<<
>>

§ 2. Legal regulation at level of the subject of federation in the Soviet Russia

Studying of history of domestic statehood, including the legislation analysis, pravoprimenitelnoj practice and scientific sources, allows to approve, that legal regulation evolution at level of the subject of federation in Russia has passed some periods from its origin before development:

I period - origin and legal regulation formation at level of the subject of federation in the Soviet Russia;

II period - legal regulation development at level of the subject of federation in Post-Soviet Russia in new democratic conditions;

III period - reflexion of "parade of sovereignties" in the legislation of subjects of federation, expansion of a subject of legal regulation at level of subjects of a federative state;

IV period - centralisation and unification of the legislation of subjects of federation, narrowing of a subject of legal regulation at level of subjects of a federative state.

Legal regulation formation at level of the subject of a federative state is connected with their formation in quality
National-state members of federation. Researchers of the Russian federalism carry creation of bases of federal statehood to 1918 - to 1936. At the same time some scientists at studying of the nature of the Russian state in the beginning of XX century allocated such elements federativnosti, as an autonomy and the self-management based on some agreement [61]. According to R.G.Abdulatipova «a categorical imperative for multinational Russia, for Russia as special if want type of the civilisation built on the basis of Russian statehood which has consolidated the people and the earths round Russia, the federal device is gained» [62]. It is necessary to add, that the federalism in Russia speaks its multinational structure of the population, and also the big territory of the country which requires effective distribution of imperious administrative powers, including normotvorcheskie.

First of all as means of the decision of an ethnic question creation in 1917 of the Russian federative state acted. The Russian statehood, having weakened after revolutions, the First World War, has started to lose the unitary positions. Separative tendencies amplified a multinationality of Russian empire, growth of national-liberation movements, declaration as the Soviet power of the right of the people on self-determination. Finland and the Ukrainian Soviet Republic in December, 1917 declared the independence. In
January, 1918 III All-Russia congress of Councils of workers, soldier's and krasnoarmejskih deputies declared the Russian Soviet Republic federation therefore the resolution «About federal institutions of the Russian Republic» has been accepted, in point the first which was spoken: «the Russian Socialist Soviet republic is founded on the basis of the voluntary union of the people of Russia, as Federation of the Soviet republics of these people. The central Soviet power is obliged to watch observance of bases of Federation and represents the Russian Federation of Councils as a whole. Carrying out of the actions which are carried out only in nation-wide scale is assigned to the central power also, and the rights of the separate areas which have entered federation» [63], however, should not be broken.

Actually as the federation of the Soviet national republics the Soviet Russian Republic was founded on the basis of the free union of the free nations by the Declaration of the rights of the worker and the maintained people which was included a component into the Constitution of RSFSR of 1918.

Representatives of each nation had the right to make independently the decision, whether they agree to be a part of the Russian Federation, in case of the positive decision it was required to define the bases for

64

Introductions [64].

Let's pay attention to that from the very beginning of occurrence of independent formations the population structure in them was not mononational and in the general population the structure of title ethnos did not reach 50 %. The special legal status of those or other members ethnic obshchnostej, without dependence from the place of residence was not fixed by the Soviet legislation. Hence it is possible to draw a conclusion that the basis of formation of independent formations carried as national, and
Territorial character. To a question on the national sovereignty carrier the ethnic approach has generated the declaration on the priority account of interests of the title nation at definition of a question on the form created on territory of its residing natsionalnoyogosudarstvennogo (or national-territorial) formations [65].

In February-May, 1918 there were first autonomous republics as a part of Russia, yet not having all signs of the generated status of subjects of federation. Process of the state building of autonomous regions, autonomous republics and other autonomies developed gradually [66]. All republics possessed possibility to carry out legal regulation, had the constitution which fixed its rights as the sovereign subject of federation. Federal bodies did not participate in the statement of the Constitution of republic, it was accepted by republic in what the republic status as the subject of federation is expressed. The legislative competence other territories of RSFSR which during various time were called as province, areas, districts, edges, volosts, national districts and autonomous regions did not possess.

