Topical issues of improving legislation on rehabilitation in case of illegal administrative prosecution

Palatin Andrei Vladimirovich Lecturer; Department of Administrative and Financial Law; National Research Nizhny Novgorod University named after N.I. Lobachevsky 603950, Russia, Nizhny Novgorod region, Nizhny Novgorod, Gagarin Ave., 23 k.2, room 401 anpal2004@mail.ru Other publications by this author

The emergence, formation and development of any state is inextricably linked with the search for an optimal balance between the state and the individual. Having embarked on the path of forming a State governed by the rule of law and declaring itself such, the Russian Federation recognizes, respects and protects the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, while indicating that a person, his rights and freedoms are the highest value (the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993, Moscow, 1993). In order for these norms not to remain only declarations and to fulfill their main function – the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms, the State must have appropriate procedures, mechanisms and institutions. The Institute of Rehabilitation has become one of such institutions that meet the requirements of efficiency and guarantee the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms in State–individual relations. Based on the principle of mutual responsibility of the state and the individual, the institute of rehabilitation found its place in Article 53 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which established that everyone has the right to compensation by the state for damage caused by illegal actions (or inaction) of public authorities or their officials. Of particular importance are the above priorities in the field of criminal proceedings and proceedings in cases of administrative offenses, where issues of a person's guilt in committing a crime or offense, and the application of punishment provided for by law are resolved. Undoubtedly, persons in legal relations with the state, if in such legal relations there is a violation of the law, violation of the law, excess or abuse of authority by officials of state bodies, need procedural guarantees for the restoration of violated rights and compensation for the harm caused to them. Even isolated cases of bringing innocent citizens to legal responsibility lead to serious consequences for the individual, cause public outrage, undermine trust in law enforcement agencies and the state as a whole. That is why the legal system must guarantee a high level of protection of human rights in the sphere of criminal, administrative or civil justice, and ensure the restoration of violated rights. The recognition and legislative consolidation of the institute of rehabilitation is an important step towards the formation of the rule of law in Russia.

The substantive part of rehabilitation consists of a set of actions aimed at restoring an innocent citizen to violated rights (restoration of social, legal, property and moral status of a person) and compensation for damage caused (property and moral).

However, the current Administrative Code of the Russian Federation (Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses dated 12/30/2001 No. 195-FZ// Rossiyskaya Gazeta, No. 256, 12/31/2001) provides only for the right of persons illegally subjected to measures to ensure the production of an administrative offense to compensation for losses according to the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

There are no norms in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation regulating, after a decision is made to terminate administrative and legal prosecution on rehabilitative grounds, the restoration of an innocent citizen in violated rights. All available civil law mechanisms are ways to compensate for harm (property or moral). Consequently, the right to rehabilitation provided for in Article 53 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which includes not only compensation for damages, but also restoration of violated rights, is absent in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. This means that the current administrative legislation regarding the restoration of the rights of citizens and legal entities in case of illegal administrative prosecution does not fully comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and international legal acts.

The purpose of this article is to identify and characterize the current theoretical and practical problems of improving the institution of rehabilitation of persons illegally brought to administrative responsibility.

The methodological basis of the research presented to the reader is made up of both general scientific, private scientific and special methods of cognition. In particular, the use of the comparative legal method made it possible to study the experience of using the institute of rehabilitation in criminal law, the dialectical method made it possible to identify a variety of doctrinal approaches to solving theoretical problems, their interrelation and directions of development; the use of formal logical methods made it possible to identify the main shortcomings in ensuring the restoration of the rights of citizens illegally subjected to administrative prosecution and identify appropriate options for their the use of the method of legal modeling contributed to the formation of ideas about improving mechanisms for ensuring the restoration of violated rights; the use of an intersectoral method of legal research made it possible to correlate the features of the application of administrative and civil legislation in their interrelation.

Currently, the Russian science of administrative law lacks fundamental scientific research, as well as monographic theoretical works directly devoted to the theoretical analysis and practice of implementing administrative and legal guarantees of the rights of citizens and organizations in case of illegal administrative prosecution. However, the topic of rehabilitation of persons illegally brought to administrative responsibility is raised in the articles by N.A. Dudina, R.E. Vitske and A.S. Sharafutdinov.

When writing the article, the author analyzes the fundamental scientific works of scientists studying the institute of rehabilitation in Russian legislation. These are the works of S.I. Zakhartsev, G.Z. Klimova, M.A. Mironov, N.I. Mirolyubov, V.I. Rokhlin, I.N. Senyakin.

