Federal Law “On the Prosecutor's Office Russian Federation» contains an exhaustive list of measures prosecutorial response on identified offenses, which must be fully applied in cases of violations of laws in the economic sphere. The prosecutor exercises the powers granted to him to identify and eliminate violations of the rights of entrepreneurs through acts of prosecutorial response.

Acts of prosecutorial response are forms provided by law for exercising the powers of the prosecutor to eliminate and prevent offenses.

Being provided for by law, acts of prosecutorial response are procedural in nature. They are compiled in a certain form and entered into certain addressees. The law determines the procedure for submitting and considering acts of prosecutorial response, the rights and responsibilities of the prosecutor and the persons considering these acts.

The acts of the prosecutor's response must set out the essence of the offense, its Negative consequences, the reasons and conditions that contributed to its commission. The Law on the Prosecutor's Office provides for four types of acts of prosecutorial response: protest, presentation, resolution and warning.

1. Protest of the prosecutor.

This is the most common means of prosecutorial response. In accordance with the Federal Law "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation", the prosecutor or his deputy brings a protest against a legal act contrary to the law to the body or official who issued this act, or to a higher body or higher official, or goes to court in the manner prescribed by the procedural legislation of the Russian Federation.

2. Presentation of the prosecutor.

In accordance with Article 24 of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office, a proposal is made to eliminate violations of the law. Under violation of the law in in this case should be understood as individual facts of an offense in the form of non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of the requirements of the law or the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and repeated homogeneous generalized facts of offenses.

The submission indicates not only the offenses committed, their causes and conditions that contributed to their commission, but also the prosecutor’s proposals on measures and activities, the implementation of which is necessary to eliminate these causes and conditions.

3. Prosecutor's resolution.

In accordance with the Law on the Prosecutor's Office, the prosecutor can make two types of decisions: a) to initiate a criminal case; b) to initiate proceedings regarding an administrative offense.

The general, mandatory requirement imposed by law on these decisions is their motivation. This means that when making decisions, the prosecutor must be convinced that the identified offense contains either signs of a crime or signs of an administrative offense. This conviction must be reflected in the reasoning part of the decisions.

4. Warning about the inadmissibility of violating the law.

In order to prevent offenses and if there is information about impending illegal acts, the prosecutor or his deputy sends in writing to officials, and if there is information about impending illegal acts containing signs extremist activities, leaders of public (religious) associations and other persons are warned against violating the law.

This act of prosecutorial supervision as a form of exercising the powers of the prosecutor was established by the amendment to the Law on the Prosecutor's Office of February 10, 1999.

In addition to the acts of prosecutorial supervision provided for by the Law on the Prosecutor's Office, in practice there are cases of prosecutors using other, atypical means of prosecutorial response. For example, prosecutors of some constituent entities of the federation, in their supervisory activities, when identifying violations of laws in legal acts, do not take the response measures provided for by the Law on the Prosecutor's Office, but are limited to only informing the offender. They replace the acts of response provided for by the law on the prosecutor's office with quasi-protests or quasi-representations. For example, the prosecutor of the Republic of Mari El replaces the filing of protests with “sending proposals.” Identical prosecutorial practice is observed in the city of Moscow, where, in order to “settle certain issues, as well as in cases of inconsistency of city laws with the requirements of federal legislation, proposals were sent to the Moscow City Duma, and, if there are grounds, appropriate acts of prosecutorial response.” Some prosecutors notified the addressee of the identified violations by letter. Thus, on April 28, 1998, the acting prosecutor of the Leningrad region sent a letter to the head of the Legislative Assembly of the Leningrad region, in which he notified that the prosecutor’s office had conducted a legal analysis of the regional law “On elections of bodies and officials of local self-government of the Leningrad region” for compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Federal electoral legislation. A number of norms contained in the regional law, in the opinion of the prosecutor, did not comply with the Federal Law “On the Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation.” When sending such a letter, the prosecutor must take into account that it may not give rise to any legal consequences. The prosecutor, by sending a letter, only imitates his protest activity.

