CC BY
4ческое значение. Оно позволяет нам верно толковать нормы закона, где уяснение тех или иных положений вызывает затруднение, при наличии пробела в праве необходимо действовать в соответствии с нормами - принципами, больше того производство каких-либо процессуальных действий с нарушением норм-принципов безусловный повод, для отмены такого решения.
Подытоживая вышесказанное, мы приходим к выводу о том, что отсутствие законодательно закрепленного понятия «принцип уголовного судопроизводство» вызывает затруднение в единообразном его понимании и применении. Закрепление системы принципов в УПК РФ явилось почвой дискуссий среди ученых. Но и здесь мы можем не соглашаться с законодателем, но обязаны следовать закрепленным нормам, не имеем права игнорировать их. При этом должна быть продолжена теоретическая разработка понятия «принцип уголовного судопроизводства».
ЛИТЕРАТУРА
1. Безруков Вестник Томского государственного университета // Право. - 2015. - № 1. - С. 29 -35.
2. Божьев В.П. Конституционные принципы уголовного процесса // Уголовный процесс: учебник / под ред. Б.Б. Булатова, А.М. Баранова. 2е изд., перераб. и доп.
- М. 2011.- 321с.
3. Газетдинов Н.И. Реализация принципов уголовного судопроизводства. -М: Норма.- 2007. - 107 с.
4. Давлетов А.А. Принципы уголовно-процессуальной деятельности// Правоведение. - 2008. - № 2. -С.92-102.
5. Матузов Н. И., Малько А. В. Теория государства и права. -М.: Норма,2002. - 209 с.
6. Мельников В.Ю. Судебный контроль в условиях состязательности уголовного процесса //В.Ю. Мельников / Российский судья. - 2010.- № 8.- С. 12-15.
7. Качалова О.В. Принципы уголовного процесса // Уголовно-процессуальное право : учебник / под общ. ред. В.М. Лебедева. - М.: 2012. - 408 с.
8. Кудрявцева А.В. Лившиц Ю.Д. О понятии принципа в уголовном процессе// Правосудие. - 2001.-№1. -С.163- 170.
9. Стародубова Г.В. Стадия возбуждения уголовного дела: упразднить нельзя реформировать // Судебная власть и уголовный процесс. - 2013. - № 2. - С. 69 - 73.
10. Стародубова Г.В. Установление истины в уголовном процессе: Монография. - Воронеж: Изд-во Воронежского гос. ун-та. - 2010. - 164 с.
ЗАЩИТА ПРОТИВ НЕОСНОВАТЕЛЬНЫХ ДЕЙСТВИЙ И БЕЗДЕЙСТВИЯ _АДМИНИСТРАТИВНЫХ ОРГАНОВ В РЕСПУБЛИКЕ БОЛГАРИЯ
Михалева Даниэла Костадинова
Доктор, ассистент Варненский свободный университет им. Черноризца Храбра
Адвокат
Член Коллегии адвокатов гор. Варны гор. Варна, Болгария
PROTECTION AGAINST VEXATIOUS ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF ADMINISTRATION IN BULGARIA
Mihaleva Daniela Kostadinova, Ph.D., assistant Varna Free University «Chernorizets Hrabar» Attorney Bar Association
- Varna Varna, Bulgaria
АННОТАЦИЯ "
Целью данной статьи является изложение существенных материально-правовых и процессуально-правовых аспектов защиты против неосновательных действий и бездействия административных органов в соответствии с Административно-процессуальным кодексом Республики Болгария. Общественные отношения, являющиеся предметом нормативного регулирования в рамках дискуссионного аспекта производства, имеют исключительно важное значение. Производство является средством гарантирования принципа законосообразности актов и действий административных органов и возможности граждан и юридических лиц получить защиту против неосновательных действий и бездействия административных органов.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this article is to present the essential procedural and substantive aspects of the protection against vexatious acts and omissions of the administration according to the Administrative Code of the Republic of Bulgaria. Public relations subject to regulation in the legislation in the proceedings, are of utmost importance. Proceedings are a means of ensuring the principle of legality in the acts and actions of the administration and the ability of citizens and legal entities to be protected against vexatious acts and omissions of the administration.