In this connection some scientists have divided concept of an autonomy on legislative (political) and administrative [67]. Autonomous republics concerned a legislative autonomy, autonomous regions and the national districts possessing only the right of management were ranked as the administrative. B.V.Schetinin disagreed with such division and specified, that autonomous regions and national districts, thus the capable have the right of the edition of subordinate legislation normative acts
To carry out not only management function, but also law-makings [68]. Not casually in the name of an administrative autonomy there is a word "administrative", that allows to say that the edition of the subordinate legislation is more characteristic not for subjects of federation, and for administrative and territorial units. Scientists-contemporaries allocate following signs of the subject of federation: territory presence, a condition of the subject of federation in a federative state, possession the government and its realisation by means of own state bodies, presence of terms of reference, systems of the legislation, official the name and own state symbols [69]. It is fair to note, what not always some researchers accurately allocate system of the legislation of subjects of federation.

Constitutions of republics under the Constitution of RSFSR (1925)

Preliminary affirmed VTSIK, and it is already definitive the All-Russia congress of Councils. The Soviet researchers of the state noticed, that the statement of constitution ASSR does not limit officially proclaimed sovereignty of autonomous republic, and is the recognition certificate, and as demonstrative argument used the fact of that in spite of the fact that the union republic constitution does not affirm the Supreme body of the USSR, should correspond entirely to the Constitution of the USSR that cannot be the basis for a conclusion about not sovereign character of union republic [70]. Undoubtedly, it was restriction of the rights of subjects of federation on independent legal regulation.

K.A.Arhippov in 1925 after the analysis of the legislation of autonomous republics marked: «.ni about what« competence presumptions »autonomous republics RFSR to speak it is impossible. Decisions about formation of autonomous republics under the general rule aspire to establish limits not obshchefederalnoj the competence, and on the contrary, the competence of autonomous republics» [71]. Participation in formation of the higher federal authority for subjects of federation was considered more important their own lawmaking.

According to the Constitution of RSFSR (1937) each autonomous republic has the constitution considering features of autonomous republic and constructed in full conformity with the Constitution of RSFSR and the USSR. The Supreme body of RSFSR approved Constitutions ASSR, and also regional division, the economic plan and the budget, borders of areas and cities.

According to the Constitution of RSFSR (1978) the autonomous republic independently solves the questions concerning its conducting, out of limits of the rights of USSR and RSFSR. The implicit priority of laws of RSFSR over laws of republics finds reflexion in the Constitution of RSFSR. The autonomous republic has the constitution which corresponds to the Constitution of the USSR and the Constitution of RSFSR and considers features of autonomous republic.

Intended for fastening and protection of political, historical, cultural and economic interests and specific conditions of republics, and also the features connected with traditions, a life, national structure and a population. Certain positions of the Constitution of RSFSR actually reproduced Constitutions of all republics. Building of the Soviet federative state was based on uniform principles which explain the importance of conformity of constitutions of republics of the Federal Constitution in frameworks
Uniformity of economic and political bases of RSFSR [72]. Such display of similarity of republican constitutions with the Constitution of the USSR and the Constitution of RSFSR is observed in identical numbering and names of sections of constitutions that spoke coincidence of a subject of legal regulation.

The special characteristic is deserved by legal regulation at level of the Soviet union republics in the field of civil and criminal law and process. As is known, all republics had the codes corresponding to Fundamentals of legislation of the USSR.

In the Contract on formation of the USSR 1922 [73] and Constitutions of the USSR of 1924 the imperious criminally-legal competence of the allied centre and republics for the first time has been differentiated, according to it the establishment of the general bases of criminal law, obligatory for union republics which, in turn, developed the criminal has been fixed under the authority of the Union

74

The legislation in the limits defined by these bases [74]. As to RSFSR in the first Constitution of RSFSR 1918 the criminal legislation, no less than civil, and also the judicial organisation and legal proceedings concerned conducting the All-Russia congress of Councils and the All-Russia Central Executive committee (the item "about" item 49) [75]. From this vykalo, that autonomous republics - subjects of federation had not the right to carry out criminally-legal regulation independently. At the same time in autonomous republics separate by a legislature decisions of criminally-legal character, and also according to articles operating then UK RSFSR were published
Decisions which contained instructions on qualification of certain acts, the truth, the given legislation was present only as an exception. Some decisions SNK Bashkir ASSR instructed in qualification of separate acts under certain articles UK RSFSR, for example concealment of the stolen cable wires (item 180 UK RSFSR 1922) 1923. On April, 7th, 1928 the Decision of the Central Electoral Committee and SNK Buryat-Mongolian ASSR had been defined a liability of infringement of rules of hunting under articles UK RSFSR, in particular is specified and in analogy application. As it is marked by researchers, in the given cases autonomous republics did not form new norms of the criminal law, and applied only interpretation operating UK RSFSR [76]. In Dagestan ASSR short stories UK RSFSR were installed only after acceptance of corresponding decisions of the Central Electoral Committee and SNK this republic, that, certainly, contradicted the federal nature of legal regulation.