The implementation of legislation acts as one of the key areas of law enforcement work. It comes down to solving problems to ensure the implementation of regulatory requirements and the protection of freedoms and interests of citizens throughout the country. This work is carried out according to the rules and within the limits established by the provisions of Federal Law No. 2202-I. Let us consider further what constitutes a prosecutor's response to a violation of the law.

general characteristics

Supervision over compliance with laws is also carried out by other government agencies. These include, in particular, tax, environmental, sanitary inspections, traffic police, and so on. However, all these structures exercise powers in specific areas and have areas under their control, the boundaries of which are clearly delineated by norms. The activities of the prosecutor's office are considered universal. Its powers extend to almost everything regulated by regulations.

Forms of prosecutorial response

The above Federal Law provides for special tools that can be used by officials as part of their work. The means of prosecutorial response are used in strict accordance with regulatory requirements. For each of them, special rules are established, adherence to which is the responsibility of employees. The norms provide for various These include protests, performances and other tools aimed at eliminating identified violations. In Art. 23-25.1 Federal Law No. 2202-I establishes the rules in accordance with which acts of prosecutorial response are approved and implemented. The implementation of any of the provided measures is a procedural procedure.

Protest

It is a procedural document. It is prepared directly by the prosecutor or his deputy. The protest is brought to the official or body that adopted the document that contradicts existing norms, to higher structures or employees, as well as to the court. In the latter case, procedural rules apply. The protest includes a demand to eliminate violations that the prosecutor's audit revealed in any part of the document or in its entirety, to bring it into compliance with the Federal Law, or to cancel it.

Features of compilation

Acts of prosecutorial response are usually drawn up in writing. The rules, however, provide for the possibility of verbal expression of protest. If it is drawn up in writing, it must contain mandatory details. These include:

1. The exact name of the structure to which the document is being submitted.
2. An act that, in the opinion of the prosecutor, does not comply with regulations.
3. The name of the norm, its provisions, with which the disputed document came into conflict. It also indicates the grounds on which the official draws conclusions about its illegality and makes a decision on the use of prosecutorial response measures.
4. Specific statement of requirements. When describing them, it is necessary to provide references to the rules governing the procedure for drawing up and considering a protest.
5. Signature of the applicant indicating class rank and position.

The norms impose requirements not only on the form of protest. Special attention is also given to the content of the protest. In it, the official reflects his conclusions. In particular, the employee indicates:

1. What exactly is the inconsistency/contradiction of the disputed document as a whole or part of it, in respect of which the impact is applied?
2. Proposal to eliminate the violation. Here the prosecutor expresses his position, cites specific actions that should eliminate the contradiction or inconsistency, and legal consequences.
3. The requirement to consider the submitted protest within a specified period. At the same time, references are provided to the norms regulating the procedure, and it is indicated that the response must be sent in writing immediately.

Performance

The use of this prosecutorial response measure is aimed at eliminating not only the violation of regulatory requirements, but also its causes, as well as the conditions conducive to its occurrence. Submissions must be reviewed promptly upon receipt. The addressee is an official or structure authorized to eliminate violations. The preparation of the submission is preceded by a prosecutor's check.

Document preparation

In the submission, the employee indicates:

1. The structure or official to whom the act is addressed.
2. Sources of information about violations committed.
3. Characteristics of actions/inactions that do not comply with regulations.
4. Analysis of the causes and conditions conducive to violations.
5. Requirements to eliminate inconsistencies, causes and circumstances that gave rise to them.
6. Links to deadlines and rules for reviewing submissions.

In the document, the prosecutor provides recommendations regarding measures to eliminate violations. They must have a legal orientation and not involve intrusion into the operational and economic activities of the subject. Recommendations for eliminating the circumstances and reasons that led to violations of a technical, organizational, managerial, or economic nature should be based on audit materials, opinions of experts and other specialists.

