CC BY
17
«¡M®
tflO'
COMPARATIVE STADIES
AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT LAW AND LIMITS SET ON TRANSFORMING THE CONCEPT OF LAW
Svetlana Boshno,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14420/en.2017.6.1
Doctor of Legal Sciences, Professor, Chief Researcher of the Scientific Research Institute of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation (FSIN of Russia), Professor of the Institute of Public Administration and Civil Service at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration of the Russian Federation (IPACS RANEPA), e-mail: [email protected].
Galina Vasyuta, Ph.D. (Psychology), Associate Professor, Associate Professor at the Chair of Psychology of Education and Development in the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education Volgograd State Socio-Pedagogical University (VSSPU), e-mail: [email protected].
Abstract. The objective of legislative procedure is to provide for preparation of
competent draft laws. Quality requirements cover several aspects like language, style, structure, consistency, etc. However, since these requirements are not statutory, any cases of non-compliance are not considered as breach of law.
The authors examine provisions of the State Duma Regulations concerning the concept of law on different stages of law-making process. The article shows the stages that a draft law passes as exemplified by Federal Law No. 254695-6. In case with the said Law the procedure made it possible to adopt the law, which name and contents differed from the text that passed in the first reading. Thus, breach of the State Duma Regulations did not anyhow affect passage of the draft law through the Duma. Consequently, the Law was adopted with flaw amendments. It should be noted that this Law grants access of small
and medium-sized business entities to state support, including access to additional financing and participating in tenders on preferential terms. The authors suggest that it is necessary to introduce amendments into the State Duma Regulations and revoke laws passed with violations of the legislative procedure. Keywords: the State Duma Regulations, lawmaking, legislative proceedings,
readings of a draft law, a draft law, concept of the law, Federal Draft law No. 254695-6, constitutionality, legitimacy, rationale, legislative technique, stages of the law-making process, concept of the law, first reading, second reading amendments to a draft law, subject with the right of legislative initiative, responsible committee, State Duma, Constitutional Court.
For many years effective legislation, theory and practice of lawmaking have failed to align their positions as of setting limits for changing the concept of a draft law by way of introducing amendments in the course of the second reading.
The term «concept of law» is well developed in juridical science1. The term is used in legislation2, and in this article we use it in the same meaning. Outside the context of the given publication there remains a wide understanding of the concept of law in the sense of a doctrine or an idea produced by a qualified subject (e.g. a public authority, a professional association, an involved private actor) beyond the lawmaking process, before the process starts.
As indicated in the State Duma Regulations, the concept is an integral part of the explanatory note (Subparagraph a), Para 1, Art. 105) and is to be discussed in the first reading (Para 1, Art. 118). Legislators use the term «concept of a draft law that passed the first reading in the State Duma».
Concept of law is a document that defines its objectives, project tasks and the subject matter. The concept also estimates the effective statutory regulation in the given field (including contradictions, defects), predicts consequences of approving the draft in economic, political and social spheres3.
Since the concept is to be considered by the State Duma and adopted according to the procedure established for passing a draft in the first read-
1 Baranov V. M. Idea of a Draft Law as an Early Diagnostics Means to Estimate Quality of Modern Russian Legislation // Juridical Science and Practice: Bulletin of Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. 2013. No. 22. P. 148-151; Baranov V.M. Idea and Concept of Draft Law: the Notion, Meaning, Dialectics of Functioning // Juridical Science and Practice: Bulletin of Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. 2012. No. 1. P. 15-29; Tsarev A. Yu. Concept of Laws in the Russian Federation // Composite Review Digest of the Journal Representative Power - the XXIst Century: Legislation, Comments, Problems. 2004. No. 1-3.
2 Resolution of the State Duma Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation dd 22.01.1998 No. 2134-II GD (where GD stands for the State Duma) «About Regulations of the State Duma of Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation».
3 Para 2 of Key Demands to the Concept and Development of Draft Federal Laws [approved by RF Government Regulation of 02.08.2001 No. 576 «About Approval of Key Demands to the Concept and Development of Draft Federal Laws»].
ing, it shall be defended in the same way as we defend the text of an adopted law.
