scholarly journals State council in the light of the 2020 constitutional reforms

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.

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-203
Author(s):  
М. N. Kobzar-Frolova

The entry into force of the Law of the Russian Federation on the amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the qualitative changes that were made to the text of the latter led to legislative activity. Laws were adopted, reflecting the changes made to the text of the Constitution, and containing new and / or little-studied terms, concepts, phenomena. Special attention of scientists and researchers was attracted by the Federal Law “On the State Council of the Russian Federation”, which came into force in December 2020, which for the first time legalized such terms as “public power”, “unified system of public power”, etc. The position is also of interest, expressed in the conclusion of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 16, 2020 No. 1-З in connection with the request of the President of the Russian Federation. It became necessary to give explanations and Author’s comments on the positive law of the country caused by these novelties. The term “public authority” is not a novelty for Russian legal science, but it has not been widely studied, and in connection with legislative changes it acquires new qualities, characteristics that need explanation and justification. The legislator provides an extensive definition of these terms. This makes it necessary to comprehend their essence, highlight the main elements of the public power system and demonstrate their political and legal ties, as well as the forms of interaction that take place in the public law regulation of relations between the subjects (elements) of a unified system of public power. Purpose: to investigate the essence of the concepts of “public power”, “unified system of public power”, to identify the characteristic features of the concept of “unified system of public power”. Among the main tasks: to show the political and legal ties and forms of interaction that arise between the subjects (elements) of a single system of public authority. Methods: logical, analytical, comparative legal, dialectical methods, allowing to reveal the essence, internal connections and the ratio of concepts enshrined in the federal law “On the State Council of the Russian Federation”, to reveal the features of a unified system of public authority. Results: state authorities are listed that correspond to the characteristics specified by the legislator, political and legal ties and forms of interaction that arise between the subjects (elements) of a unified system of public authority are identified, conclusions corresponding to the study are drawn.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 57-74
Author(s):  
O. A. Kozhevnikov ◽  
A. V. Bezrukov ◽  
A. N. Meshcheryakov

The subject of research is social relations concerning the constitutional transformation of the State Council of the Russian Federation into the format of a constitutional state body, it’s tasks and functions in the unified system of public power. The aim of the research is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that the Russian State Council is a constitutional state body that ensures the coordinated functioning and interaction of authorities in the unified system of public power.The methodological basis of the research includes historical, comparative legal, formal legal methods, legal modeling and forecasting. The research is based on existing and historical legal acts, materials of judicial practice, as well as on the works of leading national lawyers.The main results, scope of application. The authors substantiate concept of the constitutional status of the Russian State Council as a completely new constitutional state body, formed on the basis of modern national principles of state building, taking into account the existing constitutional practice. Main task of the State Council is exercising the constitutional powers of the Russian President to ensure the coordinated functioning and interaction of public authorities, the definition of the main directions of national and foreign policy of the state. The article provides a critical analysis of the goals, tasks, functions of the Russian State Council, the decisions it makes, as a result of which a number of conflicts in the regulation of its constitutional-legal status are revealed. Some proposals to improve legislation and law enforcement practice aimed at solving of the discovered contradictions are made. Current constitutional of the State Council is a result of the constitutional amendments of 2020 in the Russian Constitution and innovations in the Federal Law on the State Council of the Russian Federation. The authors substantiate the idea that the consolidation of a new constitutional position of the State Council can be considered as a process of forming a completely new state body, designed to ensure the coordinated functioning and interaction of bodies included in the unified public system. A comparative legal analysis of the constitutional legislation on State Councils in foreign countries showed that despite the same name the status and functions of these state institutions differ greatly in different countries, therefore any comparative study of them will be unreliable.Conclusions. The Russian State Council has competence, functions of a state power character, take decisions signed by the President of the Russian Federation and therefore have a generally binding character. So it has the characteristics of a public authority. The Russian State Council is a new constitutional and legal structure - a constitutional state body created in order to implement the constitutional powers of the Russian President to ensure the coordinated functioning and interaction of other bodies (that are part of the unified system of public authority) and to determine the main directions of domestic and foreign policy of the state.


Author(s):  
Olga A. TEPLYAKOVA ◽  
Artem A. Kostyukov

The article provides a brief analysis of the legal status of the advisory bodies operating in the Russian Federation. In particular, the article analyzes the provisions of regulatory legal acts governing the activities of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, the State Council of the Russian Federation, as well as the Council of Control and Accounting Bodies under the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation as a special advisory body existing within the structure of external state and municipal financial control bodies. The status of constitutional advisory bodies is considered separately, including in the context of current changes in Russian legislation. In addition, the author notes the interconnection of the implementation problems of the separation principle of powers both in the corresponding classification context of state bodies, and in relation to the determination of the advisory legal status bodies, their place in the public authority system of the Russian Federation. An assumption is also made regarding a number of provisions of the draft law which is under consideration by the State Duma of the Russian Federation in the status terms of the State Council decisions of the Russian Federation. Public chambers and Public councils are separated into a separate group of advisory bodies. In the study of the issue, classical general scientific methods of cognition were used, in particular: analysis, generalization and synthesis. The authors also applied a modern synergistic approach that is increasingly used in social science research. The conclusion is made that at present there is a growing need for more comprehensive and in-depth studies of the advisory bodies institute of the Russian Federation, in particular, devoted to the issues of their classification and typology, both due to the increasing importance of these bodies in the public administration system, and due to the number of criteria for using these methods.