Among the requirements in the submission, it is possible to indicate the need to hold accountable specific employees who condoned illegal actions/inactions. Material and disciplinary punishments may be applied to them if the violation does not contain signs of an administrative offense or a criminal offense.

Resolution

It is considered one of the most popular tools in the practice of officials. The prosecutor makes decisions within various areas of his work, as well as during criminal proceedings. The adoption of the document is carried out, in particular, in the course of monitoring the implementation of regulatory requirements federal ministries, civil services, committees and other executive government bodies, representative and administrative structures of regional and local authorities, military command, control authorities, as well as their officials. To use this measure of prosecutorial response, the employee must have grounds. They are:

1. Initiation of administrative or criminal proceedings.
2. Release from custody of a subject who is unlawfully in a penal institution or an institution applying compulsory measures, who has been detained, placed in a forensic psychiatric institution, or pre-trial detention in violation of established rules.

The instructions contained in the document are subject to immediate implementation by the administration and bodies executing sentences against citizens who have been sentenced to non-custodial sentences. Within the framework of the pre-trial stages, he also has the right to make any procedural decision related to the case.

Prevention of violations

Another tool used by officials in the exercise of their powers is the prosecutor’s warning. It can be announced if there is information about an upcoming illegal act. The prosecutor's warning may be drawn up on his behalf or on behalf of his deputy. The use of this tool is the sole responsibility of these individuals. When carrying out the prevention of violations of regulatory requirements in the process of inquiry, consideration of cases in courts, and preliminary investigation, other measures of prosecutorial response must be applied. A warning is announced only when the employee has reliable information about impending illegal acts by officials that may cause negative consequences for state, civil or public interests, but do not entail criminal liability.

Appeal

The prosecutor's warning may be challenged in court according to established rules. If it was not appealed or was not declared unlawful, and also if, within the specified period, the relevant association (religious or other public organization), its regional or other structural unit did not eliminate the violation that served as the basis for issuing a warning, these entities are subject to liquidation, and work is prohibited. A similar rule applies if, within a 12-month period from the date of announcement of the warning, new facts have been identified indicating the presence of signs of extremism in the functioning of societies.

Important point

The warning about the inadmissibility of violations of regulatory requirements applies exclusively to officials. It cannot be announced to organizations and citizens. The warning is drawn up in relation to employees of government agencies, local government structures, municipal and state institutions, military command units, military units and other formations. It can also be announced to managers and other employees of non-profit and commercial enterprises performing administrative, economic and organizational functions.

Additionally

The procedure for prosecutorial response stipulates that before issuing a warning about the inadmissibility of violations of regulatory requirements, information about impending illegal actions must be thoroughly investigated. In this case, written explanations must be required from the suspected officials. A warning is announced to the employee directly at the prosecutor's office against a signature. Warnings are announced based on the results of studying information, including requests and statements from citizens, regulatory agencies, and other specific signals that contain reliable data about impending violations.

They are formalized in the form of special written prosecutorial acts. To increase the preventive effect and ensure publicity, a warning can be announced at the place where the suspect carries it out professional activity, including as part of the consideration of the results of audits and other control activities at a team meeting or when it is discussed by the collegial structure of the enterprise.

Conclusion

Prosecutor's response measures are considered specific tools for officials to exercise their powers. Their application has a special practical significance. These tools address various forms of regulatory violations. Prosecutorial measures are aimed at preventing and suppressing unlawful behavior of officials of various bodies, institutions and enterprises. The duties of officials include the timely acceptance of information for consideration and study. The analysis of incoming information must be comprehensive and objective. The scope of control is clearly limited by regulations.

In particular, it concerns the organizational, administrative and administrative functions of the subjects. This indicates that operational (current) activities are not affected by the measures provided for in the law. The demands of employees arise from their powers. The prosecutor is obliged to respond to all violations, to stop impending misconduct, since it must ensure control over the proper implementation of regulatory requirements. The structures under his jurisdiction include bodies carrying out preliminary investigations, operational investigative activities, and inquiries. The employee monitors compliance with standards by institutions executing punishment, applying coercive measures, and administrations of places where prisoners and detainees are kept.

