Today, bringing to administrative responsibility of officials is provided for when they commit an offense of an administrative nature related to improper performance or non-performance of their own duties related to the service. This article describes in detail this category, and also fully considers the types of responsibility. In addition, quite vivid examples are given here for full disclosure of the material.
Administrative responsibility of officials
Administrative law at the present stage of its development interprets administrative responsibility in relation to persons holding certain positions as an integral part and a variety of a fairly large-scale institution of the type of responsibility presented. It is important to note that by virtue of the above circumstance, the characteristics of the latter are inherent in it because of the unified basis for the appearance. Nevertheless, at the same time, its difference lies in its specific features, specific to it, and the special content of the elements of the direct composition of an administrative offense by an official. It is necessary to supplement that the elements presented are nothing but the consequence of the presence of a special subject of violation, the role of which is played by an official with a special status (legal status).
That is why in the article it would be advisable to identify in a consistent way the fundamental ideas and provisions that in one way or another make it possible to fully reveal the content and essence administrative responsibility of officials. In addition, it is important to consider and conduct a subsequent analysis of the existing at the present stage of development of the relevant branch of law problems of administrative responsibility in general terms, as well as regarding individual officials. It is necessary to add that in the process of submitting material, its compliance with the identified objectives and goals of this topic is seriously observed.
The essence of the concept and main features
Administrative responsibility of officials, legal entities - a complex, multifaceted phenomenon. Its essence is primarily determined by the social nature of its origin. One way or another, it is revealed through the legal relations of society and the individual.
It is by virtue of the above provisions that the administrative responsibility of officials (CAO) in the general social aspect should be understood as some relationship between the two entities (in this case, the first party (responsible) is the official, and the second is the state body of jurisdiction with an administrative orientation). It is important to note that an official in any circumstances is obliged, due to his own legal status (in other words, status), to form certain behavior in the implementation of activities of official importance in strict accordance with the model that is expected. It is worth adding that this model is contained in legal standards that are protected by administrative sanctions. The second side of the above relationship, which is involved in bringing to administrative responsibility officials, provides an assessment, control of such behavior, and also considers its current results.So, when assessing a negative value (that is, with an unquestioning fault), the state body is vested with the absolute right to apply the appropriate administrative punishment provided for by the standards of modern administrative law.
It is important to know that one of the fundamental links in the responsibility functional for officials of an administrative nature is the incentive function. It is able to display the social value of responsibility directly as a tool that fully organizes the observance of the rule of law and discipline by officials in the implementation of certain types of activities related to official ones.
In accordance with the characterized position responsibility of officials for violation of administrative law It is a system of measures of the material, moral and psychological orientation of specially authorized bodies of state significance (it is also subjects of jurisdiction of an administrative type) to form the will on the part of an official to achieve proper behavior, which is enshrined by the standards of administrative law. It is important to note that this behavior should in one way or another be consistent with the public interest.
Signs of liability
Like any legal category, the administrative responsibility of officials, legal entities is endowed with certain characteristics, which, however, make up the content of the administrative responsibility in relation to officials, and also reflect its specificity as one of the many varieties of the institution under consideration. Among them, it is important to indicate the following points:
- The presence of a subject - an official, which is characterized by the presence of a certain status (legal status in society).
- The presence of grounds for misconduct of an administrative nature.
- The presence of a separate aggregate system of legal standards that govern administrative responsibility of officials, organizations.
- The presence of a somewhat limited list of measures of an administrative type of responsibility that are somehow used in relation to individual officials.
It is important to note that the presented category can also be considered as an institution. Thus, as one of the majority of institutions given grow law administrative responsibility of government officials can be regarded as social relations regulated through specific standards of administrative law. As a rule, they appear when administrative punishments of administrative type are applied by subjects of jurisdiction in a specific procedural order directly to an official who has implemented an administrative offense related to improper performance or non-performance of his own official duties.
Concept formation
It is interesting to know that the process of creating the term “official” in the branch of law has a rather long history. So, the following points are the significant results that scientists of the corresponding direction have achieved through the analyzed type of activity:
- The basis of the organizational and legal nature relating to the concept of an official is its direct legal status (in other words, the legal status in society). Today, the latter should be understood as a provision that is fully regulated through legal standards.It should be noted that it is expressed primarily in the presence of an official of certain duties and rights of an additional nature, which are somehow necessary for the implementation of official activities in state authorities, local authorities, other organizations of state significance, as well as in other structures that are completely independent of ownership. In addition, the status directly defines the boundaries of employee responsibility.
- Identification of signs among characteristic categories of officials, among them the implementation of operations that entail specific legal consequences; the implementation of managerial functions (it is important to know that the key is their leadership, which in any case provides some impact on the behavior of persons subordinate in accordance with the service); possession of certain powers of a regulatory nature in terms of public and official aspects.
