The article touches upon the problems associated with defects in law related to discretion. An attempt is made to analyze the approaches of legal scholars to the concepts of “defect of law”, as well as related concepts of “defect of a normative legal act”, “defect of legislation”, “error in law”. Attention is focused on the relationship between the concept of “defect in law” and “quality of law”. In relation to individual branch legal sciences, studies of individual defects have been conducted, however, a unified approach to understanding the essence of the relevant legal phenomenon has not been formed. When analyzing the approaches of various researchers to the essence of the defect in law, it should be noted that the authors point to a violation of the requirements related to the quality of the regulatory legal act. A scientific analysis is carried out of the fact that a law enforcement decision based on various legal defects is associated with discretion. The origins of the concept of “defect in law” are considered, since for the first time it began to be used in industry legal sciences. The point of view on the allocation of an expansive and restrictive understanding of the “defect in law” in scientific circulation is interesting. In the first case, we are talking about the state of legal norms, when the regulation of public relations leads to a violation of the optimal balance of the interests of the state, society and the individual. In the second case, we mean legal regulation, the quality level of which is low, and in this regard, infringement of interests occurs. The article presents the Author's definition of “the defect of discretion in law”, as well as the signs of this concept. The criteria of imperfection, according to the Author, should include gaps in law, conflicts of legal norms, uncertainty of legal regulation, violations of the requirements of legal technology in the construction of texts of normative acts, irrational placement of norms in the legal system, excessive duplication of rules of conduct in acts of different legal force, excessive legal regulation. The signs of the sought concept also include: finding a defect of discretion in the law in a specific substantive element of a legal act, as well as the social harmfulness of the defect affecting discretion in the application of law.

The article presents a study of modern factors that influence the shaping of uniform judicial practice in various countries of the world. The system of ensuring legal certainty established in the Russian Federation is regarded as superior to the system of stare decisis, whose proponents not infrequently seek stability for the sake of stability. A conclusion is drawn that abstract interpretation, not tied to the particular circumstances of an individual dispute, not having a strictly obligatory nature, and issued by a collective body of the apex court leaves more room for judicial discretion and orientation on legal principles. Trends are discovered in the court structure and rules of court procedure in foreign countries, indicating the continuing competition between the two systems, as well as a search for their synthesis. An opinion is put forward that lowering judicial workload through cutting-edge technologies, including artificial intelligence, is one of the keys to increasing the quality of justice. In this regard, potential risks and benefits of introducing those technologies into court activities are considered. The example of Chinese courts is used to illustrate the danger of lending too much importance to the recommendations of AI algorithms; a suggestion is formulated to introduce a new function into the prospective “Justice Online” superservice. Particular attention is paid to such subjective factors as judicial workload and judicial well-being, their role for the work of the courts. Based on foreign research and a report presented by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, a conclusion is made about the importance of maintaining the physical and psychological well-being of judges for ensuring the proper quality of court decisions. The importance of dialog and exchange of best practices in the sphere of judicial well-being is stressed, various problems arising as a result of turning a blind eye to this sphere are considered. In conclusion, the importance of studying the results of work of the top judicial body in ensuring uniform judicial practice is emphasized, as well as that of dissemination of information about the adopted legal standings among the general public.

The problem of applying the insignificance of administrative offenses is relevant in the scientific community. Many authors, such as Yu. P. Solovey, E. V. Sergeeva, O. V. Derbina, L. Ch. Kupeeva and others, in different years raised issues related to the insignificance of offenses in their scientific activities. The Authors studied the objectivity of the application of insignificance to the formal elements of offenses, the effectiveness of oral remarks, and possible criteria for recognizing an offense as insignificant. The appraisal of the concepts enshrined in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) makes it possible to ensure the flexibility of legislation in sentencing. However, in the particular case under consideration, evaluativeness and the lack of clear criteria for the use of insignificance contribute to the blurring of the boundaries of responsibility. The results of the statistical study cited by the Authors show that for 2019–2021. a significant number of proceedings on administrative offenses were terminated precisely on the basis of Art. 2.9 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, which indicates the importance of the criteria by which the possibility of applying insignificance and the conditions to be analyzed by an official of the relevant administrative body or a judge is assessed. As a criterion of insignificance of administrative offenses, the objective side of which is characterized by the receipt of income or damage, the Authors propose to use the amount of such income or damage. According to the Authors, the classification of an administrative tort as insignificant is possible when receiving income or causing damage that does not exceed 1/30 of the subsistence minimum in the whole of the Russian Federation per capita, provided for the calendar year in which the administrative offense was committed (for 2023 – 480 rubles). Given the above, the Authors indicate the need for legislative consolidation of the categories of administrative offenses and circumstances in the commission or occurrence of which the application of the legal institution of insignificance is unacceptable. One of these circumstances, at the suggestion of the Authors, is the absence of a person held liable when considering a case of an administrative offense.