At the same time, practice shows that there is a problem of a possibility to introduce changes and changes limits for the concept of law after the first reading. Certainly the wording «confer a reward» shall never be replaced with «put to the sword» in a draft law, for it changes the very idea and intention of the draft law. Though this prohibition is so categorical, it is based only on common sense. In practice of lawmaking one can encounter similar cases, still legislation, science and court practice do not have tools to combat such replacements.
Rules concerning legislative technique are not defended by law, so in fact there are no legislative grounds to observe them. Their content may not always be apparent, and actually these rules are nowhere represented as explicit provisions. Some items in rules concerning legislative technique are on the brink of tastes and preferences. However, there exist obvious rules that could work as a custom, like a rule of the Russian language formed by a certain branch of philology. For example, there is no juridical act that would stipulate functioning of cases in the Russian language, still cases do function. That is exactly how we could position rules of legislative technique (if they are seen as fundamental truth). We claim that the way of introducing amendments falls into the category of such evident demands.
Effective legislative regulations stipulating technology of making laws do not perform their regulatory functions properly. It is remarkable that even the State Duma Regulations is not a binding instrument for deputies. For example, the Regulations provide for at least two kinds of rules for the court: 1) internal, organisational, and 2) consequential, influencing the legislator's will expression.
1. The State Duma Regulations on amendments that change the concept of law. Para 1 Art. 120 of Regulations reads: «amendments to the draft law, which was adopted or approved in the first reading, are submitted to the responsible Committee in the form of either a revised version of a certain article, or additional articles to the draft law, or an offer to exclude specific words, paragraphs, parts or articles of the draft law».
The responsible Committee of the State Duma shall analyse amendments submitted after the second reading and classify them into four tables. If the specific amendment changes the concept of law, it is placed into Table 4, which contains amendments that are not recommended to adoption. Thus, there is no explicit prohibition to introduce such amendments.
Moreover, there is no reason to consider this as a constructive rule. Objectively, it does not contribute to adoption of qualitative laws, since changing the original idea tears the «continuous fiber» of a draft law and can appear as a source of contradictions, defects and other shortcomings of the text.
We assume that the very fact that amendments that change the concept of law are admitted causes harm to lawmaking process. If the concept of law is adopted in the first reading, it must not be changed. It is necessary to go back to the first reading, since in fact this is a different law.
Article 118 of the Regulations stipulates that consideration of a draft law by the State Duma in the first reading includes analysing its concept, compliance of its fundamental provisions with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as its topicality and practical relevance. These aspects are not to be examined at later stages of introducing amendments. Under conditions of legal uncertainty there was formed a traditional practice of passing a draft law in the first reading with an unlimited possibility to further develop it in the second reading.
In 2012 the State Duma enacted an additional Para 7.2 of Article 123 in Resolution No. 822-6 GD (where GD stands for the State Duma) dated 21.09.2012. This paragraph established a complex order of presentation, voting and furtherance for amendments that disagree with the concept of draft law, thus manifesting the final legitimation of unlimited transformation of a draft law between readings.
So, amendments proposed to the responsible Committee can be estimated against the criteria of their correlation with the concept. Effective Regulations use the term «amendments that change the concept». This approach is absolutely erroneous: if an amendment disagrees with the concept, it must not pass, since the concept is not subject to changing. In fact, a change of the concept of draft law overturns the results of the first reading.
We assume that it would be more precise to use the term «amendments that are not consistent with the concept». Referring to «consistency» in this term, we actually proceed from the hierarchy of the following constructs: the concept and amendments. The secondary construct is to comply with the primary one. For example, when a new draft is proposed, it is necessary to check its conformity with the Constitution and other federal laws. Here we deal with hierarchic relations that imply subordination. Similar relations exist between the concept and amendments to the second reading. The concept has already been adopted. Amendments can modify the text staying within the concept, preserving the general strategic idea. It appears that amendments are to be consistent with the concept, which is primary. Thus, the amendment either complies with the concept, or it shall not be adopted.
