scholarly journals Some issues of legal regulation (of the legal status) control and accounting bodies of municipalities

Author(s):  
Oleg Kozhevnikov

Almost three decades have passed since the appearance of the Law of the Russian Federation from 06.07.1991 No. 1550-1 «On local self-government in the Russian Federation». Over the past historical stage, the regulatory framework of local self-government and its bodies has significantly transformed: this applies to the concept of local self-government, territorial and organizational foundations, and of course the legal status of individual local self-government bodies. This article provides a comparative legal analysis of certain provisions of Federal law No. 131-FZ of 06.102.2003 «On General principles of local self-government organization in the Russian Federation» and Federal law No. 6-FZ of 07.02.2011 «On General principles of organization and activity of control and accounting bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation and municipalities» in the part concerning control and accounting bodies of municipalities. Based on the results of this analysis, significant contradictions were identified in the basic Federal normative legal acts regulating the legal status of the control and accounting body of a municipality, which need to be corrected by the Federal legislator in order to increase the level of unity and consistency in the legal regulation of the status of one of the most important bodies in the system of local self-government-the control and accounting body of a municipality.

Author(s):  
Денис Александрович Лобачев

В статье рассмотрены поправки к Конституции Российской Федерации, внесенные в отношении прокуратуры в основной закон страны в 2014 г., а также дана оценка новым поправкам, анонсированным Президентом России 15 января 2020 г. в ежегодном послании Федеральному Собранию и внесенным на рассмотрение в Государственную думу. Таким образом, ст. 129 Конституции Российской Федерации, посвященная прокуратуре, вероятнее всего, претерпит двойное изменение за последние шесть лет. Применение сравнительного правового анализа позволило выделить основные идеи, которые преследовал законодатель, закладывая изменения в гл. 7 и ст. 129 Конституции Российской Федерации. Поправки к Конституции Российской Федерации подтвердили то обстоятельство, что, во-первых, прокуратура за период существования основного закона сохранила свою самостоятельность в системе других органов власти и «востребованность» надзорных полномочий, во-вторых, закрепили статус прокуратуры в качестве самостоятельного органа власти, имеющего специфические полномочия в части осуществления надзора за другими субъектами. Состоявшиеся и предполагаемые поправки направлены на усиление роли Президента Российской Федерации, на расширение полномочий Совета Федерации в формировании кадрового состава органов прокуратуры, с одновременным «сокращением» полномочий Генерального прокурора Российской Федерации в этом вопросе. Согласно поправкам 2014 г. принцип единства и централизации в организации работы органов прокуратуры перестал иметь конституционную поддержку, что дало возможность мыслить о том, что данный принцип не имеет характера абсолютного жесткого правила в будущем и может быть видоизменен, например, путем ограничения его действия с одновременным расширением независимости и самостоятельности отдельно взятого прокурора. Сохранение ключевых принципов организации и деятельности прокуратуры лишь на уровне федерального закона создало определенно более легкие условия для их пересмотра, поскольку для этого не потребуется внесения изменений в основной закон страны. Однако согласно предполагаемым поправкам 2020 г. указанный принцип вновь обретает конституционное наполнение. В основной закон планируется вернуть положение, которое было упразднено в 2014 г., о том, что прокуратура Российской Федерации представляет собой единую федеральную централизованную систему органов. The article considers the amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation introduced in relation to the prosecutor’s office in the main law of the country in 2014, and also assesses the new amendments announced by the President of Russia on January 15, 2020 in the annual message to the Federal Assembly and submitted to the State new Duma. Thus, article 129 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, devoted to the prosecutor’s office, is likely to undergo a double change over the past six years. The use of comparative legal analysis made it possible to identify the main ideas that the legislator pursued, laying down the amendments to Chapter 7 and Article 129 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation confirmed the fact that, firstly, the prosecutor’s office during the period of the existence of the basic law retained its independence in the system of other authorities and the «demand» of supervisory powers, and secondly, they secured the status of the prosecutor’s office as an independent authority having specific powers regarding the supervision of other entities. The amendments that were held and proposed are aimed at strengthening the role of the President of the Russian Federation, expanding the powers of the Federation Council in the formation of the staff of the prosecution authorities, while at the same time «reducing» the powers of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation in this matter. According to the 2014 amendments, the principle of unity and centralization in the organization of the work of prosecution authorities ceased to have constitutional support, which made it possible to think that this principle does not have the character of an absolute rigid rule in the future and can be modified, for example, by limiting its effect while expanding its independence and a particular prosecutor independence. The preservation of the key principles of the organization and activities of the prosecutor’s office only at the level of federal law created definitely easier conditions for their revision, since this would not require amendments to the country's main law. However, according to the proposed amendments of 2020, this principle regains its constitutional content. It is planned to return to the main law the provision, which was abolished in 2014, that the prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation represents a single federal centralized system of bodies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-153
Author(s):  
I. V. Karavaev