Fundamental principles of the criminal legislation of USSR and Union republics 1924 [77] ranked an establishment of substantive provisions of the General part of criminal law, norms as the allied competence about responsibility for state and military crimes, and also working out of instructions on carrying out of a uniform retaliatory policy by republics to which criminal codes of republics as a part of the USSR [78] should not contradict. From the point of view of scientists, it testifies to considerable independence of republics in sphere of criminally-legal regulation in the USSR [79].

It is necessary to pay attention, that the Criminal code of RSFSR underlies criminal codes of other Soviet republics - the same subjects of federation, as well as RSFSR 1922. The decision of session VTSIK about introduction in action UK ordered RSFSR 1922: «Presidium VTSIK is entrusted to instal the present code in territory of allied Soviet republics in proper order» [80]. In 1922-1923 Criminal codes have been independently accepted by a legislature of the Soviet socialist republics, however their maintenance, behind separate exceptions, coincided with the maintenance of the Criminal code of RSFSR 1922 [81].

Let's notice, that UK RSFSR 1922 in the subsequent editions reflected local features of republics of Central Asia a part of federation - established the criminal liability for the crimes made in these republics because of vestiges of an old life - a bride money (the repayment for the bride), kun, barantu, abduction of women, bachebazstvo (muzhelozhstvo), polygamy, a marriage on the minor, murder because of blood feud, etc.

The criminal legislation of USSR and union republics, according to item 2 of Bases of the criminal legislation of USSR and union republics from December, 25th, 1958 [82], consisted of Bases and criminal codes of union republics. Bases in general defined legal regulation volume at federal level and level of subjects of federation, giving to union republics the right to concretise and supplement general provisions of the criminal legislation. So, possibility to establish kinds of forced measures was given to subjects of federation
Educational character and an order of their application (item 10), the forced measures of medical character applied to deranged (item 11), an order, places and conditions of serving of the reference and dispatch (item 24), an order of serving of correctional labour without imprisonment of republics (item 25), the raised sizes of the penalty (item 27), cases of appointment of a confiscation for profit-motivated crimes (item 30), additional circumstances softening responsibility (item 33), the additional circumstances aggravating responsibility guilty (item 34), trial period limits, an order of supervision over probationeers and carrying out with them educational work (item 38), the lowered limitation periods by separate kinds of crimes (item 41), the lowered limitation periods by separate kinds of crimes (item 42), etc. Not always it was possible to understand logic of the legislator of USSR, assigning to republics regulation of rather important questions. For example, in Bases of the criminal legislation signs of the expecially dangerous recidivist did not reveal, they contained in criminal codes of union republics [83].

As a rule, general parts republican UK reproduced almost literally the general basic positions of Bases, but differently solved questions on duration of a trial period, a procedure of educational work with probationeers, about to whom supervision and the control over these persons should be assigned, and also about an order of reduction or cancellation of the remained trial period concerning the probationeer and other questions carried to the competence of subjects of federation, though and not following of specific features of republics [84]. At the same time taking into account local features in
Criminal codes of some republics joined such structures of crimes, as bride money payment (the repayment for the bride) (UK TadzhSSR, TurkmSSR, GruzSSR, ArmSSR), clap loss (item 183 UK UzSSR), infringement of rules of water use and deliberate damage of irrigational constructions (the item of item 186-187 UK UzSSR).

There was no uniformity in republics UK concerning responsibility for murder by mother of the newborn child; the murder made because of vestiges of the past; threat by murder or causing of heavy physical injuries; the negligent homicide, leaving in dangers, violent satisfaction of sexual passion in the perverted form. Only in UK ESSR recognised as a crime violence or threat concerning the witness who has sustained, the expert, the translator understood with a view of hindrance to realisation of justice, and it is equal in the relation of the person who have committed a crime, with a view of concealment of other participants of a crime or from revenge for their exposure in the presence of good causes to be afraid reduction of such threat in execution (item 172 [85]). Originally UK RSFSR 1961 Did not contain the special provision about plunder of fire-arms, fighting supplies and explosives, while in criminal codes of some union republics (Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, Turkmenia) such norms have been provided at once. From June, 1st, 1967 in UK RSFSR has been entered by the decree of Presidium of the Supreme body of RSFSR item 218.1"Plunder of fire-arms, fighting supplies or explosives». There was no in UK RSFSR a responsibility for infanticide while criminal codes 10 of 15 union republics allocated murder by mother of the newborn child as less dangerous kind of a premeditated murder.