There remain debatable the following issues of the time when an amendment can be withdrawn and of the decision-making subject: 1) subject with the right of legislative initiative is not entitled to introduce such an amendment; 2) the responsible committee qualifies submitted amendments, and it does not bring to a vote the amendments, which it declared inconsistent with the concept, so it is the Committee's decision; 3) the responsible Committee submits such amendments that change the concept of a draft law for consideration and approval of the plenary session, so it is the legislative chamber that makes a correspondent resolution.
Therefore, in the first case the decision is made by the subject with the right of legislative initiative, in the second case - by the responsible Committee; in the third case - by the legislative chamber. According to effective Regulations, the third variant is now in operation, which means that any amendment can be submitted to the plenary session and be adopted.
It seems advisable to introduce the following rule: if the chamber makes decision to adopt such an amendment that changes the concept of law, it is necessary to return to the procedure of the first reading. Today there is no such a requirement, which opens the way to passing draft laws whose particular parts contradict the general spirit of the law, the very idea of the text. It may even occur that the amendment refers to some items that were not even mentioned in the first reading, and there was nothing about them in the original draft law. Later we will exemplify this by the case when in the course of the second reading of the draft law on licensing weapons circulation there was introduced an amendment about criteria of classifying small and medium-sized businesses.
2. Simultaneous passing changes for several heterogeneous laws. In lawmaking practice there exists a risk of adopting amendments to heterogeneous laws and a range of different acts in the framework of one law. As a result, there appear laws titled «On Amendments Being Made to Certain Legislative Acts» or the like. Such a title is a troubling sign in itself, for it indicates that there is no unity in subjects of amended legal acts. As a rule, there is a separate article devoted to each law, which is subject to changing.
There are even record-breaking laws that amend simultaneously more than 100 enactments. The following law serves as a good example: Federal Law dated 22.08.2004 No. 122-FZ (where FZ stands for the Federal Law) «On Amendments Being Made to Legislative Enactments of the Russian Federation and Invalidation of Some Legislative Enactments of the Russian Federation in Connection with Adoption of the Federal Laws «About the Introduction of Amendments and Additions to the Federal Laws «Concerning General Principles of Organising Legislative (Representative) and Executive Authorities in Constituent Territories of the Russian Federation» and «Concerning the General Principles of the Organisation of Local Government in the Russian Federation». The said law amends simultaneously 151 enactments, repeals altogether or partially 112 regulatory acts.
It is important to determine the subject of legal regulation in laws concerning making amendments. It appears reasonable to ensure that one law amends such enactments operating in common logics. It would be also advisable to ensure that one law amends enactments that belong to one branch of law or have the same subject matter. The draft title must reflect the subject of legal regulation. Accordingly, if a draft law introduces changes into several laws, then it is necessary to indicate the subject of legal regulation that unites these enactments into a single theme-based block. It will serve as a guidance in the field of legislation for citizens and other subjects of the right by helping users to identify in the total flow of legislation only such enactments that will be relevant for them. It is highly probable that many users will simply ignore titles like «Concerning the Introduction of Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts», for such a title does not specify the subject field of a draft law at all. Besides, it is quite difficult to understand such a multi-subject law about amendments, because it implies matching a previous version with the current one. Moreover, users have to perform this in-
tricate job on their own, for it will take two or three weeks for the amended law to appear in the consolidated legal reference systems.
Simultaneous introduction of amendments into widely different laws, which show absolutely no interrelation between their subject matters, results in appearing most complex conglomerates. The more amendments legislators make at the same time, the worse the situation is. Indeed, it would be strange to approve introducing 100 amendments into totally different normative legal acts by one law. In scientific literature scholars have never suggested anything of the kind, still it happens.
Seemingly, the rules of legislative technique under examination fall into the category of absolute rules that require no further proof. Nevertheless, lawmaking practice occasionally breaks these rules, despite all the predictability of a negative result. In this context a negative result means adoption of such an enactment that would not have passed in the course of normal lawmaking activity. Obviously, it happens when the desire to «drag it through at any price» is so strong that means to be applied to achieve it no longer matter, and rules of legislative technique cannot withstand the onslaught of powers and prevailing authorities.
