Administrative Delicts and Administrative Delict Law

The subject of study in this paper are administrative-delict legal relations and the terms associated with this kind of relations. The purpose of the study is to analyze the nature of offences and administrative delicts. It is stated that the use of the term “delictum” it's been a certain evolution from private legal term in the sense of “delicta private” to the term, which can be used both in the sense of “delicta private” and value of “delicta publica”. The conclusion is that the term “delict” may be used in public relations and administrative legal use of the term “administrative delict”. Expanding the range of investigated administrative and delict relations, entails a change and the essential characteristics of administrative offenses, and also creates preconditions for formation of administrative-tort system of prevention of offenses, including not only administrative offences but also other offences that are not related to crimes and civil offenses. In this case, the responsibility should be named administrative and delict, which, in essence, will include a modern administrative and administrative-disciplinary liability. Depending on the nature of the administrative delict may be subdivided into administrative offense and administrative misdemeanor. The essential characteristics of an administrative offense should be upheld, and administrative misdemeanor must be attributed those acts which are now administrative and disciplinary misconduct. With this division of administrative delicts it is possible to realize a codification of administrative and delict legislation, i.e. the creation of Administrative-delict code of the Russian Federation. The work also made the assumption that procedural violations are treated as administrative delict. An attempt is made to distinguish between material legal relations in administrative law and administrative procedural legal relations. Concluded that you cannot mix administrative-tort legal relations, as a kind of material with tort and procedural legal relations. In turn, tort and procedural legal relations are an integral part of administrative and legal proceedings, and administrative delict production is an integral part of the administrative process. The methodological basis of the article is dialectical, formal logical methods, formal-legal method and method of interpretation of law.

administrative-delict law, administrative and delict legal relations, administrative delict, administrative offence, administrative misdemeanor, administrative and procedural legal relations, administrative delict production

1. Agapov A. B. Korrelyatsiya publichnykh i tsivilisticheskikh form viny [The Correlation of Public and Civilized Forms of Guilt]. Administrativnoe i munitsipal’noe pravo – Administrative and Municipal Law, 2016, no. 9, pp. 791–798. DOI: 10.7256/1999-2807.2016.9.20074.

2. Bartoshek M. Rimskoe pravo (ponyatiya, terminy, opredeleniya) [Roman Law (Concepts, Terms, Definitions)]. Moscow, Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ., 1989. 447 p.

3. Bakhrakh D. N. Ocherki teorii rossiiskogo prava [Essays on the Theory of Russian Law]. Moscow, Infra-M Publ., 2008. 288 p.

4. Bakhrakh D. N. Yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost’ po administrativnomu pravu [Legal Responsibility Under Administrative Law]. Administrativnoe pravo i protsess – Administrative Law and Procedure, 2010, no. 1, pp. 2–5.

5. Grishkovets A. A. Dopustim li termin «delikt» v administrativnom prave [Is the Term “Tort” Acceptable in Administrative Law]. Aktual’nye problemy administrativnogo i administrativno-protsessual’nogo prava – Actual Problems of Administrative and Administrative Process Law. St. Petersburg, Saint Petersburg University of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia Publ., 2020, pp. 296–303.

6. Grishkovets A. A. Dopustim li termin «delikt» v nauke administrativnogo prava? [Is the Term Delict Admissible in the Administrative Law Science?] Administrativnoe pravo i protsess – Administrative Law and Procedure, 2020, no. 8, pp. 13–17.

7. Grishkovets A. A. K voprosu o tak nazyvaemom «administrativno-deliktnom prave» [To the Question About So Called “Administrative-Delicit Law”]. Vestnik Vserossiiskogo instituta povysheniya kvalifikatsii sotrudnikov Ministerstva vnutrennikh del Rossiiskoi Federatsii – Bulletin of the All-Russian Advanced Training Institute of the MIA of Russia, 2020, no. 1 (53), pp. 54–61.

8. Dobrobaba M. B. Sluzhebno-deliktnye distsiplinarnye pravootnosheniya (administrativno-pravovoe issledovanie) [Office-Tort Disciplinary Legal Relations (Administrative Legal Study)]. Moscow, Yurlitinform Publ., 2017. 412 p.

9. Dydynskii F. M. Latinsko-rimskii slovar’ k istochnikam rimskogo prava [Latin-Roman Dictionary to the Sources of Roman Law]. Warsaw, Tipography of K. Kovalevskii, 1896. 466 p.

10. Egorova M. A., Krylov V. G., Romanov A. K. Deliktnye obyazatel’stva i deliktnaya otvetstvennost’ v angliiskom, nemetskom i frantsuzskom prave [Tort Obligations and Tort Liability in English, German and French Law]. Moscow, Yustitsinform Publ., 2016. 374 p.

11. Kirin A. V. Administrativno-deliktnoe pravo (teoriya i zakonodatel’nye osnovy) [Administrative-Tort Law (Theory and Legislative Frameworks)]. Moscow, Norma Publ., Infra-M Publ., 2012. 464 p.

12. Kozlov Yu. M. Administrativnoe pravo [Administrative Law]. Moscow, Yurist” Publ., 2007. 554 p.

13. Leshchina E. L. Osnovnye podkhody k ponimaniyu distsiplinarnoi otvetstvennosti: trudopravovoi i administrativno-pravovoi aspekty [The Main Approaches to the Understanding of the disciplinary Responsibility: Labor Law and Administrative Law Aspects]. Yuridicheskaya nauka i pravookhranitel’naya praktika – Legal Science and Law Enforcement Practice, 2016, no. 3 (37), pp. 62–68.

14. Marchenko M. N. Problemy teorii gosudarstva i prava [Problems of the Theory of State and Law]. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2010. 784 p.

