<<
>>

§2. Kinds of the administrative affairs considered in vessels by general Jurisdictions

The administrative affairs considered and resolved in vessels of the general jurisdiction, it is possible to classify on the various bases. A main destination of the given classification - to study all variety of the affairs included in a category «administrative business», to reveal their essential lines and features.

First of all, classification of administrative affairs is given in item 245 GPK the Russian Federation. However we should consider the project of the Code of administrative legal proceedings in which kinds of administrative affairs (and their list is expanded in comparison with GPK the Russian Federation) also are fixed:

1) affairs about protection of the broken or challenged rights, freedom and legitimate interests of citizens, the rights and legitimate interests of the organisations, arising from administrative and other public legal relations:

About contest of standard legal acts completely or in a part;

About contest of decisions, actions (inactivity) of public authorities, other state bodies, bodies of military management, local governments, electoral commissions, the commissions of a referendum, officials, the state and municipal employees;

About contest of decisions, actions (inactivity) of the organisations allocated with federal acts by separate state or other public powers;

About contest of decisions, actions (inactivity) of qualifying board of judges;

About contest of decisions, actions (inactivity) of the Higher examination board on promotion examination reception on a justiceship and examination boards of subjects of the Russian Federation;

About contest of decisions, the actions (inactivity), concerning public service;

About protection of suffrages and the rights to participation in a referendum of citizens of the Russian Federation;

2) the administrative affairs connected with realisation of the obligatory judicial review behind observance of the rights and freedom of the person and the citizen at realisation of separate administrative imperious requirements to physical persons and the organisations:

Affairs about stay of activity or about liquidation of political party, its regional branch, other public association;

About the termination of activity of mass media;

About collecting of taxes and obligatory payments from physical persons and the noncommercial organisations;

About time placing of the foreign subject who is coming under readmissii, in special establishment;

Affairs about an establishment, prolongation, the termination, administrative supervision cancellation;

3) other affairs arising from administrative and other public legal relations:

About compulsory hospitalisation of the citizen in a psychiatric hospital, prolongation of compulsory hospitalisation and compulsory psychiatric survey of the citizen;

About award of compensation for breach of law on legal proceedings in reasonable term or the rights to execution of the judicial certificate in reasonable term.

Allocation of the specified categories of administrative affairs is closely connected with formation of administrative legal proceedings in our country. Experience of other countries in the field of administrative justice shows, that their administrative legal proceedings represent the judicial review which is carried out by vessels behind activity of enforcement authorities.

Such judicial review assumes check by vessels of decisions, actions (bezdejstvy), normative acts of enforcement authorities as at their edition and fulfilment the rights most often are broken, freedom and legitimate interests of citizens and the organisations. Proceeding from these reasonings as we already marked earlier, affairs about protection of suffrages cannot be consolidated together with the appeal of decisions and actions of public authorities and their officials as dispute on suffrages of citizens which have the specificity in this case takes place. Besides in a percentage parity with other administrative affairs the given category of affairs is seldom enough considered by vessels. Basically the number of the given cases increases in days of elections on all country (for example, presidential elections of the Russian Federation or elections in the State Duma).

Now the project of the Code of administrative legal proceedings which in case of acceptance along with the Arbitration code of practice will regulate administrative legal proceedings is prepared. Thus, in practice the situation when administrative legal proceedings "are actually divided" between two systems of vessels continues to develop, and it turns out, that the concept «administrative business» too has double sense: the administrative affairs arising at realisation of enterprise and other economic activities (are considered by arbitration courts) and administrative affairs with participation of citizens (podvedomstvenny to general jurisdiction vessels). Hence, it can be considered as

The independent basis for one more classification of administrative affairs. In other words, an occasion to such classification is existence not only in GPK the Russian Federation (and in the Code project), but also in agrarian and industrial complex of the Russian Federation of the norms devoted to disposal of legal proceeding, following of public legal relations. Thus in both codes this category of affairs joins almost the same, specified in the first classification, administrative affairs (affairs about contest of normative acts, actions (inactivity), decisions of public authorities and their officials, etc.). The difference consists in features of arising relations - in the first case it is the affairs arising at realisation

The enterprise and other economic activities, at least one of which parties is the legal body. In the second case - all other affairs with participation of citizens or their associations, not connected with realisation of any enterprise activity. Different jurisdiction of the given cases from here follows - economic disputes consider arbitration courts, other disputes - general jurisdiction courts.

