К вопросу о принципе справедливости административного судопроизводства
The principle of justice of administrative proceedings as a
procedural principle should have its own specific content.
Without this content, the courts cannot apply this principle
in administrative cases. Comparison of the possible content
of the principle of justice with the principles of legality and
equality and analysis of the possibility of disclosure of the
principle of justice through the characteristics of consideration
(through the active role of the court and the distribution of the
burden of proof) and resolution (identification with the means
of checking the administrative discretion) of administrative
cases show that the principle of justice does not have its
procedural content and does not bear any meaning that allows
to apply it in administrative proceedings.
The article is devoted to administrative discretion in the economic sphere.The directions of public administration reform in the context of the "recovery" of the Russian bureaucracy and opposition to administrative discretion are indicated. Approaches to the understanding of administrative discretion in the pre-revolutionary and modern doctrine are presented. The analysis of the administrative and judicial practices is given.
The article discusses the features of challenging legal acts and decisions of state authorities in accordance with the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation. Unfortunately, many modern problems of administrative legal proceedings are historically predetermined by the peculiarities of Russian legislation, which were laid down during the Soviet period. Two years later, the established law enforcement practice of the CAS RF allows for an analysis and preliminary assessments of the main trends (trends) in the development of both legislation and the practice of administrative legal proceedings.
In the article questions of administrative discretion are considered. The historical analogies in the doctrinal approaches to the definition of the nature and content of administrative discretion in the Russian Empire and in modern Russia are carried out. Factors influencing the balance of rights and discretions in various epoches of historical development of the Russian state are identified.
The article examines the ambiguous rule set forth in Article 17 of the Criminal code of Russia, which lists cases when commitment of two or more crimes envisaged as ground for a more severe punishment should be considered as impediment to multiplicity of crimes. Emphasis is made on analysis of the approaches described in the Supreme courts of Russia rulings in relation to the topic.
The article discusses the features of challenging legal acts and decisions of state authorities in accordance with the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation.The author explores the new requirements for evidence and proof. By analogy with the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the Code establishes that the named authorities, organizations and officials must prove the legality of the adopted normative acts, decisions, actions (inaction) of bodies, organizations and officials
The article seeks to depart the traditional interpretation of administrative discretion as choice (freedom of choice) between one of the given options for the law enforcement (individual) act. Administrative discretion is seen as a complex legal phenomenon, used not only in law enforcement, but also in rule-making. Its definition is provided as a certain "reflection" of the initial state of regulated managment relations, an understanding of the current situation (requiring managerial resolution), and consideraton of the current sate of affairs at the time of the decision-making and, furthermore, as the assumptions and anticiation of he impact the decision made on the development of regulations related by the managements act.
The article is devoted to a particular form of freedom of assembly — the right to counter-demonstrate. The author underlines the value of this right as an element of democratic society, but also acknowledges the risk of violent actions among participants of opposing demonstrations. Due to this risk, the government may adopt adequate measures restricting the right to counter-demonstrate, certain types of which are analyzed in this paper.
Development of standards of international controllability is reviewed in the article. Institutional approach is applied to development of international legal regime of Energy Charter. Definition of controllability is connected to development of international standards of dispute settlement, which are described in the article in detail. In connection with controllability, Russian interest, defense of investment in European Union and ecological investment encouragement, is reviewed in the article.
мировое управление и управляемость, Мировая экономика, международное экономическое право, энергетическая хартия, International control and controllability, International economics, international economic law, Energy Charter
международное частное право; недвижимость; ; школа бартолистов; бартолисты; теория статутов; статуарная теория/