All instructions of employees must be implemented within the established time frame. Regulatory acts provide for the liability of officials for deliberate evasion of the requirements of the prosecutor, which arise from his powers and are set out in warnings, representations, protests and other documents. For citizens, punishment is established in the form of a monetary penalty. Its size is 1-1.5 thousand rubles, for officials - 2-3 thousand rubles. Guilty subjects are held accountable under Art. 17.7 Code of Administrative Offences.

Chapter 3. Prosecutor's response measures

Taking prosecutorial response measures to violations of laws is the prerogative of chief prosecutors and their deputies. At the same time, a feature of the area of ​​supervisory activity under consideration is that prosecutors use the means of prosecutorial response, enshrined in Art. 22 of the Federal Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation”, and in Art. 25.11 and ch. 30 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. The continued growth in violations in the field of legislation on administrative offenses in 2008 (by 13.3%, to 568.2 thousand) led to an intensification of the activities of prosecutors. 137.6 thousand protests were brought (+8.7%), the vast majority of which were satisfied, 16.2 thousand submissions were made. At the initiative of prosecutors, more than 8.6 thousand perpetrators were brought to disciplinary and 321.1 thousand (+17.5%) to administrative liability, 3.7 thousand officials were warned about the inadmissibility of violating the law, 340 people who were illegally subjected to administrative detention by non-judicial authorities, 480 materials were sent to resolve the issue of criminal prosecution in accordance with clause 2 of part 2 of art. 37 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The number of claims (applications) sent to the courts increased by 1.8% (up to 11.8 thousand) in the amount of 8.4 million rubles; of those considered by the court, 7.8 thousand claims were satisfied in the amount of 8.1 million rubles . (the rest were under review). Below we will discuss the reasons for using some prosecutorial response measures.

1. Resolution to initiate proceedings in the case

This power of the prosecutor follows from paragraph 1 of Art. 25 of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office and Part 1 of Art. 25.11 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. It needs to be considered in relation to the area under study from two positions. Firstly, if during the inspection the prosecutor revealed that an official of the administrative jurisdiction body within the framework of Art. 28.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, a decision was made to terminate the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense, while the circumstances listed in Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, he has the right, if the deadline for bringing a person to administrative responsibility has not expired, to issue a resolution to initiate proceedings in a case of an administrative offense in compliance with the requirements of Art. 28.2 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Moreover, in the cases provided for in Art. 28.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the prosecutor may initiate an administrative investigation into the commission of an administrative offense with the transfer of materials to the administrative jurisdiction body authorized to carry out such actions. Secondly, the prosecutor can initiate proceedings in a case of an administrative offense against officials of bodies of administrative jurisdiction. Article 17.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation establishes the liability of officials for deliberate failure to comply with the requirements of the prosecutor arising from his powers established by federal law. Therefore, in cases where the prosecutor’s demands based on paragraph 1 of Art. 22 of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office are ignored by an official of the administrative jurisdiction body or when obstacles are created to the prosecutor in the exercise of supervisory powers and there is every reason to believe that such actions (inaction) are intentional, the prosecutor must, having selected an explanation, make a decision to initiate proceedings in the case of administrative offense against the relevant official of the administrative jurisdiction body and in accordance with Art. 28.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the deadlines for sending materials to the magistrate (where there are no magistrates, to the district court) at the location of the administrative jurisdiction body. It should be noted that, as before, violations of the norms of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation when bringing citizens to administrative responsibility, in addition to those mentioned above, are common in customs and tax authorities vested with administrative jurisdiction, in commissions for minors, as well as in fire inspection authorities. Analysis of the state of legality, administrative practice and prosecutorial supervision in the field of implementation of legislation on fire safety at social facilities, carried out by the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, indicates that prosecutors of the Krasnodar, Altai territories, Voronezh, Tambov, Kurgan, Kostroma, Rostov, Sakhalin and Volgograd regions are actively using the powers to initiation of administrative proceedings against those guilty of violating fire safety rules. For example, in some regional medical institutions in the Sakhalin region, the premises were not equipped with fire alarm systems, evacuation routes were lined with flammable materials, wooden roof structures were not treated with a fire retardant compound; in this regard, prosecutors initiated administrative proceedings against the heads of institutions under Art. 20.4 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. The perpetrators were brought to administrative liability in the form of a fine. The Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation submitted a proposal to the Chief State Inspector of the Russian Federation for fire supervision to eliminate these and other identified violations. Based on the results of its consideration, the leadership of the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations instructed the heads of the regional centers of the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations to strengthen control over the work of territorial bodies. The heads of these bodies are instructed to analyze the activities of their subordinates and consider the results at the boards. The activities of officials of administrative jurisdiction bodies should also be considered through the prism of Art. 19.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which establishes responsibility for arbitrariness.

