competition in trading, the budgets of all levels lost more than 180 billion rubles. Moreover, the Federal AntiMonopoly Service (FAS) considers this number underestimated — the application of the methodology adopted in OECD countries brings the figure of damage up to 1 trillion rubles per year.The current situation requires an appropriate response, in particular, introducing changes into the legislation of the Russian Federation that reflect the substantially increased public danger of anti-competitive agreements and will also contribute to the development of the practice of countering them.

scholarly journals Search for the optimal model of the national preventive mechanism for the Russian Federation (results of a comparative legal study of the legislation of foreign states)

2021 ◽  
pp. 204-218
Author(s):  
S. V. Sabaeva ◽  
D. E. Gulyaev
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Optimal Model ◽  
Legal Study ◽  
Public Control ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The World ◽  
The Russian Federation

The National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) is a unified system for monitoring the observance of human rights in places of detention, the system complies with international standards. In each State, the National Preventive Mechanism has its own characteristics. The article presents the results of a comparative legal study of the legislation of foreign states that have created the National Preventive Mechanism. Based on these results, identifies and analyzes three existing models of the National Preventive Mechanism in the world, identifies their advantages and disadvantages, and describes in detail all modifications of these models. The scientific work substantiates the author's position that the empowerment of National Preventive Mechanism functions to several decentralized bodies coordinated by one of them is optimal for the Russian Federation. Special attention is paid to the need to include in the National Preventive Mechanism of Russia an independent, regular and preventive public control over the observance of human rights in places of detention.

Review of the Practice of Consideration of Cases of Administrative Offenses under Article 6.1.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 60-75
Author(s):  
T. V. Fedorova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Code

The review examines the procedure for judges of courts of General jurisdiction in resolving cases of administrative offenses under article 6.1.1 of the administrative Code of the Russian Federation, and analyzes the practice of courts in various regions of the Russian Federation. The paper offers solutions to controversial issues of judicial practice, considers the positions of the constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the circumstances to be clarified in the case of an administrative offense under article 6.1.1 of the administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

About Some Measures for Autonomization and Optimization of Administrative and Tort Proceedings in the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 13-23
Author(s):  
А.I. Stakhov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Supervisory Relationship ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
Tort Litigation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Code ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
And Control

The article reveals the problems that unite the judicial reform with the reform of the Institute of administrative responsibility and control and Supervisory activities, which are currently being carried out in the Russian Federation in parallel. In this regard, the research focuses on the key connecting element of these reforms, namely: administrative torts detected in the course of control and Supervisory activities. Presents the scientific analysis allows to understand the administrative-procedural content of control and supervision, to justify the separation of this state activities for centralized and decentralized types, to allocate the administrative and disposable administratrative punishable offences entailing the use of complex special administrative coercive measures extrajudicial and judicial administrative and procedural matters to make the conclusion about the necessity of separating judicial and administrative tort cases arising from the Supervisory relationship, among the total number of administrative cases assigned to the jurisdiction of the courts. In strict accordance with the principles and norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, autonomy is justified (separation in judicial administrative proceedings) administrative and tort proceedings. The ranking of administrative and tort proceedings on the main and derivative types is carried out, the consolidation is justified) punitive and restorative administrative and tort proceedings. Conducted a comprehensive review of administrative tort proceedings, enshrined in the APC, СAP and Administrative Code. The results of the analysis put forward evidence-based conceptual proposals on optimization of administrative-tort litigation, which can be implemented in the course of the country's judicial reform in conjunction with reform of legislation on administrative offences and regulatory activities.

Modern Practice of ʽManual Managementʽ in Russian Governmental and Municipal Authority

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 2251
Author(s):  
Valeriy SHLYCHKOV ◽  
Ilgam KIYAMOV ◽  
Sergey KULISH ◽  
Diana NESTULAEVA ◽  
Igor ALAFUZOV
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Economic Life ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Municipal Authority ◽  
Municipal Management ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of

Objectives: to define content and structure of ʽmanual managementʽ term; to analyze motives, legal framework, legitimacy, forms and methods of using ʽmanual proceduresʽ in the management processes in entities of governmental and municipal authority in the Russian Federation; to explore foreign experience in terms of ʽmanual managementʽ; to define ratios between ʽsystemʽ and ʽmanualʽ methods in Russian management practice and to evaluate the degree of their influence on social and economic life of modern Russian society. The methodological base of the research is comprised with methods and scientific cognition techniques widely used in research practice, namely: methods of deduction and induction, generalization, observation, forecasting, scientific abstraction techniques, system analysis, as well as classification and grouping instruments, elements of cross-industry and comparative historical analysis; expert estimations. Results of the research: authors have formulated own definition of ʽmanual managementʽ term; revealed reasons, conditions and motives for its applying by Russian bodies of governmental and municipal authority; described the most spread methods of its application and factors concerning increase of cases of refuse to use system procedures in modern practice of governmental and municipal management. Scientific novelty: considering the practice of Russian governmental and municipal management authors focus on the lately applied procedures of its exercising, such as creation of parallel management structures, transition to instruments of directive instructions, etc. On the basis of conducted analysis of activity performed by bodies of governmental and municipal authority in constituent of the Russian Federation authors have revealed ratio between ʽmanualʽ and ʽsystemʽ procedures used in management process, formulated definition of ʽmanual managementʽ term, disclosed conditions and motives for its application and also made a conclusion stating the main reasons for applying and extending ʽmanual managementʽ practice are the incompleteness and inconsistency of applicable Russian legislation, which on the one hand cannot reflect to the full extent the fundamental changes in social and economic spheres that took place in Russia within the recent decades, and on the other hand is far not always able to sufficiently regulate relationships between object and subject in the process of governmental and municipal management. Practical relevance: as a result of the research authors forecast the probable consequences of outlined tendency for extension of practice of ʽmanual managementʽ in bodies of governmental and municipal authority in both - in the medium and the longer term.

scholarly journals Statutes of Limitations on Bringing to Administrative Responsibility and the Procedure for their Calculation in the Context of Constitutional Law Principles

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 32-43
Author(s):  
A. K. Subachev
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
One Year ◽  
Administrative Code ◽  
Administrative Responsibility

The initial version of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences provided for a general statute of limitations (two months) and a special statute of limitations (one year from the date of the commission of an administrative offense) for administrative liability. As a result of multiple amendments to part 1 of Art. 4.5 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, the special terms were increased to two, three and six years depending on the type of an administrative offense. In addition, initially part 4 of Art. 4.5 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation established a special procedure for calculating the statute of limitations for bringing to administrative responsibility in case of refusal to initiate criminal proceedings or dismissal of the case. The statute of limitation commenced from the date when the decision was made to refuse to initiate proceedings or to dismiss the case. Although the provision under consideration was later brought into line with the general rule, the legislator considered it necessary to supplement Art. 4.5 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation with parts 5.1, 6, 6.1 and 7, linking the beginning of the statute of limitations for administrative liability for certain administrative offenses with certain legal facts. As a result of the study, the author has revealed the discrepancy between the mentioned legislative innovations and the constitutional principle of proportionality of restrictions imposed by the legislator on the rights and freedoms and the principle of legal certainty. The author makes a proposal to improve the current legal regulation of the statute of limitations with regard to bringing to administrative responsibility and the procedure for their calculation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document