3. Court practice about the concept of law. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 14.02.2013 No. 4-P (where P stands for Judgment) «Re the Case of Verifying Constitutionality of the Federal Law «On Amendments Being Made to the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences» and the Federal Law «On Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Picketing» in Connection with the Demand of the Group of the State Duma Deputies and the Plea of the Citizen E.V. Savenko» gives constitutional interpretation of the rules that stipulate applying standards concerning the concept of law. According to the claimants, in the course of adopting Federal Law dated 08.06.2012 No. 65-FZ there took place a material breach of requirements specified by Art. 118, Parts 5 and 7 of Art. 119 and Parts 7 and 13 of Art. 123 of the State Duma Regulations. The essence of this breach was that the concept of draft law underwent a radical reconsideration in the course of the second reading. The concept was originally proposed by subjects with the right of legislative initiative and passed in the first reading as the draft federal law «On Amendments Being Made to the Russian Federation Administrative Offence Code». Changes of the concept resulted in adding provisions that affect procedures of conducting public events and stipulate making amendments not only to the Russian Federation Administrative Offence Code, but also to Federal Law dated 19.06.2004 No. 54-FZ «On Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Picketing». In general terms, this situation presents a constitutional problem, i.e. if it is allowed for an amendment that essentially changes the concept of law to be passed in the second reading. In a more comprehensive sense, the said problem concerns the content and essence of each reading of a draft law as a special stage of legislative proceedings and, accordingly, its necessity.
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in its Judgement dated 05.07.2001 No. 11-P articulates a legal provision about readings of law in
the course of lawmaking process. According to this Judgement, the procedure of considering draft laws is divided into readings. Each reading secures both searching the most adequate regulatory solutions, and checking if their worded content corresponds to the legislator's original will expression. Adopting the act successively in each of three readings - in view of their different purposes in an integrated process of norm-setting - also guarantees that the primary position of subjects of legislative initiative is taken into account. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation noted that it is unacceptable to change the concept and the act at the stage of introducing amendments, since otherwise it could lead to appearance of fundamental changes resulting from accidental discussions, which would not relate to the concept of a draft law and original solutions. It was separately noted that such non-compliance with requirements to readings in the legislative procedure that results in disfiguration of the primary will expression and thus affects the act in general, bears an evidence of unconstitutionality of such an act not only in the order it was adopted, but ultimately in the content of norms. This general legal provision of 2001 was taken into account and updated in Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 14.02.2013 No. 4-P. The Judgment states that materials on file prove that Resolution of the State Duma dated 22.05.2012 No. 397-6 GD «About Draft Federal Law No. 70631-6 «On Amendments Being Made to the Russian Federation Administrative Offence Code» contained the following note: preparation of the given draft law for review by the State Duma in the second reading was to include considering the amendments aimed to provide for supplementing the draft law with a new article to initiate changes to the Federal Law «On Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Picketing». Hence, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, as early as straight after the first reading the concept of Federal Law dated 08.06.2012 No. 65-FZ was meant both to stipulate responsibilities for administrative offences, and to regulate organisation and conduction of public assemblies.
Furthermore, it should be noted that changing the concept of law by means of adopting a resolution of the State Duma is not provided for by any rules of procedure neither in federal legislation, nor in the State Duma Regulations. Even after publication of Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 14.02.2013 No. 4-P there have been established no provisions therein, which makes us conclude that in the second reading there appears in fact a radically different draft law, compared to the text submitted, reviewed and passed in the first reading. It means that new norms do not undergo all specified legislative stages. A particular harm to federative relations is inflicted in the process of passing draft laws, which subject matter concerns joint jurisdiction. Similarly, there is also a possibility that norms, which will imply spending budget funds, could pass without a budgetary control. It can cause other legitimacy threats.
