Search

The subject. The main issues of law enforcement activity on the application of administrative punishment in the form of administrative suspension of operations for identified offenses in the field of industrial safety of hazardous production facilities.The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that Russian legislation allows the resumption of activities after the expiration of the period of its suspension without eliminating violations of industrial safety.The methodology of research is logical analysis of Russian legislation, statistical data and judicial decisions concerning enforcement of administrative suspension of operations in Russia.The main results. There is an ambiguous approach in the scientific literature to fixing the administrative suspension of operations in the system of administrative penalties. The effectiveness of its application is noted by some authors. At the same time, there are adverse consequences associated with the application of administrative suspension of operations for the further production activities of economic entities. Social tension in the collective of enterprises, difficulties of recovery after forced downtime, unclear prospects for further economic activity – this is not a complete list of problems arising in connection with the administrative suspension of activity. When making a court decision, judges often appoint a fine as a penalty and rarely a penalty in the form of suspension of operations. This is due to the complexity of the actual realization of suspension of operations, the special social significance of objects; the lack of a specialist's conclusion about the real danger of an offense. But if violations of industrial safety are detected during the operation of hazardous production facilities, it is initially possible to assume a high probability of serious consequences for the life and health of people, the environmental safety. Administrative suspension of activities is carried out by both judicial and non-judicial control authorities. In authors’ opinion, the application of this type of administrative punishment should be exclusively in the judicial jurisdiction. The law enforcement judicial practice concerning administrative suspension of operations in Russia is not uniform.Conclusions. There is a legal uncertainty in the mechanism of imposing administrative punishment in the form of administrative suspension of operations for violations of industrial safety of hazardous production facilities (Article 9.1 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences). The uncertainty is manifested in the fact that the economic entity does not always eliminate the detected violations within the legally established period and after the expiration of the period for which the activity was suspended, the company resumes its activities nevertheless. Such opportunity reduces the preventive value of this punishment.

The subject of study is the criminal-legal basis for an expedited procedure for adopting a court ruling when the accused person agrees with the charge. These issues are relevant, since in July 2020 the substantive legal basis of the expedited procedure in Russia was changed and now this procedure can only be applied in criminal cases of small and medium gravity.The aim of this work is to study the substantive legal basis of an expedited procedure of litigation from the point of view of the changes were made to it. The author expresses the thesis that the legislators did not quite reasonably link criminal-legal grounds of the expedited procedure with the system of categories of crimes.The methodology. The author used general scientific methods (dialectical, historical, methods of formal logic, system analysis) as well as method of formal legal interpretation of Russian Criminal Code and judicial decisions of Russian courts.The main results, scope of application. The criminal and legal basis of certain criminal procedure is a package of criminal law standards, for the implementation of which a certain criminal and procedural form is intended. The parameters of the substantive basis of criminal proceedings are set with the signs that shall be indicated in the Code of Criminal Procedure and may change. It directly refers to the expedited procedure for adopting a court ruling, by Chapter 40 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code. Initially, it was assumed that the application of this procedure is permissible in criminal cases concerning crimes the punishment for which does not exceed 5 years imprisonment in accordance with the Russian Criminal Code. The expedited court proceedings began to be applied in criminal cases concerning crimes, the punishment for which does not exceed 10 years imprisonment in accordance with the Russian Criminal Code, since 2003. The Russian Supreme Court made an attempt to reduce the application of court proceedings provided by Chapter 40 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code in 2019. It turned out to be successful. Legislators have changed the basic criterion that determines the substantive basis for an expedited procedure for adopting a court ruling. Now the system of categories of crimes is this basis. The system of categories of crimes presented in Article 15 of the Russian Criminal Code is not stable enough and is based on a set of provisions of this Code, but the sanctions for many crimes are not scientifically and practically grounded in this Code. In addition, the classification of crimes enshrined in Article 15 of the Russian Criminal Code is based on such a criterion as the nature and degree of public danger of the crime. These categories are among the most complex in the science of criminal law.Conclusions. The use of categories of crimes as a criterion for determining the criminal legal basis of the expedited procedure for making a court decision significantly complicates the application of the expedited procedure.

