Suchergebnisse

The subject of the article is the application of the constitutional foundations of federalism by the constitutional courts of Germany and Russia. The contribution of the highest courts of Russia and Germany to the development of the constitutional concept of the Federal system through judicial interpretation of the basic principles of Federal statehood directly enshrined in the Constitution and the discovery of unwritten principles is studied.The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that German federalism reflects mostly competition model with specific elements of cooperation of federative entities, while the Russian federalism demonstrates the increasing vertical cooperative principles.The methodology of the study includes analysis, synthesis, description as well as particular academic legal methods (comparative analysis of legislation and judicial decisions, formal‐legal method, interpretation of legal acts).The main results and scope of their application. Competitive and cooperative principles exist in any system of federal relations. Their ratio, as well as the actual status of the Federation and its constituent entities reflect the features of a particular model of federal structure. Federal reform in Germany 2006-2009 was aimed to return competitive origins in the German federalism and was opposed to unitarist trends. The origins of significant differences in approaches to the interpretation of the nature of the Union state in Germany and the Federation in Russia are rooted in various historical and political prerequisites for the formation and development of both federal States as well as in national traditions. This is reflected in the varying degrees of doctrinal elaboration of the theory of the federal state in Russia and Germany. The unwritten principle of fidelity to Federal relations is very important for the understanding of the peculiarities of German federalism. It is based on the provisions of the Basic law and disclosed in the decisions of the Federal constitutional court. This principle presupposes a friendly attitude of the central state and the federal lands to each other and to the Federation, cooperation, mutual respect and mutual assistance. It seems that this principle can serve as a basis for the disclosure of relations between the constituent entities and central state in Russia. The functional model of the Federal organization is implemented in Germany, unlike Russia. First of all, the Basic Law for Germany focuses on the horizontal separation of powers and uses the functional principle of the separation of state powers between the Bund and the Federal lands making a distinction, respectively, primarily in the areas of legislation, execution of laws (management) and justice. The Russian concept of vertical separation of powers is characterized by a different approach: horizontal separation of powers does not precede vertical separation of powers. Competence between the Federation and it's constituent entities is differentiated not by functional, but by subject matter (by subjects of competence).Federal constitutional courts play special role in the interpretation of the constitutional principles of the Federal system and their development. This is confirmed both by the practice of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (FCC) and by the decisions of the Russian Constitutional Court (CC RF). Revealing the nature of the German Union state on the basis of the interpretation of the provisions of the Basic Law, the FCC relies on the existing doctrine on this issue. The FCC's legal positions on federal relations are also important for Russian doctrine and practice. It concerns the principles of inviolability of the constitutional basis of federal statehood, fidelity to the Federation and friendly attitude to the principles of federal structure, including horizontal and vertical interaction in the system of federal relations, mutual assistance, mutual nature of the rights and obligations of the Federation and its constituent entities.Conclusions. Unlike Germany, the Russian federalism is increasingly strengthening vertical cooperative basics, which hides the model of a highly centralized Federation. This conclusion is confirmed by the non-recognition of their own source of statehood of the subjects of the Russian Federation, in fact, their lack of quality of constitutional autonomy. ; Дается сравнительный анализ немецкого и российского федерализма с позиций соотношения конкурентных и кооперативных начал. Изучается вклад высших судебных инстанций России и Германии в развитие конституционной концепции федеративного устройства посредством судебной интерпретации напрямую закрепленных в Конституции основных начал федеративной государственности и открытия неписаных принципов. Отмечено, что немецкий федерализм склоняется, скорее, к конкурентной мо-дели при сохранении отдельных элементов кооперации субъектов федеративных отношений, тогда как российский федерализм демонстрирует усиление вертикальных кооперативных начал, за которыми скрываются унитаристские тенденции.

The subject of the article is legal regulation at the transition stage from e-government to digital government in Russia and France.The purpose of the article is confirmation or confutation of the hypothesis that in the practice of digital interaction between administrative bodies and individuals, there are problems that must be clearly identified and can be solved using the French experience of legal regulation of the digitalization of public administration.The methodology of the study includes comparative analysis, description as well as particular academic legal methods (interpretation of legal acts, judicial acts and state programs of digitalization in Russia and France, formal legal method).The main results and scope of their application. Russia and France are similar because of not only belonging to the continental legal system, but also existing in the transition stage from e-government to digital. Public administration and law in both countries have to cope with the challenges of digitalization. In this regard, the experience of implementing reforms in France, which is known for its administrative and legal traditions and successes, is of particular interest to the Russian Federation. The legal support of public administration digitalization is clearly lagging behind the rapid development of digital technologies; moreover, new information solutions are significantly ahead of their legal implementation. A comparative analysis between the strategic plans of public administration, relating to digitalization of control and supervision activities in the Russian federation, and the e-government's present and future legislative framework, indicates a lack of coherence between the plans and their legislative counterparts. The initial implementation of public administration digitalization strategic plan through legislation on services is generally supported in the "Digital Public Administration" federal project through the legislation of services. At the same time, the draft of the new Federal law on state control (supervision) and municipal control in Russia offers its own information infrastructure for control and supervisory activities.Conclusions. In order to overcome the fragmentation in the regulation of electronic interaction between private entities and public administration, the French experience of regulating the general principles of administrative procedures and guarantees of good public administration in a single act is very useful. Such an approach would also ensure compliance with the basic principles of proportionality and the prohibition of excessive formalism in the meaningful differentiation of errors and violations committed in the course of electronic communication. In addition according to French experience, it is necessary to maintain alternative ways of communication with administrative authorities including electronic ones, and consider any legislative exceptions. Also, it is necessary to define additional guarantees to citizens during interactions with technical support services; defining standards for the legal qualification of technical failures, pre-trial and judicial appeal mechanisms against automatically made decisions. ; Рассматривается переходный этап от электронного правительства к цифровому в России и Франции, известной своими административно-правовыми традициями и успехами. Отмечается, что правовое обеспечение цифровизации публичного управления пока явно отстает от стремительного развития цифровых технологий. Проводится анализ стратегических планов цифровизации государственного управления и контрольно-надзорной деятельности в Российской Федерации, с одной стороны, и законодатель-ной основы электронного правительства с учётом перспектив её развития – с другой. В целях преодоления разрозненности и фрагментарности в регулировании вопросов электронного взаимодействия частных субъектов с публичной администрацией предлагается использование французского опыта регулирования общих принципов осуществления административных процедур и гарантий надлежащего государственного управления в едином акте. Такой подход позволил бы также обеспечить соблюдение базовых принципов соразмерности и запрета чрезмерного формализма при содержательной дифференциации ошибок и нарушений, допускаемых в ходе электронной коммуникации. Также с учётом французского опыта предлагается сохранить, наряду с электронными, альтернативные формы коммуникации с административными органами и законодательно предусмотреть соответствующие исключения, а также закрепить дополнительные гарантии работы с обращениями граждан служб технической поддержки, стандарты юридической квалификации технических сбоев, механизмы досудебного и судебного обжалования автоматически принятых решений.