Part Two of Article 121 of the State Duma Regulations clearly allows to change the name of a draft law in the second reading. In this context the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation stated that in this particular case there
are no evidences of breaches of legislative proceedings as specified by the State Duma Regulations, which could lead to conceptual changes of the draft law after its adoption in the first reading.
Thus the Constitutional Court established the following rules and limitations with regard to the concept of law at subsequent stages of legislative activities: 1) the concept of law shall be adopted in the first reading; 2) it is prohibited to adopt amendments that distort the concept of law; 3) if in the course of the first reading there appear suggestions to change the concept, they shall be executed by the corresponding State Duma Resolution.
In the absence of law of practice, such judicial legislation appears as arbitrary since it is neither based on a law, nor even has got foundations in the spirit of any law. The said Judgment of the Constitutional Court, even integrated with its law-making novelties, did not suspend or formalize amendments that disagree with the concept of law, as evidenced by the following case from legislative practice.
4. 2013-2015 case of abusive practice connected with amending a draft law. We suggest viewing the case when in the course of the second reading heterogeneous texts passed as parts of one particular law. The case under examination is a radical change of Federal Law dated 24.07.2007 No. 209-FZ «Concerning the Development of Small and Medium-Sized Business in the Russian Federation». This case shows how amendments to the law on licensing circulation of weapons changed the notion of small and medium entrepreneurship.
Article 4 of Federal Law No. 209-FZ specifies criteria that determine ranging business entities in the class of small and medium enterprises (commonly abbreviated as SMEs). This article of law is of fundamental importance, for it formulates basic definitions, i.e. fixes its subjects. Status of a small and medium-sized business entity implies certain benefits, since it opens the way to diverse forms of state support. That is precisely why it is a compelling and «corruption-intensive» service for those bodies that establish an access to the status of an SME.
Effective legislation deals with complex characteristics of small and medium-size enterprises, among which there are its organisational-legal form, average number of employees, entrepreneurial income, job content, place of economic activity (the geographical approach, for example, is applied for Skolko-vo). So, business entities and economic partnerships were granted the status of Skolkovo Project Participants according to Federal Law dated 28.09.2010 No. 244-FZ «About the Innovation Centre Skolkovo» and were included into Item «r» of Subparagraph 1.1., Para 1, Art. 4 in the Federal Law 209.
Criteria used to stipulate formation of SME subjects are accidental and not sufficiently developed. Absence of pattern is obvious since widely different criteria (operating revenue, income, size, number of employees, location in Skolkovo, being not a JSC or Public Monitoring Committee or a government agency, and other kinds of criteria), which are not conceptually integrated and prove to be heterogeneous in nature. Besides, these criteria are regularly complemented in an arbitrary way, which affects the number of subjects so that it
can decrease (e.g. when joint-stock companies are considered non-eligible for assigning the status of an SME) or increase (due to the fact that the SME Corporation has the right to include into its lists practically any organisation). Lob-byism and corruption are tearing the law apart thus provoking fights over access to state support.
The same tendency manifested itself when the currently effective Art. 4 was complemented and essentially revised in the process of adopting Federal Law dated 29.11.2015 No. 408 «On Amendments Being Made to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation».
Initially the Government of the Russian Federation submitted the draft of the Federal Law No. 254695-6 for consideration on 08.04.2013. Its original name was «About Amending and Invalidating Particular Provisions in Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Regarding Licensing Certain Activities».
In the course of the second reading the name of the draft was changed into «On Amendments Being Made to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation (About Amending and Invalidating Particular Provisions in Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Regarding Licensing Certain Activities)». Deputy S.A. Gavrilov proposed an amendment to Art. 4 of Federal Law No. 209-FZ to be considered in the course of the second reading. This law deals with warranties concerning small and medium-sized business entities, so it has nothing to do with weapon licensing. The proposed amendment is of fundamental nature, for it specifies new requirements to small and medium-sized business entities. This amendment was not submitted for review either to the Government of the Russian Federation, or to all subjects with the right of legislative initiative. The said amendment did not only change the essence of Draft No. 254695-6, it also significantly modified the law on small and medium entrepreneurship.
