Ending the Discussion on the Understanding of the Administrative Process

Yury P. Solovey
{"title":"Ending the Discussion on the Understanding of the Administrative Process","authors":"Yury P. Solovey","doi":"10.19073/2658-7602-2021-18-3-359-378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A discussion that has been going on for decades in the Russian legal doctrine about the understanding of the administrative process, according to one of its most active participants, Professor Yu. N. Starilov – a supporter of the judicial interpretation of the administrative process, has lost its meaning today and only hinders the adoption of overdue legal decisions. From the point of view of the named specialist, the legislator must put an end to this discussion by forcing legal scholars and practitioners to use the “correct” terms. In this regard, as the purpose of the presented research the Author has chosen to clarify the issue of the existence of legal grounds for a clear and unambiguous understanding of the administrative process, to determine the content of this legal concept. The subject of the research is legal norms and judicial acts, which use “administrative-procedural” terminology. The hypothesis of the research is that at present there are necessary and sufficient legal grounds to complete the discussion in the legal doctrine on the understanding of the administrative process. To prove the hypothesis and formulate the conclusions of the study, dialectical, formal-logical, formal-legal, comparative legal methods of cognition, the method of interpreting law, and analysis of materials of judicial practice are used. The study makes it possible to conclude that the current domestic legislation provides for the necessary and sufficient legal basis for understanding the Russian administrative process as a legal concept, meaningfully consisting of three parts: a) administrative judicial proceedings; b) proceedings on cases of administrative offenses; c) administrative process (administrative procedures). Hence, the scientific discussion about the understanding of the Russian administrative process, first of all, about the content of this legal concept, should be considered complete in the Author’s opinion. As one of the results of the study, the Author also notes the dualistic nature of the administrative process, given to it by Russian legislation and expressed in the existence of administrative judicial proceedings (carried out by a court) and an administrative out-of-court process (carried out by the public administration). This circumstance must certainly be taken into account when developing future administrative procedural legislative decisions. At the same time, the doctrinal recognition of the status of administrative procedural for the relevant activities of the public administration, to a much greater extent than the qualification of such activities as administrative and procedural, advocated by the followers of the judicial concept of administrative process, will contribute to the implementation of the idea of protection in the federal law on administrative proceedings (administrative procedures) being drafted of human and civil rights in relations with public administration and, in general, ensuring an appropriate level of proceduralization of administrative activities that meets the standards of a legal state.","PeriodicalId":33294,"journal":{"name":"Sibirskoe iuridicheskoe obozrenie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sibirskoe iuridicheskoe obozrenie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19073/2658-7602-2021-18-3-359-378","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A discussion that has been going on for decades in the Russian legal doctrine about the understanding of the administrative process, according to one of its most active participants, Professor Yu. N. Starilov – a supporter of the judicial interpretation of the administrative process, has lost its meaning today and only hinders the adoption of overdue legal decisions. From the point of view of the named specialist, the legislator must put an end to this discussion by forcing legal scholars and practitioners to use the “correct” terms. In this regard, as the purpose of the presented research the Author has chosen to clarify the issue of the existence of legal grounds for a clear and unambiguous understanding of the administrative process, to determine the content of this legal concept. The subject of the research is legal norms and judicial acts, which use “administrative-procedural” terminology. The hypothesis of the research is that at present there are necessary and sufficient legal grounds to complete the discussion in the legal doctrine on the understanding of the administrative process. To prove the hypothesis and formulate the conclusions of the study, dialectical, formal-logical, formal-legal, comparative legal methods of cognition, the method of interpreting law, and analysis of materials of judicial practice are used. The study makes it possible to conclude that the current domestic legislation provides for the necessary and sufficient legal basis for understanding the Russian administrative process as a legal concept, meaningfully consisting of three parts: a) administrative judicial proceedings; b) proceedings on cases of administrative offenses; c) administrative process (administrative procedures). Hence, the scientific discussion about the understanding of the Russian administrative process, first of all, about the content of this legal concept, should be considered complete in the Author’s opinion. As one of the results of the study, the Author also notes the dualistic nature of the administrative process, given to it by Russian legislation and expressed in the existence of administrative judicial proceedings (carried out by a court) and an administrative out-of-court process (carried out by the public administration). This circumstance must certainly be taken into account when developing future administrative procedural legislative decisions. At the same time, the doctrinal recognition of the status of administrative procedural for the relevant activities of the public administration, to a much greater extent than the qualification of such activities as administrative and procedural, advocated by the followers of the judicial concept of administrative process, will contribute to the implementation of the idea of protection in the federal law on administrative proceedings (administrative procedures) being drafted of human and civil rights in relations with public administration and, in general, ensuring an appropriate level of proceduralization of administrative activities that meets the standards of a legal state.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结束对行政程序认识的讨论
据最活跃的参与者之一于教授说,在俄罗斯法律学说中,对行政程序的理解已经进行了几十年的讨论。N. Starilov - -行政程序的司法解释的支持者- -在今天已经失去了它的意义,而且只妨碍通过过期的法律决定。从被点名的专家的角度来看,立法者必须通过强迫法律学者和从业者使用“正确”的术语来结束这种讨论。在这方面,作为本研究的目的,作者选择澄清是否存在法律依据的问题,以便明确和毫不含糊地了解行政程序,以确定这一法律概念的内容。本文的研究对象是使用“行政程序”术语的法律规范和司法行为。本研究的假设是,目前有必要和充分的法律依据来完成对行政程序理解的法理讨论。为了证明研究的假设和形成研究的结论,运用了辩证的、形式逻辑的、形式法律的、比较法的认知方法、法律解释的方法和司法实践材料的分析方法。这项研究可以得出结论,目前的国内立法为理解俄罗斯行政程序作为一个法律概念提供了必要和充分的法律基础,它有意义地由三部分组成:a)行政司法程序;(二)行政违法案件的诉讼程序;C)行政程序(administrative procedures)。因此,笔者认为,对俄罗斯行政程序理解的科学探讨,首先是对这一法律概念的内容的科学探讨,应该被认为是完整的。作为这项研究的结果之一,发件人还注意到行政程序的两重性,这是俄罗斯立法赋予它的,表现为存在行政司法程序(由法院进行)和行政庭外程序(由公共行政部门进行)。在制定今后的行政程序性立法决定时,当然必须考虑到这种情况。与此同时,从理论上承认行政程序性对公共行政的有关活动的地位,在很大程度上比行政程序司法概念的追随者所主张的行政和程序活动的资格要大得多;将有助于执行正在起草的联邦行政诉讼(行政程序)法中关于保护与公共行政有关的人权和公民权利的构想,并在一般情况下,确保行政活动程序化到符合法治国家标准的适当程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊最新文献
Administrative Discretion: Questions and Answers (Part 3) Some Features of the Criminal Procedural Status of a Witness On the Origins of Administrative and Judicial Discretion in Russian Administrative and Jurisdictional Activities The Legal Concept of “Source of Increased Danger” Exhaustion of Exclusive Rights to Computer Programs Under the Laws of Russia, the USA, the EU, China and India
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1