Complicity in Administrative Proceedings

N. A. Gromoshina
{"title":"Complicity in Administrative Proceedings","authors":"N. A. Gromoshina","doi":"10.17803/1994-1471.2024.159.2.012-017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The author of the paper, making a brief historical insight, comes to the conclusion that unification of institutions of complicity in modern civil procedural codes is predetermined by the development of both the doctrine and legislation. Explaining the main characteristics and types of procedural complicity, the author expresses an opinion on the acceptability for the Russian institution of mandatory procedural complicity of the American model that divides mandatory complicity into conditionally mandatory and absolutely mandatory. Based on judicial practice, the paper argues for the need to finalize the grounds for procedural complicity in administrative proceedings, taking into account the specifics of substantive administrative legal relations, as well as the need to expand the court’s ability to bring to court co-defendants based on the tasks of justice and judicial discretion. The author substantiates the conclusion that the first and second defendants involved in the case of challenging the decision, action (inaction) of an official, state or municipal officer under Part 2 of Article 221 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, in fact, are co-defendants. The paper emphasizes the importance of finalizing normative regulation of the institution of complicity in administrative proceedings.","PeriodicalId":158497,"journal":{"name":"Actual Problems of Russian Law","volume":"263 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Actual Problems of Russian Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2024.159.2.012-017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The author of the paper, making a brief historical insight, comes to the conclusion that unification of institutions of complicity in modern civil procedural codes is predetermined by the development of both the doctrine and legislation. Explaining the main characteristics and types of procedural complicity, the author expresses an opinion on the acceptability for the Russian institution of mandatory procedural complicity of the American model that divides mandatory complicity into conditionally mandatory and absolutely mandatory. Based on judicial practice, the paper argues for the need to finalize the grounds for procedural complicity in administrative proceedings, taking into account the specifics of substantive administrative legal relations, as well as the need to expand the court’s ability to bring to court co-defendants based on the tasks of justice and judicial discretion. The author substantiates the conclusion that the first and second defendants involved in the case of challenging the decision, action (inaction) of an official, state or municipal officer under Part 2 of Article 221 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, in fact, are co-defendants. The paper emphasizes the importance of finalizing normative regulation of the institution of complicity in administrative proceedings.
参与行政诉讼
本文作者通过对历史的简要回顾得出结论,现代民事诉讼法中共犯制度的统一是由理论和立法的发展所决定的。在解释程序共犯的主要特征和类型时,作者就俄罗斯是否可以接受将强制性共犯分为有条件强制性和绝对强制性的美国模式的强制性程序共犯制度发表了意见。根据司法实践,本文认为有必要最终确定行政诉讼中程序共犯的理由,同时考虑到实质性行政法律关系的特殊性,以及有必要根据司法任务和司法裁量权扩大法院将共同被告送上法庭的能力。作者证实了以下结论,即根据《俄罗斯联邦行政诉讼法典》第 221 条第 2 部分对官员、国家或市政官员的决定、作为(不作为)提出质疑的案件中所涉及的第一和第二被告实际上是共同被告。本文强调了最终确定行政诉讼中共犯制度的规范性条例的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信