In the theory author's classifications are offered also

Administrative affairs. For example, I.V.Panova allocates three kinds of administrative affairs: normotvorcheskie, pravoprimenitelnye and

jurisdiktsionnye [163]. Such division of administrative affairs is characteristic for representatives of the administrative approach to understanding of administrative process as which understand all wide field of activity of bodies of public management. We believe, allocation normotvorcheskih and pravoprimenitelnyh administrative affairs is inexpedient. It is proved by that as it has been noted above, the concept «administrative business» should be considered in remedial aspect as procedure of consideration and the permission of is administrative-legal disputes in court, not mentioning thus their activity on realisation of the competence given to it.

To administrative-jurisdiktsionnym I.V.Panova's to affairs carries following [164]:

1) about attraction to administrative responsibility judicially;

2) about revision of decisions and decisions on affairs about administrative violations;

3) on administrative disputes of subjects of public authority on the competence;

4) on administrative disputes on legitimacy standard and nenormativnyh bodies of public authority concerning the competence;

5) on disputes between the Russian Federation and subjects of the Russian Federation concerning the competence;

6) on disputes between subjects of the Russian Federation;

7) on the disputes arising during carrying out of election campaign, a referendum;

8) about levy, gathering, other obligatory payments, penej and on other tax disputes;

9) on disputes in the field of customs business and customs regulation, etc.

Despite the fact that what all listed kinds concern to administrative jurisdiktsionnym to the affairs, some of them hardly can be carried to sphere of action of administrative law with confidence. For example, all affairs about disputes concerning the competence between federal public authorities, between public authorities of the Russian Federation and authorities of subjects of the Russian Federation, between the higher state bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation belong to constitutional law area, but not administrative, and come under to consideration by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (item 3 of the Federal constitutional law «About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation» [165] [166]). However some disputes on the competence, not carried to powers of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, can be considered general jurisdiction vessels.

Some scientists suggest to classify administrativnopravovye disputes though under the maintenance the given classification should be considered as classification of administrative affairs. J.A.popova suggests to divide disputes in sphere of public, administrative legal relations under the matter in dispute and a subject of judicial protection on two big classification groups. The first of them is constituted by the disputes of public character infringing on interests of a numerous group of persons. It is necessary to carry to them:

- Affairs about contest of standard legal acts;

- Affairs on protection of suffrages of citizens and the rights to participation in a referendum;

- Affairs on disputes on the competence;

- Affairs on protection of the political rights and freedom;

- Other affairs from the public legal relations, carried by the federal act to judicial jurisdiction.

To the second group has put J.A.popova carries the following:

- Affairs about contest of not standard legal acts, decisions, actions (inactivity) of bodies of public authority or their officials;

- Affairs about the administrative violations settled by norms KoAP the Russian Federation.

JU.A.Tikhomirov suggests to divide all administrative affairs into four categories [167 [168]. First, the appeal citizens of certificates and actions of officials, the state bodies, local governments, the public organisations breaking their rights of mainly public character. Secondly, disputes between citizens, legal bodies and the state bodies, officials concerning legal acts of the last. Thirdly, thematic disputes (the disputes following from budgetary, tax, sanitary-and-epidemiologic, ecological relations). Fourthly, disputes on the competence of system of enforcement authorities.

