Search results

1

Реализация судебного контроля в сфере нормотворчества в Российской Федерации

100%

Никитин С. В.

Studia Politologiczne

|

2014

|

vol. 32

130-143

XX

Рассматриваются вопросы организации и осуществления судебного контроля за законностью (правомерностью) нормативно-правовых актов в Российской Федерации. Формулируется понятие судебного нормоконтроля, определяются его функции и формы. Разграничивается прямой и косвенный судебный нормоконтроль. Анализируется проблема разграничения компетенции российских судов по делам об оспаривании нормативных предписаний. Определяется круг лиц, обладающих правом судебного оспаривания нормативных правовых актов. Прослеживается развитие процессуального регулирования правовых последствий судебного решения о признания спорного нормативного правового акта незаконным.

EN

The article examines the matters involved in organizing and exercising judicial control over the lawfulness (rightfulness) of normative legal acts in the Russian Federation. It formulates the concept of judicial normative control and defines its functions and forms. The article differentiates the direct and indirect normative control. It analyses the problem of delimitation of the jurisdiction of Russian courts in respect of the cases on disputing regulatory orders and determines the persons holding the right to judicial disputing of normative legal acts. The article traces the development of procedural regulation of legal effects of a court decision on declaring a disputable normative legal acts as void.

2

Digitalization of Public Governance in Conditions of Netocratization of Society: the Legislative Framework of Ukraine

86%

Storozhenko L.

Copernicus Political and Legal Studies

|

2023

|

issue 5

30-37

EN

Today, information and communication technologies are widely used in all spheres of public life; state policy is gradually gaining publicity and social accessibility; it becomes possible for society to actively participate in globalization policies and processes; the digitalization of public services is globalized and covers the whole world, which indicates a netocratic vector of development of modern society. Given the pace of development of globalized e-democracy and the world’s efforts for socio-economic recovery, it is necessary to update the priorities of digital governance in order to increase trust in governments and state institutions, and for this it is necessary to create effective legislation that determines the possibility of forming a perfect governance system and regulatory state policy in the field of e-democracy. The article considers domestic legislative acts designed to regulate and streamline management processes in the conditions of netocracy of society, to ensure their consistency, stability, balance (laws of Ukraine: «On Information », «On Information Protection in Information and Communication Systems», «On the National Informatization Program», «On Electronic Documents and Electronic Document Management», «On Electronic Digital Signature», «On Electronic Trust Services», «On State Registration of Legal Entities, Individuals – Enterprises and Public Formations», «On telecommunications», «On the licensing system in the field of economic activity», «On the Fundamentals of the Development of the Information Society in Ukraine for 2007–2015», «On the Protection of Personal Data», etc.). An analysis of the indicated domestic legislative framework indicates a quantitative growth and improvement of regulatory documents covering the digital spheres of public administration. It has been established that the issue of harmonization of Ukrainian legislation with world legal norms remains important.

3

K odpovědnosti za újmu způsobenou podzákonnou normotvorbou

58%

Svoboda T., Smutná V.

Právník. Teoretický časopis pro otázky státu a práva (The Lawyer - Scientific Review for Problems of State and Law)

|

2016

|

vol. 155

|

issue 10

913-923

EN

The paper deals with the question of responsibility of the state (or territorial self-governments) for damage caused by illegal sub-statutory regulations under the Law no. 82/1998 Coll. on liability for damage caused by the exercise of public power. Existing case law of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court consistently rejects the inclusion of legislative activities under the category of maladministration as a category of responsibility for the exercise of public power which can be in the context of law-making generally considered. It is typical that courts came to that conclusion in the context of the statutory law-making (legislation). This legal opinion was, however, later extended to sub-statutory law-making. The paper identifies three main arguments (raising of only political responsibility for the law-making, autonomy of the legislator and maladministration as solely the application of the law) that the case law led to the conclusion of irresponsibility for legislative activities and apply these arguments on sub-statutory law-making, and concludes that these arguments do not clearly lead to the exclusion of liability. According to the authors more systematic approach to the problem of the liability for law-making is needed.

CS

Příspěvek se zabývá otázkou odpovědnosti státu (či územních samosprávných celků) za újmu způsobenou protiprávní podzákonnou normotvorbou v režimu zákona č. 82/1998 Sb., o odpovědnosti za škodu způsobenou při výkonu veřejné moci.Dosavadní judikatura Ústavního soudu a Nejvyššího soudu stabilně odmítá podřazení normotvorné činnosti pod kategorii nesprávného úředního postupu jakožto kategorii odpovědnosti při výkonu veřejné moci, o které lze v souvislosti s normotvorbou zpravidla uvažovat. Pro tuto judikaturu je charakteristické, že k uvedenému závěru dospěla v kontextu zákonné normotvorby. Tento právní názor byl nicméně posléze rozšířen také na normotvorbu podzákonnou. Příspěvek identifikuje trojici hlavních argumentů (vyvození politické odpovědnosti za normotvorbu, autonomie normotvůrce a odpovědnosti výhradně za aplikaci práva), které judikaturu vedly k závěru o neodpovědnosti za normotvornou činnost, a uplatňuje tyto argumenty v oblasti podzákonné normotvorby, přičemž dochází k závěru, že tyto argumenty vyloučení odpovědnosti za podzákonnou normotvorbu zcela jednoznačně nesvědčí. Autoři příspěvku se v závěru přiklánějí k systémovému přístupu, který by více zohledňoval podstatu konkrétní (podzákonné) normotvorby.

Refine search results

1 Copernicus Political and Legal Studies

1 Právník. Teoretický časopis pro otázky státu a práva (The Lawyer - Scientific Review for Problems of State and Law)

1 Studia Politologiczne

1 Smutná V.

1 Storozhenko L.

1 Svoboda T.

1 Никитин С. В.

1 2023

1 2016

1 2014

Реализация судебного контроля в сфере нормотворчества в Российской Федерации

Digitalization of Public Governance in Conditions of Netocratization of Society: the Legislative Framework of Ukraine

K odpovědnosti za újmu způsobenou podzákonnou normotvorbou