There was collected feedback regarding the original text of the draft law from all actors of the legislative process: there were received findings of the Culture Committee, Health Care Committee, Legal Administration of the State Duma). The subject with the right of legislative initiative provided a financial feasibility study showing that the said initiative did not involve expenses for the account of federal budget. At the same time processing amendments before the second reading does not imply receiving any feedback, the Government's comments and suggestions, and financial feasibility study. As a result, no relevant authorities checked economic and social necessity of replacing «operating revenue» with «income» and other fundamental changes. Since the original draft amended acts on licensing and concerned circulation of weapons, it was reviewed by the State Duma Committee on Safety and Anti-Corruption Enforcement. The said Committee does not specialise in Amendments on small and medium enterprises, that was why they passed without having been properly examined by experts. Work over an issue showed that in fact those were the Government of the Russian Federation's amendments. The corresponding conclusion of the State Duma Legal Administration made it clear that Draft Federal Law No. 817991-6 was submitted under the guise of S.A. Gavrilov's initiative,
thus it was just forced into another draft. That was how licensing weapons and small and medium-sized business entities were «lumped» into one draft law. In the third reading the draft already received the name «On Amendments Being Made to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation» and passed as Federal Law No. 408-FZ.
Therefore, the amendment to the law on development of small and medium entrepreneurship in the Russian Federation did not go through a confirmation process and passed without having been duly considered by legislation subjects.
The given example obviously testifies that amendments to the draft that has already passed the first reading changed both its name and the subject of legal regulation. It is unacceptable to ignore renaming the draft, since the name of any law must reflect its subject of legal regulation.
As a result, the first reading can turn into an «information pretext»: as if it is important just to start the process, while nobody knows what will ensue from this. This substitution takes place despite the fact that it disagrees with the State Duma Regulations and the legal philosophy articulated in Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 14.02.2013 No. 4-n.
The conflict between legalism and reasonability is immanent in history of lawmaking. Compliance with the legislative procedure is the principal guarantee of saving foundations of the constitutional system. Evidently, there exist blanks in regulating the legislative process, so interested groups can use them for their manipulations aimed to derive own advantage. De facto there occur passage of draft laws by means of applying unscrupulous technologies, e.g. abuse of rights and so called technical legality. Moreover, it is fairly simple to formally keep on the right side of the law in the context of lack of true legality. Changes in legislation by introducing numerous amendments while manipulating the process of readings is in fact a routine practice, which allows to enact virtually any regulations out of public view. These global problems present immediate interest and go far beyond this article.
In order to solve this particular problem of prohibiting changes of the draft law concept after the first reading we propose to take the following measures: 1) impose on the responsible Committee a duty to accept only amendments that agree with the concept of law, 2) forbid subjects with the right of legislative initiative to move an amendment, which disagrees with the concept of law, 3) replace the notion «that change the concept» in the text of the State Duma Regulations with the notion «that disagree with the concept», 4) forbid passing laws about introduction of amendments to more than three laws, 5) legalize passing laws dealing with amendments to existing laws only providing the amended laws have a common subject of legal regulation, which must be indicated in the name of such a law on introducing amendments, 6) forbid changing the name of a draft that has passed the first reading.
An alternative decision for this problem is to return a draft to the first reading in all cases when in the second reading legislators pass an amendment that disagrees with the concept of law.
Furthermore, any breach of the State Duma Regulations shall be considered an absolute reason to repeal the law in question.
References
1. Federal Law dated 29.11.2015 No. 408 «On Amendments Being Made to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation» [Federalny zakon ot 29.11.2015 No. 408 «O vnesenii izmenenii v otdelnye zakonodatelnye akty Rossiiskoi Federatsii»].
2. Federal Law dated 24.07.2007 No. 209-FZ «Concerning the Development of Small and Medium-Sized Business in the Russian Federation» [Federal-ny zakon ot 24.07.2007 No. 209-FZ «O razvitii malogo i srednego predprini-matelstva v Rossiiskoi Federatsii»].
3. Federal Law dated 22.08.2004 No. 122-FZ «On Amendments Being Made to Legislative Enactments of the Russian Federation and Invalidation of Some Legislative Enactments of the Russian Federation in Connection with Adoption of the Federal Laws «About the Introduction of Amendments and Additions to the Federal Laws «Concerning General Principles of Organising Legislative (Representative) and Executive Authorities in Constituent Territories of the Russian Federation» and «Concerning the General Principles of the Organization of Local Government in the Russian Federation» [Fed-eralny zakon ot 22.08.2004 No. 122-FZ «O vnesenii izmenenii v zakonodatelnye akty Rossiiskoi Federatsii i priznanii utrativshimi silu nekotorykh zakonodatelnykh aktov Rossiiskoi Federatsii v sviazi s priniatiem federal-nykh zakonov «O vnesenii izmenenii i dopolnenii v Federalny zakon «Ob ob-shchikh printsipakh organizatsii zakonodatelnykh (predstavitelnykh) i ispol-nitelnykh organov gosudarstvennoi vlasti sub'ektov Rossiiskoi Federatsii» i «Ob obshchikh printsipakh organizatsii mestnogo samoupravleniia v Ros-siiskoi Federatsii»].
4. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 14.02.2013 No. 4-P «Re the Case of Verifying Constitutionality of the Federal Law «On Amendments Being Made to the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences» and the Federal Law «On Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Picketing» in Connection with the Demand of the Group of the State Duma Deputies and the Plea of the Citizen E.V. Savenko» [Postanovlenie Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF ot 14.02.2013 No. 4-P «Po delu o proverke konstitutsionnosti Federalnogo zakona «O vnesenii izmenenii v Kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii ob administrativnykh pravona-rusheniiakh i Federalny zakon «O sobraniiakh, mitingakh, demonstratsiiakh, shestviiakh i piketirovaniiakh» v sviazi s zaprosom gruppy deputatov Gosudarstvennoi Dumy i zhaloboi grazhdanina E.V. Savenko»].
Law and Modern States 6/2017
48
5. Resolution of the State Duma Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation dated 22.01.1998 No. 2134-II GD «About Regulations of the State Duma of Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation» [Postanovlenie GD FS RF ot 22.01.1998 No. 2134-II GD «O Reglamente Gosudarstvennoi Dumy Federal-nogo Sobraniia Rossiiskoi Federatsii»].
6. 6. RF Government Regulation dated 02.08.2001 No. 576 «About Approval of Key Demands to the Concept and Development of Draft Federal Laws». [Postanovlenie Pravitelstva RF ot 02.08.2001 No. 576 «Ob utverzhdenii Os-novnykh trebovanii k kontceptsii i razrabotke proektov federalnykh zako-nov»].
7. Baranov V. M. Idea of a Draft Law as an Early Diagnostics Means to Estimate Quality of Modern Russian Legislation // Juridical Science and Practice: Bulletin of Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. 2013. No. 22. [Baranov V.M. Ideia zakonoproekta kak sredstvo rannei diagnostiki kachestva sovremennogo rossiiskogo zakonoda-telstva // luridicheskaia nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoi akademii MVD Rossii. 2013. No. 22].
8. Baranov V. M. Idea and Concept of Draft Law: the Notion, Meaning, Dialectics of Functioning // Juridical Science and Practice: Bulletin of Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. 2012. No. 1. [Baranov V.M. Ideia i kontceptsiia zakonoproekta: poniatie, znache-nie, dialektika funktsionirovaniia // Iuridicheskaia nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoi akademii MVD Rossii. 2012. No. 1].
9. Tsarev A. Yu. Concept of Laws in the Russian Federation // Composite Review Digest of the Journal Representative Power - the XXIst Century: Legislation, Comments, Problems. 2004. No. 1-3. [TsarevA. Yu. Kontceptsiia zako-nov Rossiiskoi Federatsii // XXI vek: zakonodatelstvo, kommentarii, problemy: svodnyi referativny sbornik zhurnala Predstavitelnaia vlast. 2004. No. 1-3].