Apparently from the presented classification, JU.A.Tikhomirov considers administrative case in a broad sense, covering extensive enough circle has put. From here it is possible to make a number of conclusions concerning essence of concept «administrative business». Undoubtedly, this concept joins affairs about a recognition invalid normative acts of public authorities, local government and their officials, business about contest of decisions, actions (inactivity) of bodies and their officials. Further, disputes on the competence between enforcement authorities here enter, however it is necessary to define character of considered disputes accurately. JU.A.Tikhomirov includes in the first category of administrative affairs rather a wide range of disputes: about refusal to give the public information to spend registration of legal acts, about refusal to give certain documents; structures of the administrative violations made official лицами2 here adjoin. Thus, all actions,

Decisions in which the public authority or its official participates; relations where there is a publicity element - all these disputes according to the presented classification, are administrative and come under to consideration as administrative legal proceedings. However if to analyse the most part of the relations arising absolutely in different branches of law it is possible to notice, that their considerable part comprises an element of public legal relations. It proves to be true that many dissertations «on a joint» several branches of law and administrative law [169] recently have been protected, for example, about administrative aspect of the state registration of legal bodies and individual businessmen, etc. If to consider all these affairs administrative in that case even independent administrative courts (if those are created in Russia) will be overloaded by a considerable quantity of the diversified affairs while general jurisdiction courts will be empty, integrated and gradually will absolutely be abolished. In such a way the basic problem - competence distribution between courts of justice will not be solved so that there were no overloaded and empty vessels that affairs were resolved qualitatively and in due time. Therefore, as we consider, it is necessary already now, at the initial stage of formation of administrative legal proceedings, to be defined with criteria,

Allowing to delimit administrative affairs from another matters.

The points of view according to which disputes on the competence concern kinds of administrative affairs have been above presented. Us was

The assumption what not all disputes on the competence between public authorities can be carried to jurisdiction of vessels of the general jurisdiction is put forward.

First of all, it is necessary to exclude disputes on the competence, resolved by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (ч.3 item 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation): between

Federal public authorities; between public authorities of the Russian Federation and public authorities of subjects of the Russian Federation; between the higher state bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation. Besides the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, powers on realisation of the given control the constitutional (authorised) courts of subjects of the Russian Federation possess. In item 27 of the Federal constitutional law «About the judiciary of the Russian Federation» it is not mentioned consideration by the specified vessels of disputes on the competence though the given law is frame. The constitutional (authorised) courts of subjects of the Russian Federation are created and function on the basis of the Constitution (Charter) of the corresponding subject. Hence, similar bodies of the constitutional (authorised) control are far not in all subjects. For example, such courts of justice are created in Republic Adygea, the Kaliningrad area and consider cases about disputes concerning the competence. In other subjects (for example, in Republic Bashkortostan [170] [171] [172], Republic Kareliya [173], Republic Komi [174], etc.) the constitutional (authorised) courts do not resolve the given disputes or in corresponding laws is specified, that it other konstitutsionno-legal disputes are cognizable.

Apparently from articles establishing the competence of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, there is unresolved a question on disputes concerning the competence with participation of local governments. Not podvedomstvenny to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation disputes of public authorities of the Russian Federation and others, not the higher, state bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation, and also disputes on the competence between public authorities of subjects of the Russian Federation and local governments. In the laws specified above on the constitutional (authorised) vessels of the subjects providing consideration of disputes on the competence, all those disputes which are not included into the competence of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation are just listed.

It would seem, that on it the question on jurisdiction of all disputes on the competence is solved. However it is necessary to notice, that the constitutional (authorised) courts are not in all subjects, and there where they all the same are founded, not always powers of these vessels join disputes on the competence. Hence, regarding subjects of the Russian Federation disputes on the competence the law actually are not carried to the competence of any certain courts of justice. According to O.V.Brezhnev, «if constitutional (ustavnyj) the court in the subject of Federation is not created, aforementioned disputes on the competence should be resolved by general jurisdiction vessels in an order established by the Civil code of practice of the Russian Federation. However in the last there are no special provisions regulating realisation by vessels of this power. And hardly it is possible, proceeding from the legal nature of this category of lawsuits, to name their civil cases» [175].