(It is Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kirghizia, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenia, Uzbekistan and Estonia.) [86].

Considerable distinctions characterised the norms providing responsibility for crimes against the socialist property. For example, in UK UzSSR there was no norm about responsibility for causing of a property damage fraudulently or breach of confidence which was available in UK other republics. The norms providing responsibility for acquisition or sale of the state or public property, obviously extracted criminal by, for deliberate, and also careless destruction or damage of the state or public property, both to the description of structures of crimes, and to kinds and the sizes of punishment established for their fulfilment differed. Distinctions concerned also norms UK providing responsibility for crimes against a personal property, in particular about personal property extortion.

Concerning crimes against political and laws of master and servant of citizens, considerable distinctions contained in the description of such structures, as hindrance to realisation of equality of women (item 134 UzSSR) in UK four Central Asian republics, RSFSR, KazSSR and AzSSR; compulsion of the woman to the introduction into marriage or its abduction for the introduction into marriage, and is equal hindrance to the introduction into marriage (item 133 UK UzSSR) [87].

Questions of a parity of the allied and republican criminal legislation constantly caused sharp theoretical discussions in
To kind ambiguous understanding of the maintenance and legal regulation limits at level of subjects of federation [88].

In the literature the attention that the questions regulated by the Soviet criminal legislation, are subdivided into three groups was paid: the first is constituted by questions of the exclusive competence of the Union; the second — the questions concerning the joint competence of the Union and republics; third — within the exclusive competence of republics. And partially we find questions of the first group the second in allied laws. Republican laws obemljut questions of all three groups. Thus, the volume of the republican legislation exceeds volume of the all-union criminal legislation »[89]. Quite often the federal authority authorised republics on additional regulation of relations in considered sphere. So, in accepted on October, 17th, 1935 Central Electoral Committee SNK of the USSR the Decision «About responsibility for manufacturing, storage and advertising of pornographic editions, images or trade in them» [90], to the governments of union republics was offered to add criminal codes of union republics with article of the following maintenance: «Manufacturing, distribution and advertising of pornographic compositions, printing editions, images and other subjects, and also trade in them and storage for the purpose of sale or their distribution involve imprisonment for the term up to five years with obligatory confiscation of pornographic subjects and means of their manufacture». On November, 25th, 1935 VIII «Infringement of the rules protecting national health, the public safety and an order» UK RSFSR has been entered into the chapter 1926
Article 182.1, completely reproducing the offer of the specified Decision. This article did not open concept of pornographic compositions, printing editions, images and other subjects [91].

Scientists, characterising the republican criminal legislation of the considered period, noticed, that «in the Soviet criminal legislation distinctions, and a basic generality and uniformity in the decision of the major questions of criminal law are defining not. The unity of the Soviet criminal legislation is the fact reflecting unity of the purposes and problems of USSR and all union republics entering into its structure» [92]. At the same time, researchers did not exclude further transferring of legal regulation of criminal relations exclusively on federal level [93], that today and takes place.

Constitutions of the USSR supposed the right of subjects of federation to the edition of certificates of amnesty concerning the citizens condemned judicial and executive organs of union republics (the item "ts" item 1, item 69 of the Constitution of the USSR 1924). According to the Constitution of the USSR 1936 the union republic Supreme body can use the right of amnesty and the pardon of the citizens condemned by courts of justice of Union republic (the item "g" item 60). Thus, the rights of union republics in definition of limits of action of certificates of amnesty were limited by them not depending on, whether responsibility for crimes by the allied or republican legislation, and depending on is regulated, whether the verdict of guilty is taken out by courts of justice of the USSR, or union republic court.