The subject of the research is criminal law rules that provide for criminal liability for hate crimes and the judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on hate crimes. The purpose of the article is to confirm or refute the hypothesis that a unified approach to the definition of the legal concept of hate speech and the limits of its application is nec-essary. This approach must be based on the legal positions of the European Court of Hu-man Rights The research methodology includes analysis and interpretation of court decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as a dialectical approach to the analysis of vari-ous points of view to the definition of extremist activity. The main results and scope of their application. The relevance of the research proposed for publication is due to the lack of uniform practice of applying the articles of the Russian Criminal Code on so-called "hate crimes" by Russian courts and the presence of signifi-cant contradictions in the positions of the European Court of Human Rights and the state position of the Russian Federation in defining key concepts in this area that are extremely important for criminal procedure and administrative activities. The paper considers scien-tific and practical attempts to define "hate crimes" in the global and regional human rights systems, basic recommendations of the UN on countering such crimes, and offers an interpretation of the term hate speech in relation to the related criminological concept of hate crime. The text provides statistical data describing the level of such crime and the practice of the ECHR in this area, mentions a list of criteria according to which "hate crimes" can be motivated by language differences, gender, sexual orientation and other characteristics, as well as criteria that distinguish hate speech from freedom of expres-sion, and suggests decriminalization of part 1 of article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code. Conclusions. It is necessary to unify the concepts of "hate crimes" (and the practice of their application) in the direction of, in particular, reducing the number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights against the Russian Federation and increasing the level of legal protection of both the individual citizen of the Russian Federation and freedom of speech and expression.

The subject of the article is the issues determining the level of legal regulation of instruments of direct municipal democracy. The purpose of the article is to analyze the judicial practice, especially of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, related to the problems of differentiation of normative competence in the field of municipal democracy between the Federal, regional and municipal levels of government. The methodology of the study includes systematic approach, formal logical method, interpretation of judicial decisions of Russian Constitutional Court. The issues of determining the level of legal regulation of instruments of direct municipal democracy – elections, referendum, recall of an elected person, voting on changes in the boundaries of the municipality and the transformation of the municipality – are analyzed through the prism of judicial practice. The main results and scope of their application. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has developed many common positions that can be applied in determining the parameters of rule-making on issues of direct democracy. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation confirms the broad competence of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in the regulation of municipal elections. However, the expansion of the normative competence of the constituent entities of the Federation does not always lead to the democratization of the subject of municipal regulation. The federal and regional public authorities must take into account the interests of municipalities in carrying out the legal regulation of a constituent entities’ matter, and leave them the possibility of legal regulation, including the implementation of direct democracy at the local level. The territorial foundations of local self-government, formation of municipal entities, on the one hand, and the administrative-territorial division of constituent entities of the Russian Federation on the other, have independent significance, its own legal content and belong to different spheres: the first belongs to joint conducting by Russia and its constituent entities, the second belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Conclusions. The conclusions formulated by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in relation to the distribution of legal regulation between the levels of power, the definition of the parameters of municipal rule-making on issues of direct democracy are summarized and commented.