Thus, it is impossible to exclude completely disputes on the competence from among administrative affairs. In our opinion, in case of modification of the Code project it is necessary to add article about administrative affairs by the following explanatory: «... Disputes on the competence concern administrative affairs, not cognizable to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, and also disputes on the competence, not cognizable to the constitutional (authorised) court of the corresponding subject of the Russian Federation if its creation is supposed the legislation of the subject of the Russian Federation».

Principal views of administrative affairs are affairs about contest of standard legal acts, decisions, actions (inactivity) of public authorities, local governments and their officials. We will consider in more details each of them.

Contest of standard legal acts. If to compare positions GPK the Russian Federation and the Code project about contest of standard legal acts we will not notice any essential, cardinal changes. The basic advantage of the bill - more detailed regulation of an order of consideration of the given category of disputes: requirements to the administrative statement of claim, the bases for refusal in acceptance of the statement, its returning and leaving without movement, phase-out on business are established. In the Code project in more details target dates of disposal of legal proceeding on contest of separate standard legal acts, and also it is specified, that on affairs about contest of standard legal acts it is impossible to submit the counterclaim, and the conclusion of agreements on reconciliation is not supposed. Among features of a judgement on affairs about contest of normative acts it is necessary to pay attention on ch. 4 items 218 of the project of the Code: If in connection with a recognition court of the standard legal act the invalid it is revealed insufficient legal uregulirovannost which can entail infringement of the rights, freedom and legitimate interests of an uncertain circle of persons, the court has the right to assign a duty to public authority, local government to accept the new standard legal act replacing the standard legal act, recognised as the invalid. The given position can be considered as intrusion into activity of public authorities and as abusing powers of the judicial authority. However the court has not the right to accept the normative act instead of the certificate recognised as the invalid; it can assign only to authority a duty to accept the new certificate (in strictly certain case: when absence of is standard-legal regulation can entail infringement of the rights, freedom and legitimate interests of an uncertain circle of persons). This duty can be equal to a duty assigned to body or the official, to eliminate the admitted infringements in case of a recognition court of the decision, action (inactivity) by the illegal. In our opinion, it is necessary to consider the given positions of the project of the Code as an additional guarantee of execution of the decree, but not expansion of the competence of the judicial authority.

In ch. 4 items 210 of the project of the Code are underlined, that administrative statements of claim do not come under to consideration in general jurisdiction vessels if check of constitutionality of these certificates is carried to the competence of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, constitutional (authorised) vessels of subjects of the Russian Federation. Here there is a question on distribution of powers between the specified vessels and general jurisdiction vessels. The given problem existed even before preparation of the project of the Code, however in the decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation «About practice of consideration by vessels of affairs about contest of standard legal acts completely or in a part» [176 [177] some explanations have been made. After coming into force of the project of the Code it turns out, that the specified decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court loses the force, but in the draught federal law «About introduction in action of the Code of administrative legal proceedings of the Russian Federation» it is not underlined, that the given decision should lose

The force. Hence, we will be guided by its positions in a part which are not contradicting norms of the Code of administrative legal proceedings. In item 1 of the specified decision it is specified, that to vessels podvedomstvenny affairs about contest completely or regarding standard legal acts below level of the federal act, listed in ch. 2 items 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, on the bases of their contradiction to other, except the Constitution of the Russian Federation, to the standard legal act having the big validity. Further in the decision as an example

Challenged certificates affairs about contest of standard legal acts of the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation, laws of subjects of the Russian Federation on the bases of their contradiction to federal acts are resulted. Proceeding from it naturally there is a question: if general jurisdiction courts consider cases about contest of normative acts below federal act level, in what order then to challenge the federal act contradicting other federal act?

There are general rules according to which in case of the contradiction of the several rules of law having an equal validity, the priority is given to later norm. But from the technical point of view the federal act comprising norms contradicting another law turns out, that, will operate in a part which are not contradicting the current legislation. Such federal act cannot be recognised by invalid court of the general jurisdiction according to the Code project, but also the Constitutional Court also cannot recognise its that. The similar position has been repeatedly expressed in definitions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: « Any federal act owing to item 76 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not possess in relation to other federal act bolshej a validity. The correct choice on the basis of an establishment and research of actual facts and interpretation of the norms which are coming under to application in concrete business, concerns not conducting KS the Russian Federation, and to conducting vessels of the general jurisdiction and arbitration courts »[178].

