Codification of Norms on Judicial Consideration of Cases on Administrative Offenses: Experience of 16 Neighboring Countries

The article discusses the evolution of legislation concerning the judicial review of administrative offense cases across post-Soviet countries. It concludes that the Fundamentals of the Legislation of the USSR and the Union Republics on Administrative Offenses, adopted in 1980, represented only a partial codification of administrative-procedural norms. However, this legislative act established a tradition of fully codifying administrative tort and related procedural laws, merging judicial and non-judicial processes for handling administrative offense cases into a unified proceeding. In the post-Soviet period, despite this legacy, nearly all neighboring countries have seen a consistent trend of judicial proceedings separating from non-judicial ones in the realm of administrative offenses. Integrating judicial procedures into the administrative procedure code is an exception rather than a rule; instead, these procedures often resemble criminal proceedings, sometimes even referencing criminal procedure codes. Nevertheless, even within the administrative-jurisdictional system, judicial procedures increasingly diverge from non-judicial ones, either evolving into separate procedural institutions or prevailing as the primary procedural framework. In this context, the Author aligns with the views of Yu. P. Solovey and P. P. Serkov, who argue that proceedings on administrative offenses are distinct from public-law dispute resolution, and that judicial consideration of administrative offenses differs fundamentally from non-judicial administrative-jurisdictional activities. Consequently, the article concludes that judicial and non-judicial reviews of administrative-tort cases do not form a single, cohesive administrative offense proceeding. Anticipating future developments in Russian legislation, based on comparative legal analysis, the Author suggests that the adoption of a Procedural Code on Administrative Offenses may serve only as a temporary measure. In the near future, the need to establish a separate procedural law governing administrative offense cases in courts of general jurisdiction may arise.

1. Zhilin G. A. On the Objectives of Administrative Proceedings in Light of Legislative Innovations. Statute. 2013;6:104-111. (In Russ.)

2. Grechkina O. V., Stepanov A. T. Some Reflections on Administrative Proceedings in Contemporary Law. Administrative Law and Procedure. 2024;3:43-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18572/2071-1166-2024-3-43-49 (In Russ.)

3. Borodina E. Administrative Code (Regarding the NKVD Project). Administrative Bulletin. 1925;12:15. (InRuss.)

4. Borodin S. On the Measures of Administrative Sanctions Imposed by People’s Judges. Soviet Justice. 1958;11:26-30. (In Russ.)

5. Tagunov E. N. On the Codification of Soviet Administrative Law. Soviet State and Law. 1958;5:131-135. (In Russ.)

6. Lunev A. An Administrative Code is Needed! Soviet Justice. 1960;5:18-23. (In Russ.)

7. Salisheva N. G. Problems of the Legal Regulation of the Institute of Administrative Responsibility in the Russian Federation. Administrative Law and Procedure. 2014;9:9-22. (In Russ.)

8. Tataryan V. G. Reforming the Procedural and Enforcement Legislation on Administrative Offenses in the Republic of Belarus. Russian Investigator. 2005;1:49-51. (In Russ.)

9. Shurukhnova D. N. Comparative Law Research of the Administrative Delictual Laws of CIS Member States. Administrative Law and Procedure. 2018;9:66-70. (In Russ.)

10. Zokirov T. Z. Prerequisites of the Principle of Federalism in the Legal Regulation of Administrative Responsibility (on the Example of Managerial Decisions). Courier of the Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL). 2024;5:199-207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2024.117.5.199-207 (In Russ.)

11. Sambor N. A. Terms of Awarding Administrative Penalties Under Laws on Administrative Offenses: Comparative Law Research. Administrative Law and Procedure. 2016;1:65-72. (In Russ.)

12. Mamatazizova N. K. General Characteristics of Legislation оf the Kyrgyz Republic on Administrative Responsibility. Administrative Law and Procedure. 2011;12:37-39. (In Russ.)

13. Kadyrov A. A. The Issues of Legal Liability for Violations of the Requirements for Water Objects Protection in Kyrgyzstan. Environmental Law. 2017;6:32-38. (In Russ.)

14. Koombaev A. A. Procedural Status of the Suffered Person in Accordance with Legislation of Kyrgyzstan. Administrative Law and Procedure. 2010;5:45-47. (In Russ.)

15. Mamatazizova N. K. On Role of the Delictology in Understanding of Administrative Policy of Kyrgyzstan. Administrative Law and Procedure. 2016;6:76-78. (In Russ.)

16. Starostin S. A., Fatyanov A. A. Criminal Offence: Legal Necessity or Just Another Beautiful Theory? Administrative Law and Procedure. 2017;12:24-26. (In Russ.)

17. Podoprigora R. A. Development of Administrative Law and Administrative Legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan Since the Independence. Bulletin of Institute of Legislation and Legal Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 2016;4:43–50. (In Russ.)

18. Yurchenko R. N. Development of Specialized Courts in Kazakhstan. Issues of Juvenile Justice. 2007;1:24- 27. (In Russ.)

19. Ablaeva E. B. Specialized Economic, Financial and Administrative Courts of Kazakhstan: History, Current Status, Development Prospects. Lex Russica. 2020;73(3):121-134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2020.160.3.121-134 (In Russ.)

20. Dyakonova O. G. On Carrying Out of a “Research” of Judicial Proceedings in the EAEU Member States by a Specialist. Arbitrazh and Civil Procedure. 2018;4:47-51. (In Russ.)

21. Khorev A. A. Principles of Proceedings in Administrative Offense Cases in the Administrative-Tort Legislation of the Republic of Belarus. Vestnik of Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2009;5:168-170. (In Russ.)

22. Tsukanov N. N. The Administrative Procedure Science: on the Search for a Uniting Task. Administrative Law and Procedure. 2022;8:14-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18572/2071-1166-2022-8-14-19 (In Russ.)

23. Evstratova Yu. A. Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Acts on Administrative Responsibility in Russia, the Republic of Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Customs Affairs. 2009;4:14-18. (In Russ.)

24. Rakhmatova Z. M. Formation of Tajikistan Republic Legislation In Regard To Administrative Legal Proceedings. Bulletin of TSULBP. Series of Social Sciences. 2016;3:112-119. (In Russ.)

25. Serkov P. P. Administrative Responsibility in the Russian Law: Contemporary Understanding and New Approaches. Moscow: Norma Publ., INFRA-M Publ.; 2012. 480 p. (In Russ.)

26. Solovey Yu. P. Review of Monograph of P.P. Serkov “Administrative Responsibility in the Russian Law: Contemporary Understanding and New Approaches”. Administrative Law and Procedure. 2013;3:72-80. (In Russ.)