scholarly journals Prohibitions for State Servants as a Corruption Prevention Area: A Brief Retrospective View and the Modern Status

Author(s):  
Nikolay G. Shurukhnov ◽  

The article defines the essence of corruption, lists prohibitions preventing corrupt behavior of public officers introduced by the Order of Alexander III of December 3, 1884. The author describes some restrictions imposed on the mentioned subjects by Federal Law No. 79-ФЗ of July 27, 2004, On the State Civil Service in the Russian Federation.

2021 ◽  
pp. 434-442
Author(s):  
A.Ya. Petrov

On the basis of the analysis of Art. 11 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation, Federal Law of July 27, 2004 No. 79-FZ “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation” and judicial practice, topical legal issues of the official discipline of State civil servants are considered.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 46-48
Author(s):  
A.G. Gurinovich ◽  

The article, from the standpoint of legal expediency and significance, examines the changes introduced in 2020 to Article 70 of the Federal Law ‘On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation’ including in order to minimize appeals of civil servants to the courts. The reasons for the introduction of these changes were investigated, the content of the new legal provisions was thoroughly analyzed, reasoned assessments of the latest decisions of the highest courts concerning such disputes were given, recommendations were formulated and substantiated for revising the long-established judicial practice of considering cases related to individual service disputes within the framework of civil procedural legislation in favor of special order, taking into account domestic realities and European experience.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 88-93
Author(s):  
K.N. Golikov ◽  

The subject of this article is the problems of the nature, essence and purpose of prosecutorial activity. The purpose of the article is to study and justify the role of the human rights function in prosecutorial activities in the concept of a modern legal state. At the heart of prosecutorial activity is the implementation of the main function of the Prosecutor’s office – its rights and freedoms, their protection. This means that any type (branch) of Prosecutor's supervision is permeated with human rights content in relation to a citizen, society, or the state. This is confirmed by the fact that the Federal law “On the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation” establishes an independent type of Prosecutor's supervision-supervision over the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms. It is argued that the legislation enshrines the human rights activities of the Prosecutor's office as its most important function. It is proposed to add this to the Law “On the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation”.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov

Currently, public hearings are one of the most widespread forms of deliberative municipal democracy in Russia. This high level of demand, combined with critique of legal regulations and the practices for bringing this system to reality – justified, in the meantime, by its development (for example, by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and the Public Chambers of the Russian Federation) of proposals for the correction of corresponding elements of the legal code – make both the study of Russian experiences in this sphere and comparative studies of legal regulations and practical usage of public hearings in Russia and abroad extremely relevant. This article is an attempt to make a contribution to this field of scientific study. If the appearance of public hearings in Russia as an institution of Russian municipal law is connected with the passing of the Federal Law of 6 October 2003 No.131-FZ, “On the general organisational principles of local government in the Russian Federation,” then in the United States, this institution has existed since the beginning of the 20th century, with mass adoption beginning in the 1960s. In this time, the United States has accumulated significant practical experience in the use of public hearings and their legal formulation. Both countries are large federal states, with their own regional specifics and diversity, the presence of three levels of public authority and different principles of federalism, which cause differences in the legal regulation of municipal public hearings. For this reason, this article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of Russian and American experiences of legal regulation and practical use of public hearings, on the example of several major municipalities – the cities of Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh and New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. A comparison of laws influencing the public hearing processes in these cities is advisable, given the colossal growth in the role of city centers in the industrial and post-industrial eras. Cities in particular are the primary centers for economic growth, the spread of innovations, progressive public policy and the living environment for the majority of both Russian and American citizens. The cities under research are one of the largest municipalities in the two countries by population, and on such a scale, the problem of involving residents in solving local issues is especially acute. In this context, improving traditional institutions of public participation is a timely challenge for the legislator, and the experiences of these cities are worth describing. The unique Russian context for legal regulations of public hearings involves the combination of overarching federal law and specific municipal decrees that regulate the hearing process. There are usually two municipal acts regulating public hearings on general issues of the city district (charter, budget, etc.) and separately on urban planning. In the United States, the primary regulation of public hearings is assigned to the state and municipality level, with a whole series of corresponding laws and statutes; meanwhile, methodological recommendations play a specific role in the organisation of hearings, which are issued by the state department of a given state. It is proposed that regulating the corresponding relationships at the federal subject level will permit a combination of the best practices of legal administration with local nuances, thereby reinforcing the guarantee of the realization of civil rights to self-government. There are other features in the process of organizing and conducting public hearings in the United States, which, as shown in the article, can be perceived by Russian lawmakers as well in order to create an updated construct of public discussions at the local level.


Author(s):  
I.V. Ponkin

Conclusion on the draft federal law № 986679-7 “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation”, introduced on July 10, 2020 to the State Duma of the Russian Federation by the Deputy of the State Duma P.V. Krasheninnikov and Senator of the Russian Federation A.A. Klishas.


