Legislative Reform on Administrative Responsibility
https://doi.org/10.19073/2658-7602-2020-17-2-280-285
Abstract
Draft laws introducing significant changes to the institution of administrative responsibility have significant shortcomings. They only declare their connection with the previously published Concept of the new Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses. The legal nature of the activities of judges carrying out proceedings on administrative offenses has not been determined. Allegedly, the legislation on administrative responsibility has been brought into conformity with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. There is a lack of consistency in filling out legal gaps and conflicts in regulating the procedure for bringing toadministrative responsibility and applying measures to ensure administrative proceedings against persons with special legal status. The new definition of an administrative offense is criticized. The arguments in favor of the term “public danger” are considered. Attention is drawn to the need to take into account in the legislation on administrative responsibility the private and private-public procedures for initiating cases of administrative offenses.
About the Authors
Yu. P. ShevchenkoRussian Federation
Shevchenko Yurii P., Docent of the Department of Administrative and Financial Law, Candidate of Legal Sciences, Docent
12 Korolenko st., Omsk, 644010
I. A. Kositsin
Russian Federation
Kositsin Igor A., Docent of the Department of Customs Business and Law, Candidate of Legal Sciences, Docent
35 Marksa pr., Omsk, 644046
References
1. Varguzova A. A. Ob obshchestvennoi opasnosti administrativnykh pravonarushenii [On the Public Danger of Administrative Offenses]. Zakon, 2004, no. 10, pp. 123–125.
2. Vasil’ev E. A. Obshchestvennaya opasnost’ – osnovnoi kriterii otgranicheniya administrativnykh pravonarushenii ot prestuplenii [Social danger – the main criteria of delimitation of administrative delict from crime]. Gosudarstvo i pravo – State and Law, 2007, no. 4, pp. 84–90.
3. Elistratov A. I. Administrativnoe pravo [Administrative Law]. Moscow, 1911. 235 p.
4. Kaufman M. A. Prestuplenie i administrativnoe pravonarushenie: problemy sootnosheniya i kvalifikatsii [Crimes and Administrative Offenses: Relationship and Classification Issues]. Biblioteka kriminalista. Nauchnyi zhurnal – Criminalist’s Library. Scientific Journal, 2013, no. 2 (7), pp. 109–118.
5. Strogovich M. S. Osnovnye voprosy sovetskoi sotsialisticheskoi zakonnosti [The Main Issues of Soviet Socialist Legality]. Moscow, 1966. 252 p.
6. Shevchenko Yu. P., Kositsin I. A. Administrativnoe pravonarushenie i prestuplenie: v chem otlichie? [Administrative Offense and Crime: What Is the Difference?]. Vestnik Omskoi yuridicheskoi akademii – Vestnik of the Omsk Law Academy, 2017, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 40–44. DOI: 10.19073/2306-1340-2017-14-4-40-44.
Review
For citations:
Shevchenko Yu.P., Kositsin I.A. Legislative Reform on Administrative Responsibility. Siberian Law Review. 2020;17(2):280-285. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.19073/2658-7602-2020-17-2-280-285