The subject of the paper is legal conditions for realization the constitutional right to education.The purpose of the paper is to confirm or disprove the hypothesis that legal measures of realization of the right to education that are used in developed foreign countries can be used in Russia to improve Russian educational legislation.The methodology. General scientific methods as analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, comparison were used. The author also uses the formal legal interpretation of Russian judicial decisions as well as comparative legal method.The main results and scope of their application. The court decisions supporting the principle of territorial consolidation of schools indicate that this principle does not exclude the possibility of citizens not residing in the fixed territory to enter the school of their choice. However, the implementation of this feature, due to the lack of legislative regulations of the procedure, can cause bias, corruption and other abuses of constitutional right to education. Inequality children’s opportunities to enter the school due to their place of residence persists in the individual selection process. Situations where there are no clear and consistent rules for the provision school education inevitably generates numerous violations of citi-zens' rights and inequality based on the financial situation of parents. In Russia, there is no "waiting list", when children wishing to enroll in a particular school, would be taken to the vacant place. Accordingly, the adoption of such decisions by school administrations also lies in the plane of subjective discretion and causes corruption risks. China's experience is interesting because there are transparent, equal conditions for legal attraction of extra-budgetary funds to the school system, which do not turn access to education in the best schools into a corruption scheme or competition of parents ' incomes and do not infringe the rights of those who seek to enter them on the basis of their own achievements and knowledge. Speaking about the British experience, it is interesting to note that the lack of vacancies in the school itself can not be a reason for refusing to enroll a child in school.Conclusions. The legal experience of developed countries, such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, Japan, China, in regulating the grounds and procedures for the provision of school education can be successfully applied in order to improve the Russian legislation, which establishes the legal mechanisms for the implementation of the constitutional right to education.

This article is devoted to the problem of fixing in the chapter of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, regulating the procedure in court of the cassation instance, a single criterion of significant violations of material and procedural law standards, as well as determining the content of “guidelines” for both the applicant and the court, providing for the unconditional cancellation of judicial decisions of lower courts. The Author comes to the conclusion that the presence in the Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation of such stable phrases as “significant violations of the norms of substantive and procedural law” and the absence of their normative interpretation significantly limit the exercise of the right of citizens to access to court.

УДК 347.9 The purpose of the article is to provide a critical analysis of different approaches towards the notion of “European Civil Procedure”, to substantiate by means of legal and judicial practice, research papers a true essence and legal nature of the European Civil Procedure. The methodological basis for the study: general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, comparison); private and academic (interpretation, comparison, formal-legal). Problems and basic scientific results: the notion of “European Civil Procedure”, which describes the process of EU Member States judicial cooperation, bears largely a conventional character. It is not used officially by the organs and institutions of the EU, or its Member States. Moreover, it assumes an unjustified monopolization of the European discourse on the side of EU’s initiatives, although Europe is not limited to that association neither in geographical, nor in a legal sense. However, the given notion has become quite colloquial and does not cause any difficulties to the beneficiaries, and thus we may use the terms “European Civil Procedure” (ECP) and “Civil Procedure of the EU” (CP EU) as synonyms. Different approaches towards the nature of the European Civil Procedure claim that it may be regarded as: (1) a separate (communitary) regime of Private International Law (or, otherwise, International Civil Procedure); (2) means to approximate national rules of Civil Pro-cedure; 3) a particular system of judicial decisions recognition; (4) an independent area of supranational law; 5) an aggregate of all or part of the qualities mentioned above. The system of EU Civil Procedure constitutes “federal” procedural law of the Union that functions side-by-side national procedural rules. It governs those relations that go beyond the borders of one Member State, but not the EU itself. Relations between Member States and third nations are still generally out of the federal competence. We need not to forget, however, that a genuine federal center does not only introduce centralized procedures, but also approves mandatory standards for all of the levels of the regulatory system (in other words, pursues approximation). A right of any federal state to exercise such competence does not find any questions due to supremacy of its authority. Still in the EU legal order the principle of its supremacy has a limited application and it is not obvious that the introduction of general norms for the Civil Procedure come within it. The existence of different standards of justice (28 national ones and one supranational) has a negative effect on the unity of the “area of justice”, making it illusory. In order to guarantee an equal level of judicial protection everywhere in the EU a procedural “bill of rights” is required, and it needs to be adopted at the “highest level” of the system. Conclusions. The EU Civil Procedure has a dual nature. In its own (narrow) sense it is a body of federal procedural law of the EU that is applied when a cross-border situation of intracommunity character comes into being. In a broader sense, it is also a combination of norms, rules and principles of justice that are adopted by the EU as a federal center for both community-wide and national levels of the judicial system in order to guarantee the unity to the area of justice. In the ideal case, the European area of justice has to be a coherent, unified and internally consistent system. Reality is, however, far from that image, since there are multiple problems of both legal and political nature that hinder the implementa-tion of these brave ideas.