Published in journal "Administrative and municipal law", 2016-9 in rubric "Liability in administrative and municipal law", pages 791-798.
Resume: The article substantiates the specific rules of guilt qualification in the cases of infliction of harm according to civilized and administrative legislation. Unlike public delictual relations, the qualification of a guilty civilized offence doesn’t comply with the assumption of innocence attributes, and especially with the imposition of the burden of evidence on public officials. The qualification of a guilty act of a person in relation to civilized delicts and administrative offences is connected with detecting the psychological criteria of guilt in the form of a guilty intent or negligence, but, unlike the administrative responsibility cases, there are no definitions of a guilty intent or negligence. The author concludes that the qualification of a negligent act with the signs of “gross carelessness” in relation to civilized responsibility is widely spread. It is noticeable in comparison with administrative responsibility which doesn’t individuate the forms of negligence, unlike criminal responsibility characterized by the formalization of attributes of negligence. The author applies general philosophical and theoretical methods (dialectics, the system method, analysis, synthesis, analogy, deduction, observation and modeling), traditional legal methods (formal logical) and the methods of special sociological research. The author proves that the presumption of objective imputation of delict is a specific phenomenon typical only for civilized responsibility. Besides, the author substantiates the conclusion about the identity of subjective criteria of corporate guilt, established by the Civil Code and the Administrative Offences Code, and the legally important circumstances of force majeure, extreme necessity and necessary defence. A civil sanction, unlike a public one, is not a punishment and doesn’t have preventive purposes.
Keywords: responsibility, punishment, sanction, private, public, correlation, offence, delict, right, law
Kurakin A.V. Aktual'nye problemy administrativnogo prava i protsessa. – M., 2014. – S. 12.
Agapov A.B. K voprosu o publichnom prinuzhdenie v rossiyskom prave // NB: Administrativnoe pravo i praktika administrirovaniya. - 2013. - 7. - C. 58 - 87. DOI: 10.7256/2306-9945.2013.7.9922. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/al/article_9922.html
Kostennikov M.V., Kurakin A.V. K voprosu ob osnovanii administrativnoy otvetstvennosti v rossiyskom prave // NB: Administrativnoe pravo i praktika administrirovaniya. - 2013. - 10. - C. 75 - 88. DOI: 10.7256/2306-9945.2013.10.10153. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/al/article_10153.html
Kostennikov M.V., Kurakin A.V., Myshlyaev N.P. Prichiny administrativnykh pravonarusheniy // NB: Administrativnoe pravo i praktika administrirovaniya. - 2015. - 3. - C. 44 - 62. DOI: 10.7256/2306-9945.2015.3.15876. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/al/article_15876.html
Kostennikov M.V., Kurakin A.V., Myshlyaev N.P. Lichnost' sub'ekta administrativnogo pravonarusheniya // NB: Administrativnoe pravo i praktika administrirovaniya. - 2015. - 1. - C. 62 - 80. DOI: 10.7256/2306-9945.2015.1.15849. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/al/article_15849.html
Correct link to this article:
just copy this link to clipboard