2. Representation of eliminating violations of laws

The implementation of this power occurs within the framework established by Art. 24 of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office. The basis for the adoption of this measure of prosecutorial response is information verified by the prosecutor about the incorrect application of substantive law and (or) non-compliance by officials of the administrative jurisdiction body with the procedural requirements of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, including the requirements: on the procedure for filing decisions that have entered into legal force in cases of administrative offenses for execution, on jurisdiction, and also based on specific circumstances - on the procedure for proceedings in cases of administrative offenses, compliance with the rights of participants in proceedings in cases of administrative offenses, on the application of measures to ensure proceedings in cases of administrative offenses, on the procedure for initiating cases of administrative offenses , on the grounds for terminating proceedings in a case of an administrative offense, on the procedure for revising decisions in cases of administrative offenses, etc. The prosecutor is obliged to respond in the event of revealing facts of inaction on the part of officials of administrative jurisdiction bodies, when the latter unreasonably do not take administrative measures provided for by procedural legislation prosecution of persons who have committed offenses and enforcement of decisions in cases of administrative offenses. In the above and other cases, the prosecutor reacts by making a proposal to eliminate violations of laws. At the same time, a representation can and should be made on the basis of violations to which the prosecutor responded by issuing a resolution on the release of a person detained administratively by decision of the administrative jurisdiction, filing a protest against an illegal decision in a case of an administrative offense, as well as in cases of non-compliance by officials bodies of administrative jurisdiction of the prosecutor's demands arising from the powers established by federal laws that are directly related to the area in question. Ideas about eliminating violations of laws in proceedings in cases of administrative offenses may be individual or generalized character. In the first case, the basis for making a submission is the information confirmed during the inspection by the prosecutor's office (a citizen's complaint, an appeal from another person, a message in the media). mass media etc.) the fact of isolated violations of the requirements of the law by officials of the administrative jurisdiction body. In the second case, the basis for the prosecutor’s response is, as a rule, violations of laws identified during a scheduled or unscheduled (in connection with received information, on the instructions of a superior prosecutor, on his own initiative) inspections, including violations of laws, including the execution of decisions in cases of administrative offenses. When determining the addressee of the submitted submission, it is necessary to proceed from the fact that, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 24 of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office, a proposal to eliminate violations of laws is submitted by the prosecutor or his deputy to the body or official who is authorized to eliminate the violations committed. If we are talking about the eradication of illegal practices in a specific body of administrative jurisdiction, then the prosecutor addresses the submission to the head of such body. In cases where previously made submissions and other acts of prosecutorial response did not have their effect, it is legitimate to raise the issue about this with the management superior to such a body. That's why in the operative part of the submission it is necessary to set such requirements as: mandatory disciplinary punishment up to and including dismissal of officials who have shown themselves to be the worst, including in some cases the head of the relevant body of administrative jurisdiction; improvements to the level check system professional knowledge for persons admitted to administrative prosecution; eliminating the causes and conditions that contributed to violations of the law. It is also necessary to formulate the question of unconditionally sending to the prosecutor's office copies of orders indicating that specific measures have been taken to eliminate violations of laws, the reasons and conditions conducive to them. In this case, it is necessary to keep in mind the instruction of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation dated 02.02.2007 No. 73/1-33-2007 on the exclusion of facts of sending requests and acts of prosecutorial response to federal government bodies, bypassing the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia.