The work of scientists researching the constitutional and international legal foundations of rehabilitation has not been ignored. These are the works of A.D. Gulyakova, A.A. Yashina, I.A. Gorodilova, T.T. Sokolova, T.N. Neshataeva.

The conclusions of the author of the article are based on a large number of classical works on administrative law, which, although not directly related to the topic of the dissertation, nevertheless make an invaluable contribution to understanding the problems of restoring the rights of citizens and organizations in case of illegal administrative prosecution and compensation for harm caused to them. These are the works of Yu.P. Gapon, A.B. Zelentsov, V.R. Kisin, S.S. Kupreev, A.V. Martynov, V.I. Mayorov, G.V. Melnichuk, L.L. Popov, Yu.I. Popugaev, V.V. Polyansky, B.V. Rossinsky, Yu.N. Starilov, O.A. Yastrebov and other scientists.

According to scientists ^{[6, pp. 35-41] [1, pp. 138-153]} administrative and criminal liability, being varieties of public law liability, pursue the common goal of protecting public interests, primarily such as protecting human and civil rights and freedoms, ensuring law and order. Because of this, they have similar tasks and principles and thus complement each other. The application of administrative and criminal liability measures is based on the principles of equality of all before the law, legality, guilt as a mandatory basis of responsibility, humanity (Articles 1.4 - 1.6 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 3-7 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), fixed in a similar way.

A similar conclusion is set out in the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 14, 2015 No. 20-P "In the case of checking the constitutionality of part 2 of Article 1.7 and paragraph 2 of Article 31.7 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation in connection with the request of the justice of the Peace of the judicial district No. 1 of the Vyksa judicial district of the Nizhny Novgorod region." (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 14, 2015 No. 20-P "In the case of checking the constitutionality of part 2 of Article 1.7 and paragraph 2 of Article 31.7 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation in connection with the request of the justice of the Peace of the judicial district No. 1 of the Vyksa judicial district of the Nizhny Novgorod region" // SPS "ConsultantPlus".)

Therefore, in the author's opinion, it is worth supporting the position of scientists ^{[6, pp. 35-41] [1, pp. 138-153]} that since administrative liability, like criminal liability, has a public legal character, procedural mechanisms similar to those that have can be used in proceedings on administrative offenses a place in criminal proceedings.

The author's position on this issue is consistent with the proposals of scientists to improve the institute of rehabilitation in general and the proposed mechanisms for the rehabilitation of persons illegally brought to administrative responsibility in particular. These proposals are aimed at solving the main task - to increase the effectiveness of the implementation of the right of a person affected by the actions of administrative authorities, including in cases of illegal administrative liability for rehabilitation.

Thus, R.E. Vitske and A.Sh. Sharafutdinov ^{[2, pp. 125-127]} propose to make additions to the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation in the form of a separate chapter "Rehabilitation". By analogy with the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, it will enshrine the principle of state responsibility for illegal and unjustified bringing to administrative responsibility, to one degree or another, relations in the case of harm in the production of cases of administrative offenses will be regulated, the legal foundations of administrative and legal rehabilitation are fixed.

According to I.A. Gorodilova and T.T. Sokolova ^{[3, pp. 115-122]}, the legislative prerequisite for overcoming the civil monopoly and the formation of good practice focused on the public law procedure for considering disputes on compensation for damage caused by the state is contained in paragraph 3 of Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In accordance with it, property relations based on administrative or other authority subordination of one party to the other have been removed from the scope of civil legislation. Moreover, the list of such relations is not closed. It should also be mentioned that if a citizen causes harm to the State, the obligation to compensate him is considered as public law. And when it comes to harm caused to a citizen as a result of illegal public activities of the state, these provisions of the law do not apply. In this regard, the question arises of achieving a fair balance between the interests of the state and the individual without the absolutization of individualistic principles, when the state causes harm as a subject of public law, and compensates it using the legal constructions of private law.

I.A. Gorodilova and T.T. Sokolova ^{[3, pp. 115-122]} believe that the use of a claim form in cases of compensation for damage caused by illegal actions of the state is untenable. The institution of compensation for harm caused to a citizen as a result of illegal actions of the state is one of the constitutional guarantees of ensuring the legality of the activities of government bodies. Its civil interpretation by the legislator is unjustified, since it does not take into account the public-legal nature of the relationship between a citizen and the state. In accordance with the deep meaning of the constitutional provisions, it is advisable to use the means of an administrative jurisdictional process to compensate for harm in order to improve the legal situation of victims of illegal actions of public authorities or their officials.