The article continues the discussion on the topical issue of administrative discretion for Russian administrative-legal theory and legal practice, organized by the editors of the journal “Siberian Law Review” on the pages of two previous issues of the journal with the participation of P. P. Serkov and Yu. P. Solovey. The Author focuses on the state of the modern domestic doctrine of administrative discretion, the contribution of Russian legal scholars to its development, the need and possibility (including criteria and limits) of delimiting administrative discretion from other types of discretion. It is proved that the Russian jurisprudence demonstrates, contrary to the assertions of some experts, not confusion in the face of the problematic category of discretion, but ontological and methodological certainty, although sometimes reaching extremes. At the same time, there is no single Russian doctrine of discretion, there are many such doctrines, and some scholars have the right to claim that specific doctrines are associated with their names. The Author draws attention to the fact that discretion in general and administrative discretion in particular are interdisciplinary (interscientific) categories, so they must first of all be rid of the semantic and meaningful “layers” of other sciences. The sooner a pure theory of discretion appears, the more mistakes and risks will be insured against by legal science and law enforcement practice. In order to avoid terminological confusion and preserve the subject matter of the study, it is absolutely important to distinguishfour concepts: 1) administrative discretion; 2) judicial control over administrative discretion; 3) judicial discretion; 4) judicial discretion in the exercise of judicial control over administrative discretion. These concepts have a certain connection with each other, however, they designate different (partly even by their branch affiliation) categories, phenomena, processes and institutions. As a conclusion, it is indicated that the motives of each discretionary decision of the public administration must sooner or later (better sooner than later) be made public. To make this a reality, legal science needs to develop and offer effective legal guarantees for ensuring the rights of citizens and their associations when public authorities exercise their discretionary powers.

Administrative discretion is an important construction of modern administrative law, the formation of which in many respects can be viewed as a “struggle” to limit the discretionary powers of the subjects of state administration. It is well known that good governance would be impossible without administrative discretion. There are four stages in the development of the modern theory of administrative discretion and each stage was devoted to one aspect of this one but these stages did not coincide chronologically and developed in parallel. They had a different methodology, which was used by the founders and followers of the approaches prevailing at each stage. The first stage started in France and formed by the 18th century. This related to the concept of prudent governance exercised prudent officials who were ruled by enlightened monarch. Their decisions were not reviewed by the courts. The principle of reasonable is the modern result of this stage – an absolutely unreasonable administrative act is null and void. The second stage developed in parallel with the first one but formed by the 19th century. Administrative discretion was formed as legal concept on this stage, and it was presented as free discretion, which also could not be a subject to judicial review. The third stage, characterized by competition between administrative justice and free discretion, took place at the end of the 19th and the middle of the 20th. Judicial possibilities for reviewing discretionary acts gradually expanded, criteria for evaluating such acts were created. These criteria were incorporated into the laws and legal judicial positions after the fourth stage began. The creative side of discretion has become a very important part of this legal construction, administrative discretion at this stage is defined as a way of laws concretizing. Nowadays, the third and fourth stages are developing in parallel in Russia. It should be noted that the Russian administrative law doctrine was formed as a common doctrine Civil Law system. Russian authors always used the methodology of Civil Law system, developed it, but they paid attention to the specifics of our administrative law, our governing and historical development. Nevertheless, Russian doctrine needs more research in order to create more legally formalized administrative discretion. As a result, the legislature and courts should receive academic decisions suitable for implementation.

