DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2018.6.26489

Abstract: The subject of this research is the category of subjective interest in administrative judicial procedure. The article analyzes the regulation of the Article 128 (Section 3, Part 1) of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian Federation that stipulates refusal in accepting an administrative statement of claim in determining by the court the lack of legal interest of an administrative plaintiff. The author considers the scientific positions and the practice of superior courts on the question of establishing by the court of legal interest of an administrative plaintiff in the absence of partied, as well as analyzes the question of interpretation of the concept of subjective interest of an administrative plaintiff, including in legal relations on environmental protection. The following conclusions were made in the course of this work: the question on subjective interest in administrative judicial procedure can be a separate object of dispute, and a plaintiff must be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence in order to substantiate the presence of interest. The court refusal in accepting administrative statement of claim is inadmissible in case of potential violation of the socially important interests, which can affect the interests of an administrative plaintiff. The author’s special contribution lies in conclusion on the need for adopting clarifications by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federations on the extensive interpretation of the Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Environmental Protection”.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2018.6.43157

Abstract: The subject of this research is the category of subjective interest in administrative judicial procedure. The article analyzes the regulation of the Article 128 (Section 3, Part 1) of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian Federation that stipulates refusal in accepting an administrative statement of claim in determining by the court the lack of legal interest of an administrative plaintiff. The author considers the scientific positions and the practice of superior courts on the question of establishing by the court of legal interest of an administrative plaintiff in the absence of partied, as well as analyzes the question of interpretation of the concept of subjective interest of an administrative plaintiff, including in legal relations on environmental protection. The following conclusions were made in the course of this work: the question on subjective interest in administrative judicial procedure can be a separate object of dispute, and a plaintiff must be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence in order to substantiate the presence of interest. The court refusal in accepting administrative statement of claim is inadmissible in case of potential violation of the socially important interests, which can affect the interests of an administrative plaintiff. The author’s special contribution lies in conclusion on the need for adopting clarifications by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federations on the extensive interpretation of the Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Environmental Protection”.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0595.2018.5.26569

Abstract: The subject of the research is particular issues of the legal regulation of the institution of judicial normative control in administrative legal proceedings of the Russian Federation. In her article Ivanova analyzes provisions of the Russian Federation Administrative Court Procedure Code that regulates proceedings related to cases involving the contesting of normative legal acts. The objectives of the research are as follows: 1. to define criteria for classying judicial normative control as direct or indirect, abstract or concrete, as well as the relation between them; 2. to analyze provisions of the Russian Federation Administrative Court Procedure Code that may be applied to the abstract or concrete criterion offered by the author. In the course of her research Ivanova has applied such research methods as analysis and sythesis, formal law method, and etc. The  main conclusions of the research imply the following theses: 1) The criterion for differentiating between direct and indirect normative control is the way a judicial audit corresponds to the matter of asserted claims (in particular, whether normative control has the purpose to challenge regulations or protect one's legal rights); the criterion for classifying normative control as abstract or conrete is judicial activity (consequently, monitoring of legality of regulations for public interest or protection of private interests). 2. In its judicial acts, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation states that proceedings that challenge regulations should be carried out as abstract normative control. Nevertheless, based on the criterion offered by the author to differentiate between abstract or concrete normative control, regulations of the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Procedure Code demonstrate elements of both abstract and concrete normative control.