Union republics possessed the competence in the field of the legislation, concerning realisation of justice. According to the Law from February, 11th, 1957 «About reference to conducting union republics of the legislation on the device of vessels of union republics, acceptances

94

Civil, criminal and codes of practice »[94] at preservation under the authority of the USSR establishments of fundamentals of legislation about the judicial organisation and legal proceedings, bases of the civil and criminal legislation (item 1) to conducting union republics the legislation on the device of vessels of union republics and legal proceedings, and also acceptance civil and criminal codes concerned.

Constitutions of the USSR 1936 and allocated 1977 union republics with possibility of legal regulation of execution of punishments under criminal law. On November, 1st, 1969 Bases of the corrective-labour legislation of USSR and union republics on which base during 1970 - 1971 in all union republics correctional labour codes have been accepted that was mainly positively estimated by scientists [95] have been accepted. Codes regulated execution of imprisonment, the reference, dispatch and correctional labour without imprisonment and so forth Besides, at level of the USSR and union republics positions about an order of execution of the punishments, not connected with application of measures of corrective-labour influence were accepted. So the Decree of Presidium of the Supreme body of RSFSR from the July, 16th, 1984, approved an order and execution conditions in RSFSR of the punishments under criminal law which have been not connected with measures

96 corrective-labour influences on condemned [96], were regulated execution of following kinds of punishments: as the debaring to occupy certain posts or to be engaged in certain activity; the penalty; social censure; a confiscation; deprivation of a military or special rank; dismissal from a post; duty putting on to smooth down damnified.

The contract on formation of the USSR to Union conducting had been carried «the civil allied legislation (the item« about »item 1). Under the Constitution of the USSR 1924 to Union conducting the establishment of bases of the judicial organisation and legal proceedings, and also the civil legislation of the Union» (the item «concerned« p »item 1). As we see, the formulation allows to draw a conclusion on possibility of independent legal regulation at level of subjects of private relations. Thus by scientists it was underlined, that the right to the edition only the basic, most significant, basic norms of the civil legislation was given by the Constitution of 1924 of the USSR. Article 3 of the Constitution of the USSR established, that« the sovereignty of union republics is limited only in the limits specified in the present Constitution, and only in the subjects carried to the competence of the Union », that meant limited interpretation of the rules defining the competence of USSR. At the same time the facts which brought doubts already in creation of the Constitution that in the field of the civil legislation activity of USSR can be limited took place

97 establishment of its bases [97].

By working out of all-union Bases of the civil legislation the majority of experts have spoken against investment of USSR
The right of additional regulation of questions of the civil legislation, considering it as infringement of the competence of republics [98]. However further regulation of all-union questions (transport, mail, telegraph) have demanded settlement at federal level though Bases and have not been accepted during this period.

In the field of civil law property relations with participation of legal bodies were regulated by mainly all-union legislation (the state registration, a termination order, the company name, trade marks, the status of branches and representations and so forth) And to the middle of 30th years the republican legislation on these questions almost has been completely superseded by the all-union legislation [99]. Though long time regulation of some kinds of legal bodies by the republican legislation, in particular, the state industrial enterprises, the state municipal enterprises remained. The legislation in sphere of co-operative legal bodies (first of all, collective farms), about creative and trade unions developed in 1923 - 1936 basically as all-union. On the basis of the republican legislation after 1936 the organisations of system of cooperation of invalids continued to operate only. In the early thirties the all-union legislation had been definitively regulated an order of differentiation of a state ownership. In the leading image the property right of citizens was regulated by positions of the republican legislation, most important of which were norms of Civil codes. The legislation of the USSR in 20 and first half 30­х regulated years only the property right of citizens to some especially significant objects for a national economy. Besides, were
Conditions are established that the subjects listed in Civil codes with limited oborotosposobnostju could be in the property of citizens [100].

Liability law questions were regulated by the republican legislation along with the all-union. For example, at level of the legislation of republics general rules about purchase and sale contained, the special rules of purchase and sale providing payment by instalments were defined, purchase and sale of structures, and also purchase by the socialist organisations of structures at citizens was regulated. Relations on hiring of premises also were regulated by mainly republican legislation on the basis of the all-union norms defining initial principles of legal regulation of housing relations. However questions of delivery, transportation, the copyright, the patent law, the housing law had mainly allied regulation. And only in the field of the republic law of succession had the big independence in regulation. In the literature it is noticed, that «only one question of principle of inheritance dared during the considered period as the all-union legislation, - about cancellation of a so-called limit of inheritance. Other all-union norms of the law of succession were published, as a rule, in connection with regulation of other relations: co-operative, extra, transport etc. also concerned inheritance minor questions. On the contrary, in norms of the republican legislation questions of principle of the law of succession» [101] dared.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid, follows, that legal regulation at level of subjects of RSFSR during the considered period
Took place in separate areas of the civil legislation according to the Constitution of the USSR of 1924.