The paper analyzes the legal regulation of detention in custody of persons confined on suspicion of committing a crime, as well as of persons in respect of whom a measure of restriction in the form of remand in custody was chosen. The norms of the Federal Law “On detention in custody of suspects and accused of committing crimes”, as well as the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation relating to these relations are considered. The differences between the two types of custody are investigated: “detention” and “remand in custody”. The author identifies six fundamental criteria underlying the difference between the two types of custody: the grounds for the detention; a person or body authorized to decide on detention in custody; duration of custody; custodial facility; legal status of persons in custody; grounds for release. It is concluded that it is necessary to revise the Federal Law "On detention in custody of suspects and accused of committing crimes", changing its structure on the basis that the law actually regulates two independent processes: taking into custody when detaining a person and detention in custody when choosing a measure of restriction in the form of remand in custody.


2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 179-188
Author(s):  
I. N. Chebotareva

The article is devoted to changes analysis made in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation by the Federal law No. 73-FZ of April 17, 2017 regarding strengthening of lawyer legal status in criminal legal proceedings. Additional guarantees of lawyer’s independence rendering qualified legal aid in criminal legal proceedings brought by this law are revised. It is possible to call this law "lawyer law" because it is devoted to questions of legal regulation improvement of lawyer’s status in criminal legal proceedings. And in fact is a reduction of existing Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in compliance with legal positions created by earlier Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. On the basis of changes analysis of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation conclusions on strengthening of guarantees of lawyer independence rendering legal aid in criminal legal proceedings and some critical remarks on the matter are stated. Three blocks of questions which cover changes are allocated: the introduction of the defender in criminal case, lawyer secret, and participation of the defender in proof. Changes concern the following questions: formal obstacles for the defender introduction in criminal trial are eliminated; interrogation of the lawyer is possible only according to the petition of protection side; the person called for questioning which isn't subject to interrogation doesn't acquire the status of witness; search, survey and dredging concerning the lawyer can be carried out only under the judgment at observance of established guarantees; additional guarantees in petition satisfaction declared by the lawyer are established; procedural funds of use of expert help are deposited by the defender.