3. Protest against the decision on the case
about an administrative offense

Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 25.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation gives the prosecutor, within the limits of his powers, the right to lodge a protest against a decision in a case of an administrative offense, regardless of participation in the case. Article 29.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation establishes two types of such resolutions: 1) a resolution on the imposition of an administrative penalty; 2) a decision to terminate proceedings in a case of an administrative offense. A decision to terminate proceedings in a case of an administrative offense may be made in the event of: the presence of at least one of the circumstances precluding proceedings in the case, provided for in Art. 24.5; announcing an oral reprimand to the perpetrator in accordance with Art. 2.9 of the Code; termination of proceedings in the case and transfer of case materials to the prosecutor, the preliminary investigation body or the inquiry body if the actions (inaction) contain signs of a crime. Here it is necessary to take into account the specifics enshrined in Chapter. 30 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, procedures for reviewing resolutions and decisions in cases of administrative offenses. Yes, Art. 30.2 of the Code establishes the procedure for filing a complaint against a decision in a case of an administrative offense, which is also applicable to cases of protest by the prosecutor. In this case, the prosecutor may, at his own discretion, send a protest to the body of administrative jurisdiction that adopted the relevant decision, or directly challenge the illegal decision to the court or to a higher person authorized to consider it. It is advisable to use the procedure of direct appeal to the body (court, official) authorized to consider the protest. This, firstly, will save time, which would otherwise be occupied by the procedure for further correspondence between the body of administrative jurisdiction whose decision is being challenged and the body (court) authorized to review the contested decision. Secondly, appealing directly to a higher authority is more acceptable from a logical point of view, since otherwise the protest is addressed to a body that does not have the right to consider it on its merits and make a decision based on the law. Clause 1 of Art. 23 of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office also corresponds to this position, giving the right to the prosecutor or his deputy to bring a protest against an illegal legal act to a higher body or higher official. Article 30.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation determines the bodies and officials to whom the protest is addressed, and Art. 30.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation establishes that a complaint, as well as a protest against a decision in a case of an administrative offense, can be filed within 10 days from the date of delivery or receipt of a copy of the decision. Thus, the legislator has established two starting points for appealing decisions in cases of administrative offenses, as well as for protesting, since
Part 1 Art. 30.10 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation contains a direct reference to Art. 30.1 – 30.3 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Since the prosecutor is in fact unable to ensure a complete verification of all decisions taken within his territorial or object jurisdiction that have not entered into legal force, both judicial and non-judicial bodies, the main emphasis in his work should be given to challenging the supervisory procedure entered into legal force decisions. It should be noted that according to Federal Law dated December 3, 2008 No. 240-FZ Art. 30.11 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation has lost force. The same Law introduced new articles into the Code. 30.12 – 30.19, regulating the procedure for appeals and protests by way of supervision resolutions in a case of an administrative offense, decisions based on the results of consideration of complaints, protests. The provisions of these articles extend the right to appeal by way of supervision of decisions in a case of an administrative offense that have entered into legal force, decisions based on the results of consideration of complaints, protests against persons specified in Art. 25.1 – 25.5 of the Code. For convenience, it is recommended to follow the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 30.