For all his actions, especially unlawful, one should be responsible. As the well-known saying goes, "ignorance of the laws does not exempt from liability."
However, there is such a term as the jurisdiction of any misconduct, which provides for a whole host of nuances related to its consideration.
Jurisdiction of affairs: general points and concepts
Speaking in a language that is accessible to most ordinary people, the jurisdiction of cases of administrative offenses is the assignment of any offense or dispute to the jurisdiction (jurisdiction) of certain authorities. Everything seems to be simple and clear, but no - the separation of powers is growing like a snowball, overgrown with laws and all kinds of precedents.
Initially, jurisdiction has two main criteria - territoriality and objectivity, although very often they are intertwined.
The essence of this term is clearly enshrined in chapter 23 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Although a lot of legislative acts have been adopted that delimit and authorize authorities to consider administrative matters.
Separation of administrative bodies
Also, a clear limit is established by law, according to which there are two competencies of power structures:
- First instance. Drawing up protocols and acts on administrative offenses. Excitation of administrative affairs.
- The second instance. Consideration of cases and making decisions on them.
The first paragraph is suitable for small violations involving medium and small liability (monetary fines), while the second provides for the jurisdiction of administrative offenses. It is the courts of first instance that have the largest list of powers to consider administrative violations. Well, the appropriate punishments for them (correctional labor, arrest, deprivation of rights, etc.).
So, the jurisdiction of the courts includes the following categories of cases (chapters 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses):
- violation of the rights of other citizens;
- violation of election law;
- coercion in the field of public events (strikes, unauthorized rallies and processions);
- violations in the field of health and human health safety;
- offenses in the economic sectors;
- the use of drugs and other psychotropic drugs without a doctor's prescription;
- abuse of communications and information technology;
- traffic violations;
- misconduct in the field of entrepreneurship.
The list is far from complete, but the above-mentioned cases are found daily and everywhere.
Jurisdiction of administrative cases to courts
If you carefully look at the bulk of the offenses under consideration, you can highlight the pattern that the courts receive exclusive jurisdiction in some cases as powers. This applies to measures that are taken in the case under consideration - the purpose of arrest or seizure of the subject of the case.
And, guided by the existing principles of differentiating judicial competence to date, we can conclude that the jurisdiction of the consideration of cases of administrative offenses is purely conditional in nature, depending on the degree of guilt and the gravity of the offense. Practice shows that the lion's share of cases brought against individuals is considered by justices of the peace. Well, the arbitration courts are subject to administrative cases in relation to entrepreneurs and legal entities.
Authorized administrative structures
In addition to the courts, there are a number of authorities that can consider cases of administrative offenses. It:
- garrison military courts;
- juvenile commissions;
- internal affairs bodies;
- bodies of the penal system;
- tax services;
- customs and border authorities.
In these services, the jurisdiction of cases of administrative offenses is delineated very clearly, as is clear from the names of structures.
Separation of powers for the consideration of administrative offenses
Thus, garrison military courts are authorized to make decisions on violations of citizens and military personnel related to military gatherings and other army activities.
The juvenile commissions consider administrative cases committed by persons under their jurisdiction, offenses against them, as well as a host of cases in the field of family relations (parents and children, orphans and children placed in care and adoption, and others).
The internal affairs bodies and their officials (chiefs of the territorial police, their deputies, chiefs of the transport police with deputies, heads of the traffic police, district inspectors), vested with the appropriate authority, have a very wide range of cases. Here there are violations of public order and road safety, hooligan actions on transport routes and in public transport (a full list of offenses is prescribed in Articles 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20 of the Code of Administrative Offenses).
It should be added that when considering the above-mentioned bodies, it is allowed to transfer cases of administrative offenses of jurisdiction in favor of the courts of first instance. This is due to the fact that it is possible to merge the jurisdiction of power structures, and as a result of expanding the list of measures that can be applied to the violator. Courts in this regard have more sanction powers.
Territorial jurisdiction - what is it?
The basic principles of territorial jurisdiction are enshrined in law in Art. 29 Code of Administrative Offenses. But, in plain language, this means that in fact the administrative offense is examined by the authorities at the place where this violation was committed.
In most cases, this happens, although deviations from the letter of the law are sometimes allowed. The consideration of cases by justices of the peace is especially relevant. Here it is possible to appoint a judge who does not belong to the given site where the misconduct was committed. Although there can be exceptions only in cases when the conditions of Federal Law No. 188-FZ of December 17, 1998 are met, namely, the inability of a magistrate to fulfill his duties (illness, vacation).
Types of territorial jurisdiction
Again, the consideration of administrative cases in the courts has a variable factor depending on the degree and nature of the offense. Today, the law distinguishes two main types of jurisdiction on a territorial basis:
Exclusive territorial jurisdiction does not allow any deviations from the letter of the law. A vivid example are disputes over property rights (real estate). Consider such production can only bodies that are located at its location. But the flip side of the coin is that counterclaims in the case under consideration, regardless of the jurisdiction of cases of administrative offenses applied, are submitted to the same court. And it doesn’t matter if the territorial sign is respected or not.
Contractual jurisdiction provides for the possibility of choosing the place and body that will consider the offense. However, this feature can be used if there is no exclusive jurisdiction.
But legal practice shows that the territorial jurisdiction of cases of administrative offenses cannot be changed without significant consequences. Since the Administrative Code is still the fundamental legal act, any non-compliance with its provisions regarding the jurisdiction of the cases under consideration can be appealed to the courts of higher instances.
Alternative jurisdictions
There is another interesting phenomenon that has the types of jurisdiction of cases of administrative violation - alternative variations of the consideration of such misconduct. In particular, alternative territorial jurisdiction implies consideration of an administrative offense not at the place of its commission, but at the place of residence of the offender.
The subjectivity of this kind of jurisdiction is also provided for in Chapter 23 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which clearly discloses the distribution of powers between the courts and other government agencies that are considering cases of administrative offenses.
Here there is a fact that when applying alternative jurisdiction, the person who is the plaintiff can choose the body that will consider his case. If there is no information about the current location of the offender, then the jurisdiction of cases of administrative offenses can be transferred either to the location of his property or to the last known place of residence of the defendant.
In conclusion
Sometimes the term “jurisdiction” is confused with “jurisdiction”. Indeed, there is a fairly fine line between the two definitions. But it’s more correct to use nevertheless the jurisdiction of cases of administrative offenses. The Code of Administrative Offenses does not give a clear definition of jurisdiction, although it inclines to the fact that this concept is used only in relation to courts of all levels, with a strict distribution of powers and power functions.