Some questions arising when hearing the cases about challenging regulations in the light of resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation № 36 of September 27, 2016 and № 50 25 of December, 2018 No. 50

Cases on challenging regulations represent one of the categories of administrative cases arising out of administrative and other public legal relations. In these cases the Court exercises supervision over the legality and validity of the government or other public powers (Part 1, Article 1 of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian Federation and Item 1.1, Item 1.2, Article 29 of Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation of the Russian Federation). The legal basis for judicial control over public managerial activities is relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Articles 10, 18, 45, 46). In the process of implementing judicial control on challenging regulations the court protects the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations that were violated by such acts. Remedy in these cases is the recognition by the Court of the act inoperative with subsequent excluded him from the Russian legal system. The remedy in these cases is recognition by court of the statutory act inoperative with its subsequent exclusion from the legal system of Russia. Since cases on challenging regulations are attributed by law to various judicial bodies represented by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, courts of law and Intellectual Property Rights Court, there is a problem of adequate use by legislators and lawyers of the corresponding legal language in distinguishing jurisdictional powers of the above-mentioned bodies. It is a question of subject matter jurisdiction and court jurisdiction. Despite the known similarity of concepts of subject matter jurisdiction and court jurisdiction, procedural legislation provides for fundamentally different legal consequences in cases of violation of the rules of subject matter jurisdiction and court jurisdiction. This circumstance is not always taken into account by legislators. For example, in Article 21 of Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation which contains a list of administrative cases, including cases on challenging regulations falling within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, legislators use the term "court jurisdiction", focusing thereby on application in the event of non-jurisdiction of undue legal consequences in the form of return of administrative claim or transfer the case to another court. The plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its resolution № 50 of December 25, 2018 operates with the term "competence" which can also mislead because it can mean both subject matter jurisdiction and court jurisdiction. Based on the above, the author comes to the following conclusions. Violation by the concerned persons of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as well as the Intellectual Property Rights Court as unique judicial authorities which deal with cases on challenging regulations should unambiguously be regarded as violation of the rules of jurisdiction, with all its procedural consequences. It is possible to talk about court jurisdiction in cases of challenging regulations only if we distinguish jurisdictional powers of the civil courts of law (district courts and courts of the constituent subjects of the Russian Federation) and military jurisdiction (garrison military court, district (naval) court).

Keywords

Authors

References