T.N. Neshataeva ^{[12, p. 65]}, in turn, sees two ways to solve the problem. The first of them is the expansion of civil law remedies, the improvement of the civil law mechanism of compensation for harm. This way implies a fundamental change in the institution of civil liability. The second way is to create a special public (administrative and legal) mechanism for compensation for harm, determining monetary compensation for harm caused by the actions of the state. Commissions or other similar bodies are established to assess and determine the amount of compensation, or similar powers are transferred directly to judicial authorities. The public legal path may involve the development of a special regulatory legal act on compensation for damage caused by the actions of public authorities. The scientist ^{[12, p.65]} also allows the joint use of the administrative and legal procedure for determining compensation along with a more complex civil procedure for proving damages.

T.N. Neshataeva ^{[12, p.65]} believes that in order to compensate for harm caused by authorities, it is necessary to have two types of compensation mechanisms: compensatory (taxation of typical types of harm by administrative and legal type) and full compensation for damage (losses, lost profits by civil law type). It is unnecessary to explain why the second type of compensation is more profitable for individuals. It contains a complete material recovery element. However, such a result is difficult to achieve. The specifics of establishing a causal relationship will certainly entail the need for an adversarial process, in which it is necessary to take into account the presumption of good faith; to prove the illegality, guilt of the behavior of persons exercising public authority. That is, a long civil litigation is inevitable.

However, the scientist ^{[12, p. 65]} warns about the disadvantages of the proposed approaches. The claim procedure for damages, in her opinion, is quite difficult for individuals and costly for the state. The creation of an administrative and legal mechanism for compensation for damages involves the risk of applying different standards and approaches in the field of compensation for harm, conflict of laws with each other and with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, or corruption risks in resolving issues of compensation.

A.P. Gulyaev ^{[4, pp. 46-48]} expressed the idea of the expediency of implementing in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation a legal mechanism for resolving the issue of compensation for moral damage to a rehabilitated person not in a lawsuit, but in a public manner. The scientist believes that the state itself should initiate and consider the issue of compensation for property and moral damage to a person who has been unlawfully or unreasonably persecuted. The current law condemns such a person to independently "break through" this issue in civil proceedings, which does not really correspond to his interests and justice.

It is necessary to take into account the approach of the ECHR ^{[16, p. 246]} according to which, from the moment the court decision on the recovery of sums of money from the state in favor of the creditor enters into force, the amount of money awarded to the creditor is considered as his property. Accordingly, in case of late execution of the judicial act, the creditor's property right is considered violated, interest is accrued on the entire amount of compensation automatically.

P.V. Meshkov ^{[11, pp. 64-69]}, in turn, considers it quite reasonable to supplement the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation with provisions clarifying the procedure, sequence and limits of the application of appropriate security measures, which would minimize cases of unjustified restriction of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations.

It is necessary to agree with the prominent scientist in the field of administrative law B.V. Rossinsky ^{[17, p. 26]}, who points out that complaints against decisions on administrative offenses should be considered in the course of administrative proceedings, i.e. within the framework of administrative proceedings on challenging decisions and actions of executive authorities and other state bodies, which requires necessary additions and amendments to the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and the CAS of the Russian Federation.

It is difficult to disagree with L.L. Popov ^{[13, p. 93]}, who rightly notes that "without the formation of a modern administrative process, it is impossible to create effective management, including at least limiting the adoption of erroneous decisions by public administration bodies, as well as guaranteeing non-governmental entities (citizens and non-governmental organizations) the exercise of their rights, and legitimate interests."

In the scientific works of L.L. Popov ^{[14, p. 76]}, the problem of developing the administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation received detailed coverage. Justifying the need to adopt such a law, he writes that each branch of government has its own procedural support at the level of the law: "The legislative power is based on the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with its procedural part... The judiciary now has three Procedural Codes. But the executive branch, public administration (the largest part of the state apparatus) do not have such legislative procedural support (the exception is the procedural part of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation)."

V.I. Mayorova ^{[9, pp. 48-50]} notes that administrative procedures are an expression of positive public management activities, they bring proper order to the organization and functioning of public authority, ensure compliance with the principle of legality, establish guarantees of usefulness, efficiency and openness of administrative actions. According to the scientist ^{[9, pp.48-50]} proper legal regulation of the administrative process is of great importance in the relationship between powerful and non-powerful subjects.