It is necessary to notice, that in the specified Definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation the choice of priority norm for the permission of concrete dispute while in the given research the question is put about the recognition legal process invalid completely the federal act or its part means. In our opinion, in the legislation such variant should be provided. Accordingly, from November, 29th, 2007 № 48 it is necessary to add item 1 of the decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation with the paragraph,

Providing possibility of contest of certificates of federal level about their contradiction to other certificate of federal level, except for the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Respective alterations are necessary for bringing as well in the project of the Code of administrative legal proceedings.

Following kind of administrative affairs are affairs about contest of decisions, actions (inactivity) of public authorities, local governments, officials, the state and municipal employees. The very first question which arises after acquaintance with the given category of affairs - what decisions, actions (inactivity) can be challenged in such order? In our opinion, first of all it is necessary to understand the nature of these affairs. In this connection in a science of the civil law of procedure there were some approaches: one scientists consider, that issue in law (D.M.Chechot, N.G.Salishcheva, N.J.Hamaneva, V.V. Jarkov, etc.) in this case takes place; other researchers approve, that the judicial review behind legality of decisions, actions of the state bodies (J.A.popova, V.V. Skitovich, etc.) here takes place ; The third point of view consists that a subject of judicial protection on a considered category of affairs is the legitimate interest (T.V.Sahnova,

M.S.Pavlova) [179]. In our opinion, the most proved are the second and third approaches. In the first case the given category of affairs actually mixes up with the adversary proceeding. And it quite obosnovanno: at contest of decisions, actions of public authorities and their officials dispute, but not about the right, and about certain legal interest of interested persons which is mentioned by the challenged decision or action anyhow takes place. This legitimate interest only provides possibility for the interested person to have the certain rights and duties, but it not is dispute concerning their realisation. Therefore we consider, that a subject of judicial contest on the given category of affairs is the legitimate interest of persons in which relation the decision was accepted or action (inactivity) is made. However in this case it is not necessary to adhere to strictly one approach. The legitimate interest is an appeal subject, but at justice realisation on similar affairs the judicial review behind legality of accepted decisions public authorities, local government and their officials takes place. In this case general jurisdiction courts carry out control function in relation to enforcement authorities, thereby embodying on practice the mechanism «controls and counterbalances».

More disputable category are actions and inactivity which can be challenged. But if we can list, what nenormativnye it is possible to challenge (orders, decisions, orders etc.) in relation to actions will already make it more difficult. Inactivity can be characterised as default assigned to body or the official of duties. But officials on behalf of public authorities and local government daily make the diversified actions: reception of visitors, the conclusion of contracts, performance of official duties. Legislatively established criteria for classification of the given actions are not present.

The decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation specified above opens this concept so: imperious will of the named bodies and persons which is not given the shape decisions concerns actions of public authorities, local governments, their officials, the state or municipal employees, but has entailed infringement of the rights and freedom of citizens and the organisations or has created obstacles to their realisation. The made definition does not open essential characteristics of challenged action, and only specifies, than it differs from the decision. Thus, the question on the maintenance and signs of such actions remains opened.

A number of scientists is put forward by the assumptions in this respect. For example, S.V.Jarkovoj notices, that «in court such actions of bodies of public administration and their officials which attract legally significant consequences for other subjects (the state, municipal unions, physical persons, the organisations), under the initiative and in which interests the court initiates corresponding affairs, i.e. legally significant actions» [180] can be challenged only. In turn, the concept "legally significant" demands the explanatory. It is for this purpose reversible to the general theory of law in which «legally significant (legal) actions are understood as strong-willed behaviour of people, external expression of will and consciousness of citizens, will of the organisations and public formations with which rules of law connect approach of legally significant consequences» [181].