This article provides a comparative analysis of the doctrine of exhaustion of exclusive rights in respect of computer programs with a focus on the legislation of Russia, the United States, the European Union, China and India. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of the doctrine of exhaustion of exclusive rights on intellectual property and propose potential solutions to address problems that may arise. The laws in force in Russia concerning the exhaustion of rights to computer programs are discussed, and it is noted that they are restraining in nature and limit the distribution of computer programs to the first distribution under contracts for the complete alienation of the tangible medium. Although these laws are aimed at protecting the rights of authors and right holders, they also impede the free distribution of computer programs, making it difficult for consumers to access them. Therefore, the article proposes changes in the Russian legislation to ensure free distribution of computer programs, including the possibility of leasing, secondary sale of electronic copies and exchange. It is also proposed to reduce the requirement to recognize the introduction into civil circulation, because the existing wording “sufficient to meet reasonable public needs, based on the nature of the work” is vague and contrary to current international practice. I believe that these changes will help mitigate or circumvent current or future Western sanctions. The analysis underlines the need to improve Russian legislation with respect to the doctrine of exhaustion of exclusive rights. By adopting more flexible laws, Russia can facilitate the free distribution of computer programs while protecting the rights of authors and rightsholders. Such improvements will increase access to software and foster innovation and creativity in the digital age.

The modern development of social relations cannot be considered in isolation from the economic basis of human life. Taking into account the consistent formation of the institution of private property and the property sphere, new rules for the relationship between the state and the individual are being formed. On this background, issues related to the implementation of the repressive function of the state are of great importance. The process of investigating criminal activity often affects the property interests of the participants in the criminal process. At the same time, the rules of this type of state activity enshrined in the legislation do not always take into account the changed format of economic relations between individuals and legal entities. The article deals with the problem of the lack of adaptation of the criminal procedural legislation to the actual relations in the area of public life. Questions of interaction between criminal procedure and civil legislation are described here. There is a lack of an integrated approach to regulating the issues of protecting the property interests of the suspect, the accused in the application of measures of procedural coercion. Despite the general approach in this area of relations formulated in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which is favorable for the suspect and for the accused, there are multiple contradictions at the level of intersectoral regulation. The paper states the need for a comprehensive regulation of the features of the application of coercive measures of a property nature to the specified participants in the criminal process. Judicial practice contributes to this process. The decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation studied in the article forces the legislator to new reforms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Some of the programmatic political statements of the country's top leadership noted in the work contributes this process. The analysis of the scientific problem under study is carried out taking into account the existing norms of international law, as well as on the basis of the formed historical experience of the domestic procedure for regulating the rules of investigation and trial in criminal cases. The study focuses on the application of such measures of property impact on a person as bail, custody, seizure of property and others. The conclusions are made taking into account statistical indicators and the results of a survey of practical employees of the investigative departments of various departments and the lawyer corps.

In the article, the Author analyzes the organizational, legal and tactical features of the interrogation of juvenile victims and witnesses. Currently, there are problems of observing the rights of juvenile participants in criminal proceedings included in the mechanism of the crime, and the specifics of their personal and psychophysiological characteristics make this investigative action particularly difficult and time-consuming. In this connection, the Author has set the purpose of this article to study the organizational and legal possibilities of questioning juvenile victims and witnesses. In the course of studying law enforcement practice and the most common mistakes made during interrogations of minors, the main stages of this investigative action are highlighted and the most effective recommendations for their conduct are proposed, taking into account the psychophysiological characteristics of minors. The methodology of this research consists of: dialectical, analytical, comparative legal, empirical methods of cognition, comparative and logical-structural analyses, a systematic approach and a method of analysis and generalization of practice. The conducted research and the practical experience of the Author allowed us to draw conclusions about the imperfection of law enforcement practice and legal regulation of the interrogation of a minor. According to the Author, amendments to the current legislation will make it possible to fully use all possible tactics of interrogation of minors, which will increase the effectiveness of interrogation and minimize the possibility of repeated psychotraumatization of minors. The findings of the study can be used by practitioners when conducting investigative actions with the participation of minor victims and witnesses during the investigation and disclosure of crimes of various types. The theoretical conclusions made in the course of the study will help in studying the tactics of interrogation in the discipline “Criminalistics”.