Author(s):  
Аnna А. Sharapova

Исследуются отдельные вопросы правового статуса коренных малочисленных народов Российской Федерации и примеры судебной практики оспаривания реализации правомочий представителями коренных народов. Автор приводит сравнительный анализ понятия «коренные народы» в международном праве, «коренные малочисленные народы», «коренные малочисленные народы Се-вера, Сибири и Дальнего Востока Российской Федерации» в российском праве, обосновывает необходимость применения Декларации Организации Объединенных Наций о правах коренных народов 2007 г. как акта непосредственного действия. В статье описана система правового регулирования статуса коренных малочисленных народов, сделан вывод о её многоуровневости и сложности. Автор отмечает практическую невозможность распространить действие названного международного акта на все коренные народы, населяющие территорию России. В работе исследуется судебная практика как судов общей юрисдикции, так и принятое в 2019 г. По-становление Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации № 21-П по делу гражданина Щукина Г. К. Автор делает вывод, что выведенный конституционно-правовой смысл статьи 19 Федерального закона «Об охоте и о сохранении охотничьих ресурсов», которая наряду с другими законами и подзаконными актами имеет значение для закрепления правового статуса коренных малочисленных народов, поможет не только единообразному применению названного закона, но и послужит образцом для распространения его на иные сферы традиционного природопользования общин коренных малочисленных народов, рыболовство, которые регулируются другими федеральными законами. Помимо проблем реализации правомочий, вытекающих из статуса коренных малочисленных народов, в судебном по-рядке зачастую устанавливается факт принадлежности к коренному народу в связи с отсутствием в Российской Федерации единого документа, подтверждающего национальность. В этой связи позитивным, по мнению автора, следует признать принятие 06.02.2020 изменений в Федеральный закон № 82-ФЗ «О гарантиях прав коренных малочисленных народов Российской Федерации», которые устанавливают централизованную систему учёта представителей коренных малочисленных народов РФ. Этот акт пока не вступил в силу, настоящая статья впервые описывает новеллы законодательства. The article explores certain issues of the legal status of the small indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation and examples of judicial practice in exercising indigenous rights. The author makes the comparative analysis of the concept «indigenous people» of international law, «indigenous small-numbered peoples», «indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation» in Russian law, proves the necessity of applying the United Nations Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples of 2007 (UNDRIP) as the act of direct action. The article describes the system of the legal regulation of the status of small-numbered indigenous peoples, the author concludes about its complexity. The author notes the practical impossibility of extending the application of the said international act to all indigenous peoples who inhabit the territory of Russia. The work examines the judicial practice of both the courts of general jurisdiction and the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 21-P of 2019 in the case of citizen Schukin G.K. The author concludes that the constitutional and legal meaning of article 19 of the Federal Law "On Hunting and Conservation of Hunting Resources," which, together with other laws and regulations, is relevant to the legal status of small-numbered indigenous peoples, not only will the uniform application of the Act, but it will also serve as a model for extending to other areas of traditional environmental management of small-numbered indigenous communi-ties, fisheries regulated by the other federal laws. In addition to the problems of exercising the powers arising from the status of small-numbered indigenous peoples, the fact of belonging to an indigenous people is often established in court, because of the absence of the unified document confirming the nationality in the Russian Federation. In this regard as positive, according to the author, it is necessary to recognize acceptance on the 6th of February 2020 changes in federal law No. 82-FZ "About guarantees of the rights", which install the centralized system of accounting of representatives of indigenous small-numbered peoples of the Russian Federation. This act has not yet entered into force, but this article for the first time describes the innovations of the legislation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 111-115
Author(s):  
O. Kochetkov ◽  
V. Klochkov ◽  
A. Samoylov ◽  
N. Shandala

Purpose: Harmonization of the Russian Federation legislation with current international recommendations Results: The concept of the radiation safety system has been significantly modified by recommendations of ICRP (2007) and IAEA (2014). An analysis of existing international regulatory framework for radiation safety allowed to identify the main provisions to be implemented in the Russian legal and regulatory framework. It’s showed that the current Federal Law of 09.01.1996 No. 3-FZ «On Radiation Safety of Population» must be ultimately revised to be harmonized with international documents. General approaches to legal regulation of radiation safety should be essentially modified to create a strong relationship between this law and other regulatory and legal documents in force in the Russian Federation. Conclusion: An article-by-article analysis of the current Federal Law of 09.01.1996 No. 3-FZ «On Radiation Safety of Population « showed the need to modify 22 existing articles and add 12 new articles in order to harmonize it with international documents. Given such a large volume of modification it is advisable to pass a new law with simultaneous abolition of the current federal law. A new name has been proposed: Federal Law of the Russian Federation «On Radiation Safety in the Russian Federation». The enactment of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation «On Radiation Safety in the Russian Federation» with the main by-laws approved by the Russian Federation Government – «Radiation Safety Standards» and «Basic Rules for Ensuring Radiation Safety» – will allow to establish an actual regulatory framework for ensuring radiation safety of personnel and population in Russia.


Author(s):  
Игорь Ирхин ◽  
Igor Irkhin

This monograph comprehensively examines the constitutional and legal status of territories with a special status within the Federal States in the context of the Institute of territorial autonomy. The study is based on the experience of constitutional and legal regulation of the status of Autonomous districts in the "composite subjects" of the Russian Federation, administrative-territorial units with a special status in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, Autonomous districts in India, Nunavut territory in Canada, unincorporated territories of the United States This monograph is one of the first works in the domestic jurisprudence, in which the study was conducted from the perspective of territorial autonomy. The publication is intended for researchers, postgraduates and students, all readers interested in constitutional (public) law, theory of state and law.


Author(s):  
Andrei D. Bezuglov ◽  

Introduction. The constitutional and legal status of persons who are not citizens of Russia is directly related to their political, social, personal and economic rights and freedoms. This raises the problem of correctly determining the status of persons who do not have Russian citizenship due to the fact that the legislation contains many provisions covering the totality of legal relations related to the status of a foreign citizen and a stateless person, where the personal and social rights of a person do not depend on his / her citizenship of another state. Theoretical analysis. The article examines the content of the constitutional status of non-citizens on the territory of Russia. It follows from the content of the first chapter of the Constitution of the Russian Federation that the concept of personality includes any person who is both a citizen and a foreign citizen, or a stateless person, therefore, the rights and obligations established in relation to a person apply to non-citizens. Empirical analysis. The analysis of many rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation revealed that they are not related to citizenship and apply to all people, therefore, non-citizens should have the ability, enshrined at the constitutional level, to protect their rights in case of their violation by contacting state bodies and local self-government bodies. Results. Non-citizens enjoy the rights and bear obligations on the equal basis with the citizens of the Russian Federation, taking into account the peculiarities and restrictions established by federal laws and international treaties. There is a promising opportunity to improve Russian legislation by identifying an independent term of “non-citizens”, which will unite foreign citizens and stateless persons in order to implement comprehensive legal regulation for this category of persons.


Author(s):  
V. A. Fadeeva

The Institute of the Business Ombudsman in Russia has been functioning in the Russian Federation for more than eight years. His work is positively evaluated by the business community. The article outlines some issues of legal regulation of the status of the Business Ombudsman in Russia. The analysis of the indicators of the annual reports of the federal business Ombudsman allows us to draw a conclusion about the effectiveness and relevance of the institute under study. The author comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to further improve the legal regulation of the status of the federal business ombudsman.


2021 ◽  
pp. 5-8
Author(s):  
A.A. Korennaya

In this article, the author examines the issues of the criminal legal status of digital currency as an objectand as a means of committing a crime. In 2020, a special Federal law was adopted defining the legal status ofdigital assets, as well as amendments were made to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation concerning theestablishment of the legal status of cryptocurrency or digital currency in the terminology of these regulationsas an object of civil rights. Significant changes in the civil legal regulation of cryptocurrencies have led to achange in approaches to assessing the criminal legal status of virtual money. In particular, the recognitionof digital currency by other property has allowed solving a number of qualification issues, but until now,criminal law is very cautious about the official recognition of cryptocurrency as the subject of a crime. Theauthor of the work offers options for the qualification of crimes committed using digital currency, in theabsence of changes in the criminal law and explanations of the Highest Court.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 342
Author(s):  
Alexander Vasilyevich ZAVGORODNIY ◽  
Ilya Alexandrovich VASILYEV ◽  
Nelli Ivanovna DIVEEVA ◽  
Marina Valentinovna FILIPPOVA ◽  
Mikhail Mikhailovich KHARITONOV

In this article, we present the first generalization and analysis of decisions made by Russian courts of general jurisdiction from 2009 to 2016 for the application of provisions of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law of November 21, 2011 No. 323-FZ ʼOn the fundamentals of protecting the health of citizens in the Russian Federationʼ, the Federal Law of July 3, 2016 No. 238-FZ ʼOn independent qualification assessmentʼ, the Federal Law of December 29, 2013 No. 273-FZ ʼOn education in the Russian Federationʼ, the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 28, 2013 No. 966 ʼOn licensing educational activitiesʼ adopted to fulfill the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 7, 2012 No. 599 ʼAbout measures to implement the state policy in the sphere of education and scienceʼ in the field of advanced training and (or) professional training of employed population aged from 25 to 65 years. As a result, we have made several conclusions. Firstly, if periodical advanced training is a mandatory condition for admission to work (for example, for medical workers), then courts using separate methods of protecting rights of citizens (in particular, health care), should understand the consequences of these decisions. Secondly, the imposition of administrative sanctions in accordance with Part 3 of Article 19.20 of the Code of Administrative Offences due to the non-systematic increase in the professional level of educators recommends improving the algorithm for substantiating the gross violation of license requirements. Thirdly, the legal status of a person who has concluded an agreement on advanced training differs from that of an apprenticeship contract, and the guarantees for this person are not established by Articles 203-205 but rather Article 187 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, courts should not qualify a contract on advanced training as an apprenticeship contract. Fourthly, if advanced training is not designated for employees as additional qualification and an employer does not have the duty to pay for this training, then the resolution of a possible dispute should be based on whether the employer's interest is realized or not. Fifthly, the impossibility of an employee to work should be objective and compulsory, which is assessed by the law enforcer based on the balance of rights and interests of both parties of the corresponding employment contract. Sixthly, the legal regulation of the independent assessment of working qualification requires its improvement and alignment with norms of the labor legislation of the Russian Federation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document