Ключевые слова: административные органы; Административно-процессуальный кодекс; защита против неосновательных действий и бездействия административных органов.
Keywords: administration; Administrative Procedure Code (APC), protection against vexatious acts and omissions of the administration.
Regulation of protection against vexatious acts and omissions of the administration is one of the essential developments in the Administrative Procedure Code (APC) of the Republic of Bulgaria. [1] The extent, details and the object of the legislation give rise to claims that this is a
new and self-administrative proceeding which is part of the broader concept of an administrative process. It is a way to stop the unlawful actions and omissions by administrative authorities and officials.
The rights of citizens are often affected by accidental
or deliberate acts or omissions of the administration. The usual way for protection in these situations is the court litigation. Sometimes, however lawsuits are too slow, costly and ultimately ineffective. While the court makes pronouncement, for example forfeited goods by customs are spoilt or building that is supposed to be strengthened collapses.
These disadvantages are overcomed with two new procedures provided for in Chapter XV of the Administrative Procedure Code (APC) - for protection against vexatious acts (art. 250-255) and omissions (Art. 256-257) of the administration. Both proceedings are fast and relatively efficient. Legislative idea is to overcome the existing paradox that the more unlawful is an administrative action, the more difficult is protection against it is. Until now, protection against such action was implemented only in a civil way (Article 1 of the Law on liability of state and the municipalities for damage caused to citizens). Until now protection against such action was implemented only in a civil way (Article 1 of the Law on liability of state and municipalities for damage caused to citizens). Due to the slow pace of the civil protection, procedures were directed not so much against the actions themselves as against their harmful consequences. Procedural application to stop unjustified administrative action could only be made in the form of a guarantee of future action, with very dubious prospects of success. [2]
Both procedures can be initiated only by affected individuals or legal entities from administrative acts or omissions. Their rights or legitimate interests should be threatened or harmed in order to acquire the right to refer the request to the administrative court at the place of act or omission. These legal remedies apply only to acts and omissions of the administrative authorities, including ministers, mayors and officials of expert positions. They cannot be used to influence the legislative bodies and the judiciary.
Subject of protection under this law are only those forms of administrative activity that are not administrative acts. To them the defense will take place in the manner provided in the APC for contestation of this act. Subject to proceedings
under Article 250 of the APC is not the legality, respectively nullity of the contested measure, but only whether the actions of the body are based on an administrative act or law.
Interesting is the nature of the actions, which can be sought protection. Theoretically and practically is supported the view that proceedings under Art. 250-257 by APC apply for protection only by factual actions of the administration. Actually, with one exception, they can be used in terms of legal action, but again with the proviso that they do not constitute administrative acts. Example of this is when authorities of the National Revenue Agency detain goods or police issues a warning protocol. This is apparently a legal action - they carry a document by a public authority within its legally permitted power, but the only option for protection in such cases is pursuant to Chapter XV of the APC.
But if the actions are already carried out or discontinued this line of defense is unacceptable, even if the intended result has been achieved with them. Termination has already taken place; respectively injunction for their unconditional cessation would be pointless. Protection
under Article 250 of the APC is used only when illegal actions continue to take place, because the purpose of the proceedings is cessation by disposition of the administrative judge. Therefore this method of judicial protection is not applicable in cases where unfounded actions were terminated by the administrative judge.
Proceedings against vexatious acts and omissions of the administration develop relatively quickly. This is because the collection of evidence and judging takes place in a closed session without summoning the parties. Due to the rapid development of proceedings and receiving protection before the relevant rights are irredeemably affected, the legislature has entrusted the court a more active role in the collection of evidence.