According to the Decision of the Central Electoral Committee accepted on July, 20th, 1936 and SNK the USSR «About formation of the National commissariat of justice of USSR» the civil legislation should be uniform for all USSR [102]. However in the text of the Constitution of the USSR of 1936 position of the Constitution of the USSR of 1924 from which followed has been reproduced, that union republics have the right to regulate any civil relations which have been not settled by the Civil code of the USSR which working out was led in 40-50th years. It was supposed, that GK the USSR «should cover all set of civil matters and that therefore grazhdanskoyopravovye certificates can be published by republics only in that case when in the Civil code of the USSR or in special laws of the USSR direct sending to the republican legislation» [103] will take place. Under the project the competence of union republics was rather limited. Some projects GK the USSR have been developed, but any and have not been accepted. In practice the civil legislation of this period developed first of all at all-union level, that, however did not interfere with republican regulation. In the field of the civil legislation the competence of USSR and union republics has been changed by the Law from February, 11th, 1957 «About reference to conducting union republics of the legislation on the device of vessels of union republics, 104

Acceptances civil, criminal and codes of practice »[104], in a consequence of that the decision« was accepted to carry to conducting union republics... Acceptance of the civil... Codes, having kept under the authority of USSR an establishment... Bases of the civil legislation »(item 1). Respective alterations have been brought in the item"h"item 14 of the Constitution of the USSR and
Constitutions of union republics. These short stories have given the chance to scientists to believe, that «under the authority of the USSR the establishment of Bases of the civil legislation» is kept only, «henceforth only Bases constitute - or, more precisely, will constitute borders of independent legislative activity of union republics in the field of civil law» [105]. But lawmaking practice has gone on other way. In Bases of the civil legislation of USSR and the union republics accepted on December, 8th, 1961, it has been fixed, that by the republican civil legislation are regulated «according to the present Bases... Relations, both provided by Bases, and not provided by them» (ch. 1 items 3) [106]. Thus in some cases along with sendings to the legislation of the USSR or to the legislation of union republics in Bases sendings simply to "law" or to "legislation" without differentiation of level of regulation contained. Hence, «the circle of the relations regulated by the republican legislation, has been defined most in the general and wide image» [107]. At the same time extensive interpretation of the given norm was come under also by the allied competence which has been not limited to strict frameworks. Concerning differentiation pravotvorcheskoj the competence between the Union and republics in the literature long time scientific discussions [108] were led. The majority of scientists supported used in Bases for differentiation in the field of the civil legislation of the competence of the USSR and union republics a method of the primary competence of the Union
The Soviet Socialist Republic, allowing to show flexibility of the decision of a question on legal regulation levels. This method allowed, «having solved basically a question on a priority of the all-union legislation in certain areas of civil law, in case of need operatively to transfer some questions from this circle of relations to the permission to union republics» [109].

In December, 1961 Bases of civil legal proceedings of USSR and union republics [110], and after them - republican civil codes of practice, including GPK RSFSR from June, 11th, 1964 [111] also have been accepted. Bases established an order of disposal of legal proceeding on the disputes arising from civil, family, labour and collective-farm legal relations, and defined problems of civil legal proceedings. General provisions of the civil law of procedure were uniform for the USSR. According to item 1 of Bases «the procedure on civil cases is defined by the present Bases and other laws of USSR published according to them and civil codes of practice of union republics». Manufacture on civil cases in vessels of union republics was led under civil laws of procedures of USSR and that union republic which vessels considered case, separate legal proceedings were made or the decree (the Item was executed 3 GPK RSFSR).

