DOI: 10.7256/2306-9945.2015.4.16508

Abstract: The subject of the article is the range of legal and organizational problems of administrative-legal regulation of financial control. The author carries out theoretical and legal analysis of the federal legislation which characterizes jurisdictional authorities of control and account bodies of external public audit (control); the elements of this legislation don't conform to each other from the viewpoint of application of budget measures of coercion and the possibility to reveal, prevent and impose administrative liability for administrative offences in the public finance sphere. The opportunity from July 2013 to apply fiscal measures of coercion, to draw up a Protocol of administrative violation and to pass it to special departments of Executive authorities or courts, does not provide the full special administrative-jurisdictional status of the Chamber of Accounts of the Russian Federation and control and account bodies of Russia's regions. The article substantiates the need to improve federal legislation in order to achieve harmonization of coercive measures in the public sector and the authorities of external public audit bodies contained in the Budget Code of the Russian Federation and the Code of administrative offences. The methodological basis comprises the recent achievements of epistemology. The author applies the general philosophical and theoretical methods (dialectics, the systems approach, analysis, synthesis, analogy, deduction, observation and modeling), the traditional-legal methods (formal-logical), and special sociological methods (the statistical methods, expert assessments, etc.).The author concludes that at present it is necessary to amend the legislation on control and account bodies with such principles of activity as planning and efficiency, responsibility, coordination of actions with other bodies of financial control, officials' competency and information transparancy. The article presents the author's position on the increase of the period of limitation for administrative liability imposition in the sphere of public finance. The author comes to the conclusion about the necessity to provide control and account bodies with the right to consider administrative cases in budget sphere. 

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0765.2015.2.15647

Abstract: In her article Lapina examines provisions of different branches of law that regulate social relations in the financial and economic sphere. The article is devoted to the content and nature of state coercion and peculiarities of the classification of administrative enforcement measures as a form of state coercion. The example of budget, banking and securities market legislations demonstrated the lack of a unified system of measures of state coercion in the Russian Federation. The researcher emphasizes the need for the integrated improvement of the system of measures of state coercion in all spheres and areas of public administration including finances.  In the process of writing this article the following methods were used: hermeneutical approach, systems approach, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, comparative law research and other methods that are usually used in legal research. According to the researcher, such improvement should involve the entire system of Russian legislation, i.e. not only sectoral legislation that contains field-specific measures of state coercion but also unified laws that establish different kinds of legal responsibility and describe the system of associated measures (forms) of punishment (criminal, administrative, disciplinary, etc.) for violation of law.   

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0765.2015.2.15846

Abstract: The last decade was marked by the rapid development of the financial and real sectors of the Russian economy. This fact led to the development of administrative and legal regulation of industry, agriculture, finance, banking and securities market. While forming a legal space of interaction of subjects of these spheres of life the government greatly expanded the segment of administrative-preventive, administrative-preclusive and administrative-punitive measures of administrative coercion. Recent measures are concentrated on various regulations such as laws and subordinate acts and are applied through out-of-court or in-court procedures which causes numerous difficulties in the doctrinal justification of a particular place of administrative proceedings in the system of administrative process. The present article is devoted to analysis of mentioned problems. In the process of writing this article the following research methods have been used: hermeneutical approach, systems approach, methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, comparative law method and other methods that are usually used in legal research. The authors of the article conclude that along with other administrative and jurisdictional proceedings such as complaint management, disciplinary and administrative proceedings there is an independent type of administrative and jurisdictional proceeding on application of state coercive measures conducted by executive authorities on an extrajudicial basis.