There is a logical question: what actions can be challenged within the limits of administrative legal proceedings - legally significant or any actions of authorities and their officials? It is obvious that to challenge it is possible exclusively legally significant actions as only as a result of such actions there can be the consequences breaking the rights, freedom and legitimate interests of citizens and the organisations.

Proceeding from the presented definitions, in our opinion, it is impossible to allocate the accurate criteria, allowing to delimit legally significant actions from what those are not. It is represented, that is necessary to generate some such criteria and the first should name presence of legally significant consequences (occurrence, change or the termination of the rights and duties etc.). It is necessary to consider as other criterion purposeful, strong-willed character of actions, i.e. the state body or the official, making certain actions, pursue achievement obviously objects in view. One more criterion, allowing to delimit legally significant actions, it is shown in degree of compulsion, imperativeness of such actions. In this case legally significant actions are more imperative, than other actions.

From all specified criteria, certainly, and defining presence of legal consequences of perfect action is paramount. Occurrence, change, the termination of the rights and duties testifies to a legal component of the arisen relations.

In administrative law attempts to make definition to legally significant action were undertaken also. For example, I.A.Tchizhov defines it as «imperious influence of body of public administration on concrete physical or the legal body who is not made out by means of the edition (acceptance) by it of the individual legal act, carried out on the basis of corresponding norms of administrative law with a view of maintenance of legal regulation of behaviour of this person, a right protection and protection of its rights and legitimate interests, and also the rights and legitimate interests of other persons, safety of a society and the state» [182 [183] [184].

In more details and in details the problem of differentiation of actions was investigated by S.V.Jarkovoj, however its research is focused on studying of the actions challenged in arbitration courts. But, despite this fact, many theoretical positions of its work it is possible to use and at studying of corresponding affairs in general jurisdiction vessels. So, it had been allocated signs of the actions challenged in vessels: they represent imperious influence; are made without acceptance (edition) of the decision expressed in the officially-documentary form; attract for the person legally significant consequences; this action according to the addressed person, is wrongful. S.V.Jarkovoj offers also own classification of actions: the actions made at the state registration of any objects or the rights; the actions made at statement on the account; the actions made within the limits of final process; the actions made during manufacture on affairs about

3

Administrative violations, etc.

The actions challenged in vessels of the general jurisdiction, it is possible to classify also on the basis of item 5 of the decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation [185] from February, 10th, 2009 № 2. Criterion for such classification - the subject which actions are challenged:

1) actions of public authorities, local government and their officials;

2) actions of bodies which are not public authorities and local governments, but are allocated by imperious powers in the field of the government or administrative powers in sphere of local government and the decisions carrying a binding character for persons in which relation they are taken out (for example, actions of qualifying board of judges, the invocatory commission, etc.) make;

3) actions of legal bodies and the individual businessmen made at realisation by them transferred when due hereunder concrete state-imperious powers.

Apparently from the presented classifications, at first sight rather narrow concept «administrative business» assumes consideration and the permission of the big number of the diversified justiciable disputes. Therefore gets special importance detailed legislative regulation of the given category of affairs, an establishment of the limited circle of the disputes entering into this concept.

At research of an order of the appeal of decisions, actions (inactivity) of public authorities, local governments and their officials many scientists (for example, A.Razgildeev) mark: «the court at legality check is forced to establish only, that the decision is accepted with competence observance, and courts do not supervise expediency of decision-making» [186]. The new project of the Code establishes only check of legality of accepted decisions, the court does not estimate conditions and circumstances in which the corresponding decision was accepted. «The analysis of conformity of administrative acts to other requirements (to validity, expediency) admitted and admits till now only behind the extrajudicial control» [187]. If to give to vessels possibility not only to estimate challenged certificates from the point of view of legality, but also to check them

Validity and expediency it will be difficult to define a side between realisation of function of the judicial review and an estimation of activity of the authority (i.e. actual intervention in its activity). We believe, that at the given stage of the judiciary reform will be the correct decision to check within the limits of administrative legal proceedings only legality of challenged decisions, having left check of validity and expediency to higher bodies.