The court develops a legal dispute with two parties -citizen or legal entity, called claimant, and the administrative body whose actions or omissions have affected the rights. Any person may request termination of acts performed by an administrative body or official, which is not based on administrative act or law. (Article 250 of the APC). The termination of illegal actions of the administration may require both physical and legal entities - associations, foundations, and businesses that are affected by them, no matter whether the actions of the administrative body, respectively official are contrary to already issued administrative act or law.
The request shall be presented in writing to the administrative court at the location of the unlawful actions. In this case the required written form is mandatory to generate the desired legal consequences, namely referral to the competent court. So, this request shall be considered immediately by the judge.
The Court obliges the administrative body or official who carried out unfounded actions immediately to provide data on the basis of the underlying actions. The court can check through the police authorities, as well as all other means which are not prohibited by the law, whether the actions are carried out, on whose behalf and on what basis they are carried out.
Authorities shall compile a record on the audit inspection. These provisions aim at providing speedy examination of the application, which is accompanied by increased official start of the court activities in establishing the facts and circumstances described in the application. This can be performed by the police authorities as well.
Criteria which guide the magistrates to consider whether action or passivity of officials should be suspended, is whether it contradicts the law or an administrative act. Immediately after the inspection, based on data collected by it and the evidence submitted by the parties, the court shall pronounce an order. With it, the court ordered to be terminated unconditionally actions that are not carried out in pursuance of the law or an administrative act presented after the inspection or reject the request. The order shall be immediately executed by the police. It can be appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court within three days of its issuance by the authority or official who carried out the actions when the request is accepted, and anyone who has a legal interest, if the request is rejected. The appeal in this case does not suspend the execution. Passing a case in both instances takes on average six months. For comparison - similar proceedings challenging the administrative acts last approximately for two years.
Typical cases protection against vexatious
administration can be divided into three main groups. Retention of property or goods is the first and most common case of a successful defense against illegal actions. A typical example is when custom officials of the administration detain goods without having the reason to do so by law. A second group of cases in which the request to suspend the actions of the administration is an effective remedy is when there is withdrawal or seize of documents of the citizens. A typical case here is the withdrawal of driving license by the traffic police authorities. In the third place, protection by this order is possible to receive on cash claims of citizens. For example, when the National Insurance Institute intercepts sums from pension, without an effective act for its own making to the pensioner. [4]
Not actually performing actions which the administrative body is obliged to perform under the law is subject to contestation within 14 days of submission of the request to the authority for its execution.
In this case, the locus standi to seek protection is any person - physical or legal entity - association, foundation, firm, who submitted a request to the administrative authority to perform certain legally defined action that the authority has refused to do. The inaction of the administrative body of an obligation arising directly from legislative act may be contested indefinitely by applying the provisions of contestation of the individual administrative acts - 145 -178 of APC. By its judgment the court orders administrative authorities to carry out the act and sets a deadline for it, or rejects the request. (Legislation - Article 250 - 257 from APC). [3]
That protection does not preclude a claim for
material liability under the Law for responsibility of the state and municipalities for damages and declaratory relief to establish the existence or non-existence of an administrative right or legal relationship.
It should be noted that the proceedings against vexatious omissions has not established itself yet as an an effective form of protection.
Both procedures are meant to control power by the administrative courts, not in principle, but only in cases in which its activity or inactivity affect specific rights in specific situations. They are not yet sufficiently known and should be promoted to enable citizens and businesses make effective use of possibilities that the law provides for protection against omissions by the administration.
References:
1. Administrative Procedural Code of the Republic of Bulgaria, effective from 12.07.2006 (published in State Gazette 30 of 11.04.2006, as last amended by State Gazette br.27 25.03. 2014).
2. Ekimdjiev, M. Contribution to the legal doctrine, the Law on liability of state and municipalities for damages - material scope, trends and problems of interpretation and implementation. 8.04.2013, http://eurorights-bg.org/?p=684&lang=en.
3. Lazarov, K. Todorov, I. Administrative Process. -Sofia: Publishing House Ciela, 2009.
4. Nikolov, N. Defense against unfounded acts and omissions of the administration. - Sofia: Publishing House Feneya , 2013.