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which determines what type of decision can be made based on the results of consideration of a complaint (protest). The prosecutor has the right to lodge a protest against a decision in a case of an administrative offense in cases where: a) there is at least one of the circumstances provided for in Art. 24.5Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Article 2.9 of the Code, to which reference is made in the norm in question, establishes that if the administrative offense committed is insignificant, the judge, body, official authorized to resolve the case of an administrative offense may release the person who committed the administrative offense from administrative liability and limit himself to an oral remark. The circumstances specified in this article cannot be placed not only by the prosecutor, but also by the person appealing the decision, as the motivational basis for their claims, since it does not contain the element of obligation to be guided by certain considerations, which presupposes the personal discretion of an authorized person or body to apply such a rule. On the contrary, Art. 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides an exhaustive list of circumstances excluding proceedings in a case of an administrative offense. In the motivational part of the protest one should refer to one of the given grounds, and in the operative part the question should be raised about cancellation of the illegal decision and termination of proceedings in the case. The reasoning part of the protest may be based on the fact that the circumstances on the basis of which the contested decision was made were not proven. The prosecutor proceeds from the provisions of Art. 26.1 of the Administrative Code, listing the circumstances to be clarified in the case of an administrative offense; b) the procedural requirements provided for by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation have been significantly violated, if this did not allow a comprehensive, complete and objective consideration of the case, as well as in connection with the need to apply the law on an administrative offense, entailing the imposition of a more severe administrative penalty. In the reasoning part of the protest, it is necessary to indicate exactly what significant violations of the procedural requirements of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation did not allow a comprehensive, complete and objective consideration of the case, or why the law on an administrative offense should be applied, entailing the imposition of a more severe punishment. In the operative part of the response act, the prosecutor raises the question of canceling the decision and returning the case for a new trial; c) the decision was made by an unauthorized judge, body or official. The prosecutor motivates his position with reference to the norms of the Code on the jurisdiction to consider cases of administrative offenses, and in the operative part he raises the question of canceling the decision and sending the case for consideration according to jurisdiction. The given link to Art. 30.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of protests brought by the prosecutor most fully contributes to the goals of prosecutorial response, the eradication of simplification that is still present in the work, and increasing the responsibility of prosecutors for the quality of the acts of response they prepare. In Art. 31.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the basis for suspending the execution of a resolution is only the prosecutor's protest on a decision that has entered into legal force in a case of an administrative offense before considering the protest. Thus, based on the requirements of Art. 30.12 of the Administrative Code, it is necessary to ensure synchronicity in the process of bringing such protest prosecutor of a constituent entity of the Federation or his deputy addressed to the chairman (deputy chairman) of the court corresponding to their level and in notification court or administrative jurisdiction body that issued a contested decision in a case of an administrative offense to suspend its execution pending consideration of the protest. It is preferable to deal with the issue of notification to the prosecutor who discovered the violation at the location of the administrative jurisdiction body that issued the decision. At the same time, maximum consistency should be achieved in decision-making by district and regional prosecutors.