The basis of administrative responsibility of officials
It should be noted that the legal basis of the type of responsibility under consideration in relation to officials is nothing more than an official violation of an administrative nature. It is a guilty, unlawful inaction or action on the part of an official. As a rule, this is done because of improper performance or non-performance of their own official duties. By the way, it differs from other administrative offenses related to individuals by an increased measure of public danger, which arises from the fact that an official usually has a special legal status (in other words, status). It must be added that the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, as well as the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation regarding administrative offenses, defines administrative responsibility of officials.
It is important to know!
You need to know that one of the most informative characteristics of the administrative type of responsibility applicable to officials is the presence of a systematic set of legal standards that somehow determine its specificity, which is an integral element of the regulatory framework of the corresponding institution. It is important to supplement that the development of legislation in terms of liability of officials for administrative offenses It is carried out together with the evolution of the general legislation concerning the administrative type of responsibility, and is characterized by certain periods, among which the following points:
- The period from 1917 to 1921.
- The period from 1922 to 1930.
- The period from 1931 to 1961.
- The period since June 21, 1961, the onset of which is closely connected with the execution of the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR
- The period since October 23, 1980, the onset of which is associated with the adoption and further enactment (which occurred on March 1, 1981) of the fundamental moments of the legislation of the USSR and Union republics regarding administrative offenses.
- The period from January 1, 1985 to the beginning of the 1990s.
- The period from the beginning of the 1990s to July 1, 2002.
- The period from July 1, 2002 to this day.
Additional points
It is important to know that the Code of Administrative Offenses in force in Russia is a significant step forward in implementing a valid codification of the legislation of the administrative branch of law. So, its appearance posed specific tasks for law enforcement practice and science:
- Broad propaganda of the new Code of Administrative Offenses to bring relevant provisions to the awareness of individual citizens.
- A sufficiently deep study of the standards of the current Code by practitioners of administrative jurisdiction structures for its most effective use.
- Development and further study by scientists of the corresponding branch of law of individual problems and issues of the theory of administrative-legal type, administrative process (the formation of the institution of justice plays a very important role here), administrative tortology.
It should be noted that certain provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses are quite controversial in terms of legal theory, and this is accordingly perceived by the regulatory legal acts of the constituent entities of the Federation regarding administrative offenses. That is why today is an extremely urgent need for some improvement in the structure and content of CAO.
Separation of powers
It is important to know that one of the main ones in the field of legal regulation administrative responsibility of officials (here can be attributed to other individuals) is the issue of delimitation in terms of powers between Russia and its individual entities. Thus, the formation of legislation on administrative responsibility, which would meet all the requirements relevant at the present stage of development of society, is possible only if the new realities of the Russian Federation are evenly explained, which are determined, as a rule, by a federal nature. You need to know that the large number of opinions that exist today in the literature of a scientific orientation and aimed at solving the issue of delimiting actual subjects of jurisdiction between Russia and its subjects in accordance with the establishment of administrative responsibility, is just a consequence of the fuzzy definition of the issue in force in the current Constitution.
It must be emphasized that the method chosen by the legislator for the distribution of relevant subjects of conduct in this sphere of relations, which has been reflected in the Code of Administrative Offenses, somehow requires some improvement. If we consider the issue more specifically, then, for example, a separate article should be introduced into the current Code, which defines the subjects of competence of Russian entities. In this case, it is necessary to secure the right to establish exclusively that administrative responsibility of officials and structures that are consistent with offenses other than the Code of Administrative Offenses. Thus, the only act defining the administrative kind of responsibility of individuals should be the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Liability classification
In this chapter, it would be advisable to present relevant to date types of administrative responsibility of officials. So, among them it is important to note the following points:
- A warning.
- Administrative fine.
- The seizure of an object that has become an instrument of implementation or the direct object of an administrative offense, on a reimbursable basis.
- The absolute confiscation of the subject, which was an instrument of implementation or the direct object of an administrative offense.
- Complete deprivation of a special right that was granted to an individual as one of the most common measures of administrative responsibility of a former official. It would be appropriate to include the right to hunt or drive a car.
- Arrest of an administrative orientation.
- The expulsion of a stateless person or foreign citizen from the borders of the Russian Federation.
- Disqualification.
Subject Definition
In conclusion, it should be noted that in determining officials held administratively liable, as well as subjects of the opposite side in each specific situation, an important role is played by the identification of the following nuances:
- Does the culprit really belong to the category of officials (for the exact implementation of the corresponding operation, one should find out his legal status, as well as such elements as the procedure for appointment, his immediate name, current authority, and so on).
- Whether the realized act of an illegal nature is included in a systematic set of official duties of the culprit.