administrative proceedings

This article examines the 'full jurisdiction' requirement under Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its implementation within European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law. It first analyses the theoretical foundations for 'full jurisdiction' which implies, in principle, a substitutive review of the merits of administrative decisions. It then focuses on the ECtHR case law, highlighting its ambivalence and inconsistencies: while the Court generally requires a substitutive review in criminal cases and in cases involving complex technical assessments, it tends to accept a less exacting standard of review in civil cases, especially when administrative discretionary choices or policy determinations are at issue. This article suggests that the ambivalence and inconsistencies within ECtHR case law can be explained in terms of the principle of separation of powers, which still underpins most legal systems of signatory states to the ECHR.

The Russian judicial administrative procedural law has in a relatively short period of time been replenished with a number of special institutes devoted to independent types of proceedings for considering administrative cases or transforming existing types of proceedings according to new requirements adding features to the consideration of administrative cases. The goal of this study is to gain a theoretical understanding of the processes of differentiation of the procedural form in administrative proceedings and their assessment from the standpoint of their compliance with the goals and objectives of legal proceedings. The conclusion based on an analysis of the current legislation on administrative proceedings is that the differentiation of the procedural form does not always meet the specified goals and objectives, and therefore, as a result of the study, the author points out that the model of differentiation of the procedural form in administrative proceedings should be built depending on the protected substantive rights, the nature of material legal relations and with the orientation towards the optimization of legal institutions.

The author examines the issues of an active role of Russian courts in the administrative proceedings according to the Code of administrative proceedings of the RF and a hearing officer of an agency in the United States. The article focuses on the differences in the organization of the administrative justice in Russia and the United States, provides characteristics of the active role of the court and the hearing officer of an agency in the United States in resolving disputes with representatives of the executive branch, outlines proposals for improving the legal regulation of this area.

Keywords: administrative proceedings, administrative justice, procedural activity of the court, hearing officer of an agency in the United States

ISBN: 978-5-8354-1681-3 Legal Presumptions in Judicial Administrative Procedural Law: [Monograph] / S.P. Grubtsova. – Moscow : Statut. 2020. –233 p. Настоящая монография посвящена исследованию конструкций правовых презумпций в рамках судебного административного процессуального права в условиях выделения на современном этапе административного судопроизводства как самостоятельной формы осуществления полномочий судебной власти. С целью выявления специфики правовых презумпций в данной сфере правового регулирования автором подробно рассматриваются вопросы, касающиеся места норм, регулирующих административное судопроизводство, в системе российского права, их правовая природа. Анализируются такие предлагаемые в юридической науке подходы к решению данного вопроса, как понимание указанных норм в качестве самостоятельной отрасли права, института административного права, подотрасли гражданского процессуального права. Значительная часть исследования касается теоретической основы правовых презумпций в судебном административном процессуальном праве, раскрываются их сущность, правовая природа, признаки, функции, анализируется действие на отдельных стадиях судебного административного процесса, предлагается собственное определение понятия. Кроме того, основываясь на действующем процессуальном законодательстве об административном судопроизводстве, судебной практике, юридической доктрине, автором предложены наиболее оптимальные модели, касающиеся видов правовых презумпций в обозначенной сфере. Монография предназначена для научных сотрудников, преподавателей, аспирантов, студентов юридических вузов и факультетов, практикующих юристов.

Resumen
Este artículo está dedicado al análisis de conceptos científicos y el
marco legal del concepto de soporte informativo para procesos judiciales
administrativos. Se estudian las características y peculiaridades
de la provisión de información para procedimientos judiciales administrativos;
se destacan sus diferencias con el soporte de información
para el tribunal administrativo, se proponen las definiciones del autor
del concepto de apoyo informativo para el procedimiento administrativo
y apoyo informativo para el tribunal administrativo, se detallan
las tres etapas de formación de la legislación nacional que regula la
provisión de información de los procedimientos legales administrativos
y se aclara el sistema de leyes y reglamentos, cuyas disposiciones
consolidan los fundamentos legales de soporte informativo para los
procesos administrativos judiciales.

Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of scientific concepts and the
legal framework of the concept of information support for administrative
legal proceedings. Features and peculiarities of information provision
for administrative legal proceedings are studied; its differences
from information support for the administrative court are stressed.
The author’s definitions of the concept of information support for the
administrative procedure and information support for the administrative
court are proposed. Three stages of formation of national legislation
regulating information provision of administrative legal proceedings
are singled out. The system of laws and regulations, which
provisions consolidate legal fundamentals of information support for
administrative legal proceedings, is clarified. Prospective directions
for the development of scientific inquiry in the field of information
support for administrative legal proceedings and its legal regulation
are clarified.

This article examines the 'full jurisdiction' requirement under Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its implementation within European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law. It first analyses the theoretical foundations for 'full jurisdiction' which implies, in principle, a substitutive review of the merits of administrative decisions. It then focuses on the ECtHR case law, highlighting its ambivalence and inconsistencies: while the Court generally requires a substitutive review in criminal cases and in cases involving complex technical assessments, it tends to accept a less exacting standard of review in civil cases, especially when administrative discretionary choices or policy determinations are at issue. This article suggests that the ambivalence and inconsistencies within ECtHR case law can be explained in terms of the principle of separation of powers, which still underpins most legal systems of signatory states to the ECHR.