Suchergebnisse

The subject of the research is the establishment and application of official awards at the municipal level of government, including award legislation and the practice of its application.The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove the hypothesis of an existence of an award policy and system of awards for the municipal level of government in Russia.The methodological basis of the research is the general scientific dialectical method of cognition (such as methods of analysis and synthesis, abstraction and concretization, induction, deduction and analogy), as well as the method of monitoring of legal acts, historical and legal method, system analysis. The main results of the research. A comprehensive analysis of existing regulations and description the general contours of the award policy for the municipal level of government were made. The following classification of awards applicable to municipal authorities can be distinguished. By type of award: honorary titles, medals, distinctions and incentives, as well as grants and prizes. Depending on the subject that establishes the award: state, municipal or public awards; moreover, you should distinguish between awards established by a public legal entity (award of the Russian Federation, of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, a municipality) or a separate public authority. Depending on the subject receiving the award (the awarding subject): awards that are established both for the municipality as a whole, and for individual officials or other employees of local self-government bodies; a separate category consists of awards provided for the territorial bodies or their representatives. Currently, there is no single document outlining the system of awards of the Russian Federation.Conclusions. Monitoring of normative legal acts of local self-government bodies has shown that it is quite rare to find documents that regulate the award policy of a municipality. There is practically no award policy for local government bodies or their officials, as well as awards for contributions to the development of local self-government. ; Дается общая характеристика государственных, муниципальных и общественных наград, вручаемых за деятельность, связанную с местным самоуправлением. Приводятся результаты мониторинга нормативных правовых актов, федерального, регионального и муниципального уровня. Делается вывод, что наградная политика в отношении органов местного самоуправления или их должностных лиц отсутствует. Отсутствует система наград за вклад в развитие местного самоуправления. Деятельность государства в этой сфере носит фрагментарный характер.

The subject. The article discusses the current model of municipal control in Russia, analyzes the relevant regulations and judicial practice.The purpose of the article is to confirm or refute the hypothesis that municipal control can be effective from the standpoint of ensuring the security of the urban environment.The methodological basis of the study includes general‐scientific methods (analysis and synthesis, system‐structural approach) as well as academic methods (formal‐legal method, method of interpretation of legal acts).Results and scope of their application. The quality parameters of the urban environment are closely related to the issues of local importance, for the solution of which the local authorities are responsible; secondly, safety is one of the criteria for assessing the quality of the urban environment, so the local authorities should have tools to influence its improvement. One of such instruments is municipal control exercised by local governments or their officials. De facto municipal control smoothly flows from the sphere of public relations into the sphere of civil law relations due to the control functions of the owner of his property. This may affect not only the concept of municipal control, but also the features of the de‐ limitation of municipal control from related types of state control (for example, in the field of land control, etc.). The analysis of normative acts and the existing judicial practice allows to conclude that the existing concept of municipal control is a gap and internally contradictory. It leads to a diminution of the control activities of local governments, inefficient spending of budget funds. In addition, this means that local governments do not have effective mechanisms to ensure the security of public spaces.Conclusions. The article refutes the hypothesis of the effectiveness of municipal control in Russia from the standpoint of ensuring the safety of the urban environment. Local governments, as a full‐fledged and equal variety of public authorities should have a mechanism for the implementation of municipal control, especially in terms of compliance with the requirements established in municipal regulations. This is particularly important for the security of the urban environment. ; Рассматривается действующая модель муниципального контроля, дается анализ нормативных актов и судебной практики. Отдельное внимание уделяется проекту федерального закона о контрольно‐надзорной деятельности, принятого в первом чтении и основанного на новом риск‐ориентированном подходе. Приводимые примеры касаются вопросов обеспечения безопасности общественных пространств, городской среды.