It seems necessary to note that in more detail the issues of reviewing decisions in a case of an administrative offense that have entered into legal force, decisions based on the results of consideration of complaints, protests are provided for by new Art. 30.12 – 30.13 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. From these norms it follows main conclusion that a decision in a case of an administrative offense that has entered into legal force, decisions based on the results of consideration of complaints, protests can be reviewed only in judicial procedure. At the same time, the types of administrative offenses and punishments do not matter, as well as who was a participant in the proceedings in cases of administrative offenses, which bodies and officials made these resolutions and decisions.

In addition, established by Part 1 of Art. 30.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation the right to appeal in the manner of supervision by the persons specified in Art. 25.1 – 25.5 of the Code, decisions in the case of an administrative offense that entered into force, decisions based on the results of consideration of complaints, protests restored the constitutional principle provided for in Art. 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation - the right to judicial protection. The norms introduced into the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation specifically establish the procedural forms of decisions taken to review decisions that have entered into legal force, decisions in a case of an administrative offense, and the limits of such a decision. In Art. 30.15 – 30.18 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, they are set out in detail.

It must be emphasized that according to Art. 22 of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office, in the event of detection of illegal legal acts, the prosecutor or his deputy protests those contrary to the law legal acts. If the authorities that issued such acts refuse to cancel them, the prosecutor appeals with an application to a court or arbitration court on the recognition of such acts as invalid
(Article 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Article 52 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

4. Disclaimer
violations of the law

In Part 1 of Art. 25 1 of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office stipulates that a warning about the inadmissibility of violating the law is announced to an official in for crime prevention purposes. That is, in its essence, this means of prosecutorial supervision cannot be recognized as an act of response to identified violations in the literal sense of the word. At the same time, as an analysis of the practice of prosecutors using this article shows, warnings are often announced after violations of laws have been committed, and not when there is information about impending illegal acts. Of course, this practice is not correct and is subject to adjustment, since caution as a preventive measure does not achieve its goal, which is why its value is extremely low. In the process of monitoring the legality of decisions made by bodies of administrative jurisdiction, it is permissible to practice issuing warnings to officials of such bodies when single-order violations on their part are revealed over a long period, which gives grounds to talk about their sustainable nature and the possibility of repetition in law enforcement practice. In conclusion, it should be noted that due to the limited volume of the manual, it is impossible to cover the entire aspect of emerging issues and ways to resolve them. Of course, given the nature of the work presented, it did not reflect the different points of view of scientists, authors of comments on the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation on the most pressing issues, since the final decision still remains with the court. At the same time, without claiming to be exhaustive in the information presented, including in terms of the methodology for conducting inspections, the work reflects issues of prosecutorial supervision at almost any of the stages of the process of bringing to administrative responsibility identified in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, especially regarding the execution of decisions in cases of administrative offenses. Further development of legislation on administrative responsibility will make adjustments to the practice of prosecutorial supervision, which will require the development of more modern methods for checking their implementation.

1. Constitution Russian Federation. 2. Code Russian Federation on administrative offenses. 3. Arbitration procedural code of the Russian Federation. 4. Civil procedural code of the Russian Federation.

5. About the prosecutor's office Russian Federation: Federal Law of January 17, 1992 No. 2202-I // VSND and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1992. No. 8. Art. 366; (as amended on July 17, 2009 No. 171-FZ).

6. About the introduction into force of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses: Federal Law of December 30, 2001 No. 196-FZ // SZ RF. 2002. No. 1 (part I). Art. 2. (as amended on April 26, 2007 No. 63-FZ). 7. About the executive production: Federal Law dated October 2, 2007 No. 229-FZ (as amended on December 30, 2008 No. 306-FZ). 8. About judicial bailiffs: Federal Law No. 118-FZ dated July 21, 1997 (as amended on December 25, 2008 No. 280-FZ). 9. About judicial system of the Russian Federation: Federal Constitutional Law dated December 31, 1996 No. 1-FKZ (as amended on April 5, 2005 No. 3-FKZ). 10. About the main guarantees of the rights of the child in the Russian Federation: Federal Law of July 24, 1998 No. 124-FZ. eleven. About the organization prosecutorial supervision over the implementation of laws, observance of human and civil rights and freedoms: order Prosecutor General RF dated December 7, 2007 No. 195. 12. About the organization prosecutorial supervision over the execution of laws by bailiffs: instruction of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation dated May 12, 2009 No. 155/7. 13. About some issues related to the implementation of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses: Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated January 27, 2003 No. 2. 14. About some Issues that arise for courts when applying the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses: Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 24, 2005 No. 5.

Lyudmila Borisovna Datchuk,

Boris Ivanovich Shalygin

Prosecutor's supervision of legality
execution of decisions on cases
about administrative offenses

Toolkit

Editor Yu.G. Kazantsev

Proofreader L.A. Perovskaya

Computer layout L.V. Kurdyukova

Signed for publication on November 2, 2009. Format 60x90/16. Pech.l. 6. Circulation 200. Order 90. Academy of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation 123022, Moscow, st. 2nd Zvenigorodskaya, 15