The project of the Code of administrative legal proceedings establishes some new categories of administrative affairs, however in detail all of them to consider within the limits of the given research it is not obviously possible. We will notice only, that some of them (for example, affairs about the termination of mass media, about collecting of obligatory payments and sanctions) do not answer the administrative criterion established by us. Not clearly, why affairs about compulsory hospitalisation of the citizen in a psychiatric hospital and about compulsory psychiatric survey which GPK the Russian Federations are carried to special proceeding, under the new bill are considered within the limits of administrative legal proceedings. In our opinion, in this case there is no dispute between the citizen and the official, and the attention to the question on coercive measure application to the person is brought.

Inclusion in the project of the Code of affairs about contest of decisions, actions (inactivity) of the Higher examination board on reception

Promotion examination on a justiceship and examination boards of subjects of the Russian Federation, affairs about contest of decisions, actions (inactivity) of qualifying boards of judges contradicts

To the current legislation. According to ч.1 item 6 of the Federal constitutional law «About the Disciplinary bar» [188] powers of the Disciplinary bar coincide with

The affairs specified above which according to the Code project are considered by general jurisdiction vessels by rules

Administrative legal proceedings. The disciplinary judicial

Presence successfully functions and considers disputes in a narrow field of activity, therefore duplication of its powers in the Code of administrative legal proceedings is not meaningful. Hence, affairs about contest of decisions of the Higher examination board and qualifying boards of judges should be excluded from item 1 of the project of the Code of administrative legal proceedings.

In the given chapter we had been in detail studied the basic categories of administrative affairs, their kinds are allocated and the administrative criterion otgranichenija administrative affairs from other disputes is established. Definition of the maintenance of concept «administrative business» and its basic signs will help with the further research of administrative legal proceedings and the basic tendencies of its development.

1

2010. - WITH. 490 - 495.

№4. WITH. 6.

№4. WITH. 6 - 7.

<< | >>
A source: Peshkova Tatyana Viktorovna. Administrative legal proceedings in general jurisdiction vessels in the Russian Federation. The DISSERTATION on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Voronezh - 2014. 2014

More on topic §2. Kinds of the administrative affairs considered in vessels by general Jurisdictions:

  1. CHAPTER 2. The administrative affairs considered in vessels by general Jurisdictions
  2. §1. Concept and features of the administrative affairs considered in vessels of the general jurisdiction
  3. §2. Practice of consideration of administrative affairs in general jurisdiction vessels: results and problems
  4. CHAPTER 1. Administrative legal proceedings in general jurisdiction vessels in the Russian Federation: concept, features, kinds
  5. §1. Administrative legal proceedings in general jurisdiction vessels as the form of realisation of the judicial authority: concept, the basic signs, kinds, value of system of construction and judicial authority functioning
  6. Ssootnoshenie jurisdictions of the European Court under human rights and EU Vessels.
  7. §3. The basic directions of perfection of the legislation on administrative legal proceedings in general jurisdiction vessels
  8. §3. The Primary goals, functions and principles of administrative legal proceedings in general jurisdiction vessels
  9. §2. Administrative legal proceedings in general jurisdiction vessels in the Russian Federation and the judiciary reform
  10. §1. Efficiency of the Russian legislation establishing administrative legal proceedings in vessels The general jurisdiction
  11. CHAPTER 3. Efficiency of administrative legal proceedings in general jurisdiction vessels in the Russian Federation
  12. §4. Problems of interaction of the constitutional vessels and vessels of the general jurisdiction of the CIS countries in protection of individual rights and freedom of the person
  13. § 2. The General characteristic of measures of maintenance of manufacture on affairs about the administrative violations encroaching on a public order and the public safety
  14. the Second paragraph «Administrative investigation in system of stages of manufacture on affairs about administrative violations»
  15. Peshkov Tatyana Viktorovna. Administrative legal proceedings in general jurisdiction vessels in the Russian Federation. The DISSERTATION on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Voronezh - 2014, 2014