The subject. The article analyzes the trends of community participation in the implementation of local self-government.The purpose of the paper is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that the involvement of the population in the implementation of local self-government determines the genuine implementation of municipal legal acts and contributes to finding effective solutions to local issues.The research was carried out with use of main scientific methods (analysis, induction and deduction), special (statistical) method as well as the method of interpretation of the legal acts.The main results and scope of their application. The same form of direct democracy is mentioned in different Russian laws by different words often. The concept and requirements for the same forms, the limits of their application, the implementation procedures are described in different ways. There is a significant shift in emphasis in the use of various forms of direct democracy at the municipal level. In reality, the ability of local residents to exercise local self-government is significantly reduced. The involvement of the population is increasingly declared as an additional investment tool. The analysis of law enforcement practice shows the emergence of new forms of participation of citizens in the implementation of local self-government, which either do not have proper legal regulation, or it is fragmentary, carried out mainly by bylaws. The majority principle was the basis of decision-making in Russia for a long time, including the Soviet period, i.e. the decision was made on the basis of the opinion of the majority or qualified majority; the minority obeyed the majority. It has become urgent to develop new legal structures to identify and take into account the opinion of the minority in recent years.Conclusions. The involvement of the population in the implementation of local self-government is a criterion that the norms provided for in the texts of normative legal acts are really beginning to be implemented, the population is increasingly beginning to use them. If citizens lack legal instruments, they initiate their development and adoption in the form of relevant regulatory legal acts or other legal documents. The institutions of power and civil society do not replace each other, but promote mutual harmonious development aimed at improving the quality of life of citizens. ; Исследуются основные формы непосредственного народовластия, используемые на муниципальном уровне. На основании анализа материалов правоприменительной практики формулируются основные тенденции их развития. Отдельное внимание уделяется такому критерию оценки эффективности реализации национальных проектов, как вовлечение населения.

The subject. The article analyzes the conflict of norms of the current legislation, the materials of law enforcement practice in terms of establishing the powers of local governments to issue permits for flights.The purpose of the paper is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that the powers of local governments to issue permits for flights are not based on the law and are established only in by-laws.The research was carried out with use of main scientific methods (analysis, induction and deduction), special (statistical) method as well as the method of interpretation of the legal acts.The main results and scope of their application. Monitoring of legislation and law enforcement shows that local governments are more likely to be an additional barrier to business activity than a body with the necessary competence to make the appropriate decision.Local self-government bodies are empowered by a secondary normative act to issue a permit for certain actions in the airspace of the Russian Federation over populated areas. It is a question of exclusively state powers which were assigned to local governments by the will of the by-law.A number of provisions of secondary legislation regulating the peculiarities of use of airspace of the Russian Federation does not have clarity and certainty. For example, it is not clear what kind of legislation should regulate skydiving (physical culture legislation or regulation of organization of flights); hot air ballooning (is it sphere of leisure activities or organization of flights). More precise legal regulation is needed for such cases.One of the purposes of imposing the functions of flight permits on local governments is to ensure the security of the population, its life, health and safety of property. But local governments have almost no own security tools. The legislation on local self-government does not contain requirements for employees of local self-government bodies related to the availability of specialized knowledge, sufficient competence to assess the degree of risk or threat. The adoption of a significant number of municipal legal acts concerning flight permits is initiated by the transport Prosecutor's office, which considers the relevant activities of local governments as a municipal service. Analysis of law enforcement practice shows its great diversity. Some courts decide that local governments have no right to regulate the issuance of flight permits. The most numerous are court decisions when the court compels local governments to adopt administrative regulations for the provision of the relevant municipal service concerning flight permits. A certain group of court cases consists of decisions taken by the court on the basis of refusal of the claim in connection with the voluntary issuance of flight permits.Conclusions. It is shown that powers of local governments to issue permits for flights are not based on the law and are contained only in by-laws. The information possessed by the local self-government bodies can be transferred to the relevant state authorities for operational decision-making in the order of interdepartmental interaction. This power has no real impact on improving the security of residents of cities and other settlements. ; Анализируются коллизии норм действующего законодательства, материалы правоприменительной практики в части установления полномочий органов местного самоуправления по выдаче разрешений на полеты. Показывается, что данные полномочияне основаны на законе и содержатся только в подзаконных актах. Мониторинг законодательства и правоприменения показывает, что органы местного самоуправленияявляются скорее дополнительным барьером для предпринимательской деятельности, чем инстанцией, обладающей необходимыми компетенциями для принятия соответствующего решения. Информация, которой обладают органы местного самоуправления, может быть в порядке межведомственного взаимодействия передана в соответствующие органы государственной власти для принятия оперативных решений. Это полномочие реально не влияет на повышение безопасности жителей городов и иных населенных пунктов.