To level of union republics of the Basis transferred an establishment of an order of activity companionable and the arbitration courts (ch. 2 items 4), additional cases of clearing of the parties from payment of court costs in the state income (ch. 3 items 23), exceptions of the general order
Direct research of the proof on business in the trial court (item 35), the rights and duties of representatives of public organisations and labour collectives for a statement to court of opinion of the organisations which have authorised them or collectives concerning cases considered by court (ch. 2 items 36), the additional bases on which at the desire of the persons participating in business, or under the initiative the court can suspend manufacture on business (ch. 2 items 40), the additional bases on which the court leaves the statement without consideration (ch. 2 items 42), the Order of delivery of copies of complaints and protests and an order of the notice on time and a legal investigation place in court of cassation are established by the legislation of union republics (ch. 4 items 44), an order of a direction of copies of protests on the decree and an order of the notice on time and a legal investigation place (ch. 9 items 49), terms and a revision order on again opened circumstances of decisions, definitions and the decisions which have entered validity (ch. 4 items 53), cases of immediate execution of judgements (ch. 1 items 54), the list of kinds of property of citizens, the state enterprises, establishments, the organisations, collective farms, other co-operative organisations, their associations, other public organisations, a share of wages or other earnings, pension, the grant of pupils on which collecting cannot be turned, and also sequences of satisfaction of requirements about collecting at insufficiency of the amounts collected are established by the legislation of USSR and union republics (ch. 8 items 57), etc.

Let's pay once again attention to one problem question lifted in the scientific literature of the Soviet period - about what territories were considered as subjects of federation - sovereign autonomous republics or all autonomies, and not just republics [112]. According to N.N.Arzamaskina, the Soviet federation was under construction without the serious scientific base. Instead of
The objective analysis of a situation artificial designs of two kinds of federations were offered: based on the contract and on the basis of an autonomy. Testifies to it and that the first Soviet Constitution (1918) has fixed only the general basic positions defining the basic lines of is independent-federal building. In it there were no concrete instructions on machinery of state and powers of the state formations [113].

Let's underline, that the legal personality zakonodatelstvovanija, a subject of own legal regulation autonomous regions and created in the subsequent other national educations, unlike autonomous republics did not possess, they did not accept laws and constitutions. In the legislation of republic regulated the questions defining structure of own public authorities, their forms of interaction and powers, and also independently considered the territorial device, languages of the local nationalities publishing certificates of the Supreme bodies of republics, features of a flag and the arms, capital of republics.

From our point of view, the subject of federation has possibility to carry out at the level the legal regulation which result is presented in legal system of the subject of federation that is a characteristic sign of a federative state. At the same time it is far not each researcher names lawmaking of subjects of federation in the list of discriminating signs of subjects of federation, their right to independent own legal regulation [114], though separate scientists allocate presence at them own basic certificate - constitutions (the charter, the statute) as a sign of the subject of federation [115].

It is important to notice, that the fact of possession subjects of federation elements of the constituent power for federal model of a state system, and, hence, own legal system within the limits of the powers as a part of legal system of Federation [116].

Summing up the legal regulation analysis at level of the subject of a federative state in its formation, it is possible to notice confidently, that the circle of the relations regulated at given level, was rather wide and covered civil, criminal, remedial, having local specificity.

<< | >>
A source: Gazizova Lejsan Mahmutovna. LEGAL REGULATION AT LEVEL of the SUBJECT of the FEDERATIVE STATE: ISTORIKO-THEORETICAL ASPECT. The DISSERTATION on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Ufa - 2018. 2018

More on topic § 2. Legal regulation at level of the subject of federation in the Soviet Russia:

  1. § 3. Legal regulation at level of the subject of federation during the Post-Soviet period
  2. § 2. The maintenance of a design of legal regulation at level of the subject of the Russian federative state
  3. § 3. Legal regulation at level of the subject of a federative state taking into account regional features
  4. Is standard-legal regulation of the organised tourism in the Soviet Russia
  5. Chapter 1. The istoriko-legal characteristic of domestic legal regulation at level of the subject of a federative state
  6. § 2. Concept, a subject and principles of legal regulation of currency transactions of the Russian Federation
  7. power legal regulation on realisation of audit of efficiency at level of subjects of the Russian Federation
  8. § 3. Legal regulation of procedure of a recognition and a carrying out at national level on an example of the Russian Federation.
  9. formation and development of system of is standard-legal regulation of the state credit of the subject of the Russian Federation
  10. 3.1. Participation of Russia in international legal regulation of international trade by services on global (universal level): problems and prospects
  11. CHAPTER 2. LEGAL REGULATION of the RELATIONS DEVELOPING In the course of FORMATION of the PUBLIC DEBT of the SUBJECT of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION