scholarly journals Individual and Authorities: Principle of Sustaining Citizens’ Trust to the Law and Actions of the State

2019 ◽  
pp. 143-158
Author(s):  
Alexey Semitko
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Social Conventions ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
The Public ◽  
Russian Constitution ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

The paper analyzes the principle of sustaining citizen’s trust to the law and actions of the state in the system of individual / authorities relations. This principle is introduced into the Russian legal system by rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation possessing the legal force of the Russian Constitution. However, the Supreme Law itself does not feature this property in the text. It is accordingly required – which is the purpose of this paper – to study this principle’s notion, content, nature, character, scope and place in the system of other legal principles, including those established in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, some of which are referenced by the Court in its rulings to justify the identification of the analyzed principle. To solve the above tasks, methods of interpreting official legal texts were applied (systemic, special legal and logical methods), as well as the anthropological approach. It is established that the researched principle is a general legal (universal) principle that stands on its own in the system of principles and is associated with the need for the whole state’s activity to comply with the established value, moral and ideological beliefs, generally accepted social conventions, etc., i.e. society’s legitimate expectations, which defines its scope and applicability. The recognition and respect of human dignity is central in society’s legitimate expectations from the state as it implements its activities. The latter requirement is fundamental for this principle and the public trust to state’s activities that is shaped during its realization; at the same time, such requirement is a criterion of how aligned state’s actions are with the society’s legitimate expectations. The novelty of this approach rests on identifying closely interconnected grounds, features, content and scope of the researched principle.

scholarly journals A Rational Model of the Constitutional Regulation

Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 70-82
Author(s):  
A. A. Liverovskiy
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
The State ◽  
The Body ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Natural Origin ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

25 years of influence of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on public relations in our State has radically changed the idea of the Constitution and Constitutional Law. Admission of the Constitution of the Russian Federation by the society marked the formal recognition of social values spelled out in the Constitution and the nature of the legal principles implementing these values that are generally recognized by international law. The system of constitutional principles of natural origin became the basis for the constitutional regulation of social relations. The natural origin of legal principles means that they emerged in legal reality as a result of rational activity of a man, not only in terms of legitimizing the natural rights inherent in the man from birth, but also within the framework of their corrective impact on state regimes in light of promotion of civil rights and human freedoms. The natural origin of the constitutional principles gives an objective character to the constitutional regulation, and their predetermination and supremacy in relation to the influence of the legislative activity of the State power allows to create a constructive dichotomy of the constitutional and legislative regimes. In the theoretical and legal sense, constitutional principles as regulators of social relations constitute the “law of the Constitution”. Its fundamental part consists of the basic constitutional principles that determine the foundations of the constitutional system. The paper defines the mechanism of influence of constitutional principles on public relations that is different from the normative regulation: constitutional principles, in contrast to the norms acting in full compliance with their content, act in accordance with a a certain detectable extent of its content. Legal development of constitutional regulation arises from the interpretation of constitutional principles by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Resolving cases with regard to the constitutionality of normative legal acts, the body of constitutional justice creates legal stances — new constitutional regulators of social relations that not only correct the constitutional development of the State, but also are the law-making characteristics of the decisions. Using the construction of constitutional regulation, the author proposes an actual understanding of the problem of constitutional identity.

scholarly journals Local Self-Government in the Public Government System: A New Constitutional Dimension

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 23-26
Author(s):  
Oleg A. Kozhevnikov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Public Power ◽  
The Public ◽  
System A ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

The article analyzes certain provisions of the Law of the Russian Federation on the amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation of March 14, 2020 No. 1-FKZ “On improving the regulation of certain issues of the organization and functioning of public power” in terms of regulatory regulation of local self-government. According to the analysis the author comes to the conclusion that with the entry into effect of the mentioned legal act the content of individual elements of the constitutional-legal bases of local self-government will change, but the nature and scope of modifications in many respects will depend on the provisions of the rules of sectoral legislation aimed at implementing the relevant provisions of the Constitution. In this regard, the Federal legislator has a huge responsibility to create an “updated” legal framework for the implementation of the constitutional foundations of local self-government, taking into account the already established law enforcement practice, the positions of the constitutional court of the Russian Federation, as well as the state's international obligations under the European Charter on local self-government.

Local government in Russia: de jure and de facto

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 103-121
Author(s):  
Olesya L. Kazantseva
Keyword(s):  
Local Government ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Great Influence ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Russian Constitution ◽  
Legal Competence ◽  
The Russian Federation

The analysis of the RF Federal Law of 6 October 2003 No 131-FZ, which enshrines the general principles of the organization of local self-government in the Russian Federation, demonstrates the consistent introduction of amendments aimed at restricting the autonomy of local self-government, which clearly contradicts the constitutional provisions on local self-government. In this regard, it seems necessary to determine the presence of the lower level of public authority (local self-government), for which it is necessary to reveal the conformity of the modern realities of local self-government with constitutional provisions and normative legal acts adopted for their development, that is, correlate de jure and de facto. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the highest constitutional justice body, has a great influence on the formation of local self-government in the Russian state. It forms the legal position on the organizational, legal, competence, territorial, financial and economic foundations of local self-government. In this regard, researchers are interested in the legal positions of the RF Constitutional Court regarding the autonomy of local self-government and its relations with state authorities, which have undergone significant changes throughout the entire period of reforming local self-government. Based on the analysis of changes in the legislation on local self-government and the legal positions of the RF Constitutional Court, this article shows the inconsistency of local self-government at the present stage of its development. Thus, the author proves that there are no working mechanisms for the implementation of local self-government by the population. This article concludes that the current situation requires special attention and attitude from the state, since without purposeful changes in the state policy in the sphere of local self-government it is impossible to preserve such postulates enshrined in the Russian Constitution, as democracy and local government.

scholarly journals Constitutional status of federal territories in Russia: theoretical foundations of legislative regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-140
Author(s):  
N. V. Vasilieva ◽  
S. V. Praskova ◽  
Yu. V. Pyatkovskaya
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Complex Analysis ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
Russian Constitution ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Moment

The subject of the study is the constitutional concept of federal territories in Russia. The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that constitutional status of federal territories in Russia consists of system of elements and identify such elements. The authors use the method of formal legal interpretation of Russian Constitution, the methods of comparative constitutional law, complex analysis, systemic interpretation of Russian laws and drafts of laws. The main results of research, scope of application. When making an amendment to part 1 of Article 67 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the content of this innovation was not disclosed. Therefore the federal law on federal territories will be of decisive importance. The authors define the constitutional characteristics of the federal territories based on the literal content of the constitutional norm and the conclusion of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The federal territory is an element of the state territory that is not a subject of the federal structure and has a status different from the status of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. There are specific features of the organization of public power in federal territory. The authors’ vision of the content of each of the elements of the federal territories is presented. It is noted that the defining element of the status of federal territories will be the purpose of their creation. The authors propose a conceptual division of federal territories in Russia into two types: inhabited and uninhabited. It is stated that at the moment, the status elements can be clearly defined only in relation to uninhabited federal territories. The formation of the concept of inhabited federal territories will depend on definition of the purpose of their creation. Conclusions. It is proposed to consider the elements of the status of federal territories in Russia, based on the elements of the status of the subject of the Russian Federation, and in comparison with them. Such elements are: territory, population, subjects of jurisdiction, responsibilities, state power organization, property and budget, system of taxes and fees, names and symbols, population’s role in the state affairs management.

scholarly journals The System of Public Authorities of the Russian Federation: Concept, Characteristics, Interaction

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-203
Author(s):  
М. N. Kobzar-Frolova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Council ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public Power ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

CONTRADICTION TO THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AS A GROUND FOR CANCELLATION OF THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRATION COURT AND REFUSAL TO ISSUE A WRIT OF EXECUTION

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 140-158
Author(s):  
V.V. MOLCHANOV
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
The Public ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Russian Law

The contradiction with the public order of the Russian Federation is an unconditional basis for cancellation of the decision of the arbitration court and refusal to issue a writ of execution. What is meant by the public policy? There is no definition in the legislation. According to the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation under the public policy are understood the fundamental legal principles (principles) having the highest imperative and universality. Study and analysis of the practice of consideration and resolution of cases about the cancellation of arbitration court decisions and refusal to issue writs of execution by arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction shows that the content of the concept of public policy in view of the abstract nature of normativity, inherent in the concept of fundamental principles of Russian law, is interpreted by judicial practice very widely. Since establishing in what cases the decision of an arbitration court violates the fundamental principles of Russian law, and hence the public policy of the Russian Federation, refers to the discretion of the court considering the case, and the boundaries of application of this ground for reversal of decision are determined by the discretion of the court in the context of the specific circumstances of the case. The article also concludes that the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which lies in the fact that since the arbitration courts do not exercise judicial power and are not part of the judicial system of the Russian Federation, the state courts are not empowered to verify the legality of decisions of arbitration courts, which involves identifying the correctness of interpretation and application of law by the court of arbitration, must be understood systematically. According to the author, it is necessary to take into account that the function of state courts to control arbitration proceedings consists, among other things, in ensuring compliance of the results of arbitration proceedings with fundamental legal values, which include the legality of decisions rendered by arbitration courts in terms of interpretation and application of rules of law.

scholarly journals Implementation of the Transformed Constitutional Model of Local Self-Government in Russia: First Steps

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 30-40
Author(s):  
Olga I. Bazhenova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Municipal Government ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Reform Period ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
State And Local ◽  
New System

The paper contains an analysis of the key amendments to Chapter 8 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The author emphasizes the fact that the constitutional foundation for the establishment of municipal government in the state is based not only on the principle of the unity of the public government system, which is now directly consolidated by the Constitution (Part 3 of Article 132), but requires a combination with the principle of independence of local self-government (Articles 3, 12 of the Constitution); this combination leads to building of a new system of interrelations between the state and local self-government. An important role in building of these interrelations within the framework of the transformed constitutional model of municipal government is allocated to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the legal positions it has expressed earlier, during the pre-reform period.

The Nature of the Russian Trial by Jury

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-133
Author(s):  
Nikolai Kovalev ◽  
Alexander Smirnov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Political Role ◽  
Majority Decision ◽  
Jury Trials ◽  
Russian Constitution ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Raison D’État

This paper explores the legal and political role of the jury system in contemporary Russia. It aims to examine whether trial by jury is an essential right of Russian citizens (jurata patriae) or, rather, a prerogative of the state (raison d’état). The main focus of the paper is the analysis of the Russian Constitution and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In particular, the authors consider a recent majority decision of the Constitutional Court, which uphold the constitutionality of the law that abolished jury trials for terrorist, espionage and other crimes against the state.

Human Rights Activities as a Function of the Prosecutor’s Office

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 88-93
Author(s):  
K.N. Golikov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
Main Function ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

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”.

Public hearings as an institution of deliberative democracy in major Russian and American cities

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
The Russian Federation

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