Author(s):  
Irina Damm ◽  
Aleksey Tarbagaev ◽  
Evgenii Akunchenko

A prohibition for persons holding government (municipal) positions, for government (municipal) employees, and some other employees of the public sphere who are public officials to receive remuneration (gifts) is aimed at preventing bribery (Art. 290, 291, 291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and could be viewed as a measure of anti-corruption criminological security. However, the existing collisions of civil, administrative and criminal law norms that regulate this prohibition lead to an ongoing discussion in research publications and complexities in practice. The goal of this research is to study the conditions and identify the problems of the legal regulation of receiving remuneration (gifts) in connection with the performance of official duties that prevent the implementation of anti-corruption criminological security. The authors use the legal theory of security measures to analyze the provisions of Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Clause 6, Part 1, Art. 17 of the Federal Law «About the Public Civil Service in the Russian Federation», examine the doctrinal approaches to defining the priority of enforcing the above-mentioned norms, study the significant features of the category «ordinary gift» and conduct its evaluation from the standpoint of differentiating between gifts and bribes, also in connection with the criteria of the insignificance of the corruption deed. The empirical basis of the study is the decisions of courts of general jurisdiction. The authors also used their experience of working in Commissions on the observance of professional behavior and the resolution of conflicts of interests at different levels. The conducted research allowed the authors to come to the following fundamental conclusions: 1) the special security rule under Clause 6, Part 1, Art. 17 of the Federal Law «About the Public Civil Service in the Russian Federation», which sets a full prohibition for government employees to receive remuneration (gifts) in connection with the performance of official duties, contradicts Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the existing legal-linguistic vagueness of categories in Art. 575 of the CC of the RF leads to problems in law enforcement and makes a negative impact on the anti-corruption mentality of people); 2) as the concepts «gift» and «bribe» do not logically intersect, the development of additional normative legal criteria for their delineation seems to be unpromising and will lead to a new wave of scholastic and practical disagreements; 3) the introduction of a uniform and blanket ban on receiving remuneration (gifts) in the public sphere by eliminating Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the CC of the RF seems to be an effective measure of preventing bribery, and its application is justified until Russian society develops sustainable anti-corruption mentality.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 52-55
Author(s):  
P. R. Magomedova ◽  

The article analyzes the prerequisites for changing the legal status of the State Council of the Russian Federation, analyzes the Federal Law "On the State Council of the Russian Federation" dated December 8, 2020 No. 394-FZ and studies the changes that came into force in the light of the constitutional reforms of 2020. According to this Law, the State Council of the Russian Federation should become a real mechanism of public power in Russia, while remaining an advisory body and a platform for coordinating the interests of the regions and the center. The author conducted a comparative analysis of the State Council, which acted in accordance with the Presidential Decree of 2000, and the law adopted in 2020. Based on the conducted research, the author concludes that the amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation adopted in 2020 are timely and necessary in order to restore the existing government.


Author(s):  
Ксения Горшкова ◽  
Ksenia Gorshkova ◽  
Сергей Желонкин ◽  
Sergey Zhelonkin

Introduction. In the present work, the authors investigated the main aspects of the reform of procedural legislation initiated by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation concerning changes in the legal regulation of the use of conciliation procedures in resolving legal conflicts. Until recently, Russian legislation did not have a regulated list of conciliation procedures. Purpose. The aim of the work is to identify the features and place of conciliation procedures in the institute of alternative ways to resolve legal conflict. Methodology. The work was performed on the basis of special methods of knowledge, including historical, legal, logical, and formally legal. Results. The paper analyzes the results of consideration of the draft Federal Law No. 421600-7 “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Due to Improving Conciliation Procedures” in the first reading by the State Duma of the Russian Federation, taking into account the opinion of the relevant committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation on state construction and legislation which caused a wide resonance in the Russian legal community. It is concluded that the world experience in applying reconciliation procedures, indicating a positive dynamic in the peaceful resolution of legal disputes, is also spreading within the framework of the Russian legal system. In the framework of the Russian judicial procedure, two fundamental conciliation procedures were consolidated – the mediation procedure and the judicial conciliation procedure. The introduction of special subjects (intermediaries) as judicial conciliators for the settlement of disputes in court is aimed at reducing the workload of judges, its concise and effective distribution. Conclusion. The material contained in the work is of interest for further research on the problems of alternative ways of resolving a legal conflict, can be used when giving lectures and conducting practical training in the course of the civil process


2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 194-201
Author(s):  
Sergey P. Koval’ ◽  
Oksana Yu. Taibova ◽  
Mikhail Yu. Tsvetkov

The article examines theoretical issues related to understanding and important problems of legal regulation of the institution of conflict of interest in the state and municipal service, it analyses the category of “personal interest of an employee”, and also conducts a comparative study of the application of administrative and disciplinary responsibility to a civil servant in this conflict situations. The activity of the commissions on compliance with the requirements for official behaviour of civil servants is analysed. The authors analyse the specifics of the conflict of interest based on the current legislation. Particular attention is paid to the issues of increasing the efficiency of practical activities of state bodies to identify and prevent these conflicts. Gaps in the provisions of the laws of the Russian Federation related to conflicts of interest are investigated. There are proposals for the effective resolution of conflict situations in the civil service. Analysing the changes in the legislation of the Russian Federation, considering the opinions of scientists on combating corruption, the authors draw their own conclusions. The key position of the authors on this issue is that improving the measures of legal responsibility of civil servants in a situation of conflict of interest is a necessary task of the science of administrative law, an effective means of preventing offences and strengthening executive discipline in the state apparatus.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document