2020 ◽  
pp. 211-222
Author(s):  
Александр Сергеевич Якунин

Статья раскрывает правовые возможности, условия и основания возвращения имущества религиозного назначения религиозным организациям, находящегося в государственной собственности в пространстве юридического законодательства РФ. Наиболее перспективный и быстрый путь получения информации о проблемах в области передачи имущества религиозного назначения - это изучение законодательства Российской Федерации о правовом положении имущества религиозного назначения. А именно Федерального закона от 30.11.2010 № 327¬ФЗ «О передаче религиозным организациям имущества религиозного назначения, находящегося в государственной или муниципальной собственности». Данный закон предоставил особенные права религиозным организациям в сфере имущественных отношений. Практика применения данного Федерального закона накоплена и составляет на сегодняшний день 10 лет. И даже сегодня органы власти сталкиваются с религиозными организациями по многим трудноразрешимым вопросам при реализации предоставленных прав Федеральным законом № 327¬ФЗ от 30.11.2010 «О передаче религиозным организациям имущества религиозного назначения, находящегося в государственной или муниципальной собственности». Анализ данного законопроекта может дать подробную информацию по рассматриваемой теме. Какое имущество относится к имуществу религиозного назначения? Какие основные проблемы в реализации законодательства о передаче религиозным организациям имущества религиозного назначения? Какие основные критерии отказа в передаче религиозной организации имущества в собственность или в безвозмездное пользование? В данной статье будет предпринята попытка ответить на эти и другие вопросы. The article reveals the legal possibilities, conditions and bases for the return of religious property, which isowned by the state and subjected to the jurisdiction of the Russian Federationto religious organizations. The most promising and quick way to get information about the problems of the transfer of religious property is studying the legislation of the Russian Federation concerning the legal status of religious property owned by the state or municipality, specifical ly the Federal law № 327FZ of 30.11.2010 «About thetransfer of state or municipal property for religious purposes to religious organizations». This law grants special rights to religious organi zations in the sphere of property relations. There have been many cases of applying this Federal law, which is currently 10 years old. But until now the state authorities have facedmany difficult is sues with religious organizations, trying to implement the rights granted by Federal law № 327FZ of 30.11.2010 «About the transfer of state or municipal property for religious purposes to reli gious organizations». An analysis of this draft law can provide detailed information about the top ic in question. What property is classified as religious property? What are the main problems im plementing the law of the transfer of religious property to religious organizations? What are the main criteria for refusing such transfer of property for ownership or gratuitous use to a religious organization? This article attempts to answer these and other questions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 35-41
Author(s):  
M. M. Stepanov

Local self-government in modern Russia was revived in the early 1990s. The legislation then in force was aimed at separating local self-government from the system of state authorities and ensuring its autonomy. The independence of local self-government was also established by the 1993 Constitution of Russia. As a follow-up to the provisions of the Constitution, the Federal Law dated 06 Oct 2003 No. 131-FZ “On General Principles of the Organization of Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation” was adopted. The Federal Law initiated the reform of local self-government aimed at improving the efficiency of local self-government bodies as an independent level of the public power most closely associated with the population. However, the municipal power is now radically different from that created in those years. This is primarily preconditioned by the lack of the necessary amount of its own revenue necessary to enable the municipal power to exercise its authority independently. The majority of municipalities need state assistance and interbudgetary transfers. The necessity to exercise control over the state budget spendings has led to the fact that the main trend in the development of local self-government in Russia was its integration into the vertical of public power. The legal crystallization of this process was carried out by amending the current legislation, especially the Federal Law No. 131-FZ dated 06 Oct 2003. The Constitutional Reform of 2020 has legitimized these changes.


Author(s):  
Sergey S. Starikov ◽  

Introduction. During the constitutional reform of 2020, part 1 of Article 67 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation was supplemented with a provision on the possibility of creating federal territories. In this regard, questions need to be resolved about how the constitutional novel should relate to the principles of federalism established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and what the principles for the creation of federal territories in Russia are. Theoretical analysis. The creation of federal territories in the Russian Federation should take place subject to strict compliance with the principle of state integrity, the principle of equality and self-determination of the peoples of Russia; the principle of unity of the public power system; the principle of priority of individual rights and freedoms, their recognition, observance and protection by the state; the principle of compliance with the goals of the formation of federal territories with the strategic interests of the Russian Federation. Empirical analysis. It is revealed that the current version of Part 1 of Article 67 of the Constitution, firstly, establishes the possibility of creating federal territories as a new type of public legal territory, secondly, provides for a special organization of public power in these territories, different from the generally accepted organization operating on the territory of the subjects of the Russian Federation, and, thirdly, defines the constitutional and legal mechanism for their creation: the adoption of a federal law. This norm does not specify the types of federal territories and the possible goals of their creation. These issues are fully attributed to the discretionary powers of the Russian Parliament. Results. Based on the analysis of the scientific literature devoted to the problems of federal territories in Russia and abroad, and the legislation of the Russian Federation, the definition can be formulated: federal territory is a public legal entity that has a special constitutional and legal status determined by national strategic significance, created in accordance with a regulatory act providing for direct or indirect management of it by the federal government, defining the specifics of the exercise of public power in accordance with the goals of creation, additional guarantees and restrictions on the rights and freedoms of citizens.


Author(s):  
Ilia Pavlovich Mikhnev ◽  
Svetlana Vladimirovna Mikhneva

The article discusses the competences and powers of the state authorities of the Russian Federation within their legal status in the field of ensuring the security of critical information infrastructure. Some functions and authorities in the field of information security have changed in a number of federal executive bodies. In particular, the Federal Security Service, on the basis of a presidential decree, is authorized to create a state system for detecting, preventing and eliminating the consequences of computer attacks on information resources of the Russian Federation. However, not all rights and obligations are enshrined; a number of powers cause the duality of the legal status of certain federal bodies of state power. The clarity and unambiguity of securing the rights and obligations of state bodies authorized in the field of information security are guarantees for effectively ensuring the security of important information infrastructure facilities.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document