15. Morozova N. A. Istoriya instituta yuridicheskoi otvetstvennosti i zakonodatel’stva ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh [History of the Administrative Responsibility Institution and the Legislation on Administrative Offences]. Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal – Russian Juridical Journal, 2019, no. 4 (127), pp. 93–107.

16. Babaev V. K. (Ed.). Obshchaya teoriya prava [General Theory of Law]. Nizhny Novgorod, 1993. 544 p.

17. Osipyan B. A. Kriterii pravomernogo razlicheniya ponyatii i sostavov grazhdanskogo pravonarusheniya (delikta), distsiplinarnogo prostupka, administrativnogo pravonarusheniya i prestupleniya [Criteria for the Lawful Distinction Between the Concepts and Components of a Civil Offense (Tort), Disciplinary Offense, Administrative Offense and Crime]. Grazhdanin i pravo – Citizen and Law, 2016, no. 11, pp. 28–40.

18. Popugayev Yu. I. O delikte, deliktizatsii i sovershenstvovanii administrativno-deliktnogo normotvorchestva [About the Delict, a Deliktization and Improvement Administrative and Delictual Rule-Making]. Vestnik ekonomicheskoi bezopasnosti – Vestnik of Economic Security, 2016, no. 3, pp. 111–118.

19. Rimskoe chastnoe pravo [Roman Private Law]. Moscow, 1948. 584 p.

20. Rossinskiy B. V. Administrativnaya otvetstvennost’ kak metod gosudarstvennogo upravleniya [Administrative Responsibility as a Method of State Governance]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika – Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika, 2019, no. 11, pp. 3–12.

21. Rossinskiy B. V. Administrativnaya otvetstvennost’ pri osushchestvlenii gosudarstvennogo upravleniya [Problems of Administrative Responsibility in the Effectuation of State Management]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika – Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika, 2019, no. 12, pp. 3–19.

22. Serkov P. P. Administrativnaya otvetstvennost’ v rossiiskom prave: sovremennoe osmyslenie i novye podkhody [Administrative Responsibility in Russian Law: Modern Understanding and New Approaches]. Moscow, Norma Publ., Infra-M Publ., 2012. 479 p.

23. Solovey Yu. P. K voprosu o reforme zakonodatel’nykh osnov administrativnoi otvetstvennosti [On the Issue of Reform of the Legislative Basis of Administrative Responsibility]. Zakonodatel’stvo ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh: sovremennoe sostoyanie i puti sovershenstvovaniya – Legislation on Administrative Violations: the Current State and Ways of Improvement. Tula, Akvarius Publ., 2014, pp. 28–39.

24. Solovey Yu. P. Retsenziya na monografiyu P. P. Serkova «Administrativnaya otvetstvennost’ v rossiiskom prave: sovremennoe osmyslenie i novye podkhody» (M. : Norma : Infra-M, 2012. 480 s.) [Review of P. P. Serkov’s Monograph “Administrative Responsibility in Russian Law: Contemporary Comprehension and New Approaches” (Moscow, Norma Publ., Infra-M Publ., 2012. 480 p.)]. Administrativnoe pravo i protsess – Administrative Law and Procedure, 2013, no. 3, pp. 72–80.

25. Starilov Yu. N. Modernizatsiya zakonodatel’stva ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh dolzhna osnovyvat’sya na platforme nadlezhashchei kontseptsii [Modernization of Legislation on Administrative Offenses Should Be Based On a Platform of a Proper Concept]. Sud’ya –Judge, 2015, no. 11 (59), pp. 13–19.

26. Starilov Yu. N. Nastupilo li vremya dlya razrabotki novogo KoAP Rossii [Is It Time for a New Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation?]. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Pravo – Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Law, 2014, no. 4 (19), pp. 11–22.

27. Stakhov A. I. Administrativnye delikty kak osnova kodifikatsii administrativno-protsessual’nogo zakonodatel’stva [Administrative Delicts as the Basis for the Codification of Administrative Procedural Legislation]. Nauchnyi vestnik Omskoi akademii MVD Rossii – Scientific Bulletin of the Omsk Academy of the MIA of Russia, 2020, no. 1 (76), pp. 59–63.

28. Stakhov A. I. Novye podkhody k ponimaniyu administrativnogo delikta v sisteme administrativnykh pravootnoshenii [New Approaches to the Understanding of Administrative Tort in the System of Administrative Legal Relations]. Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal – Russian Juridical Journal, 2019, no. 4 (127), pp. 84–92.

29. Shergin A. P. Razmyshleniya ob administrativno-deliktnom prave [Reflections on Administrative Tort Law]. Aktual’nye problemy rossiiskogo prava – Actual Problems of the Russian Law, 2017, no. 5, pp. 175–182. DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2017.78.5.175-182.

30. Shergin A. P., Shergina K. F. Sovremennye tendentsii integratsii administrativno-deliktnogo i ugolovnogo zakonodatel’stva [Modern Tendencies of Administrative-Tort and Criminal Legislation]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika – Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika, 2019, no. 11, pp. 13–19.

31. Mal’ko A. V., Lipinskii D. A. (Eds.). Yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost’ : doktrinal’nyi slovar’ [Legal Responsibility: Doctrinal Dictionary]. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2020. 208 p.

32. Brown B. F. Jurisprudential Basis of Roman Law. Notre Dame Law Review, 1937, vol. 12, iss. 4, pp. 361–372.

33. McGinley G. J. Roman Law and Its Influence in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 1927, vol. 3, iss. 2, pp. 70–88.

34. Zhang Mo. Tort Liabilities and Torts Law: The New Frontier of Chinese Legal Horizon. Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business, 2011, vol. 10, iss. 4, pp. 415–495.