One of the most famous administrative scientists who develop problems of administrative procedures is Yu.N. Starilov, Doctor of Law, Professor, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, who actively promotes the idea of the need to adopt the law "On Administrative Procedures" in the Russian Federation, which is shared by L.L. Popov.

Yu.N. Starilov ^{[18, pp. 7-23]} believes that administrative law cannot be imagined without the institution of administrative procedures, established legal procedures for the adoption of administrative acts by executive bodies of public authority and their officials. The interaction and simultaneous modernization of administrative proceedings and administrative procedures in the Russian Federation necessitate the formation of appropriate concepts of administrative and legal regulation of both administrative procedural and administrative procedural relations.

The lack of due attention to administrative and procedural relations in the field of public administration demonstrates a depressing (by the nature of its stability and prevalence) disrespect for constitutional and legal values, indicating the need for the state to fulfill its obligation to recognize, respect and protect human and civil rights and freedoms (Article 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

I would like to join the wishes of G. 3. Klimova (Klimova G. Z. Rehabilitation as a legal institution (issues of theory and practice): Dis... cand. Jurid. sciences'. Sochi, 2004. pp.89-95) that in order to increase guarantees for the protection of the rights of persons innocent of committing an offense, as well as in order to eliminate mutual inconsistency between the norms of various normative acts of a rehabilitative nature, it is necessary to consolidate the institution of rehabilitation at the constitutional level and introduce the term "rehabilitation" into sectoral legislation. Relations on the restoration of the rights of persons unlawfully brought to legal responsibility should be regulated at the constitutional level, as well as be specified in sectoral legislation.

In turn, in order to exclude vicious law enforcement practice, A.D. Gulyakov and A.A. Yashina ^{[5, pp. 30-32]} proposed the following directions for improving legislation on rehabilitation in Russia:

• proclamation of the right to rehabilitation in the Constitution of the Russian Federation;
• consolidation of the right to rehabilitation in the constitutions (charters) of the subjects of the Russian Federation;
• Adoption of the Federal Law "On Rehabilitation of Persons in Connection with Illegal or Unjustified Actions (Inaction) of Public Authorities in the Russian Federation";

As A.I. Mikulin notes, guarantees for the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of persons in proceedings on administrative offenses require further improvement. (Mikulin A.I. The right to protection in proceedings on administrative offenses: Abstract of the dissertation ... cand. Jurid. sciences': 12.00.14. Omsk, 2009.)

It is worth joining the opinion of A.V. Martynov ^{[10, pp. 47-53]}, who rightly notes that administrative proceedings will affect the quality of public administration only when the results of the work of judicial authorities and executive authorities will satisfy the legitimate needs of citizens. Citizens should be sure that in case of violation of their rights and freedoms, they will be able to restore violated rights quickly and effectively through administrative proceedings, and the activities of public administration entities will be subject to such a judicial assessment that will prevent such violations both against these citizens and against other participants in public relations.

Summarizing the positions of scientists outlined above, the author considers it necessary to support the conclusions drawn by N.A. Dudina ^{[7, pp. 102-109]} that:

1. The right guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation to everyone to compensation by the state for harm caused by illegal actions (or inaction) of public authorities or their officials should be reflected in sectoral (administrative) legislation.

2. The introduction of the institute of rehabilitation into Russian administrative legislation will not only ensure the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but also improve the quality of the administrative process (in terms of proceedings on administrative offenses).

Thus, the above positions agree that the currently available civil law mechanisms for compensation for harm are not able to fully ensure compliance with the legal consequences of rehabilitation in case of illegal administrative prosecution. In order to restore an innocent citizen to violated rights, it should be by analogy with the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, to consolidate in administrative legislation the principle of state responsibility for illegal and unjustified bringing to administrative responsibility and to regulate relations in case of harm during the proceedings on administrative offenses, i.e. to consolidate the legal foundations of administrative and legal rehabilitation. If the victim has the opportunity, at his choice, to use either a simplified administrative and legal mechanism, or a longer and more complex, but traditionally possessing a large arsenal of law-restorative norms, civil law mechanism (within the framework of claim proceedings), the victim will have no doubt that the harm caused by illegal actions (or inaction) of public authorities or their officials is reimbursed in full.

The points of view of modern scientists presented above give us reason to say that the process of forming the institute of rehabilitation of women illegally brought to administrative responsibility has not been completed both theoretically and legislatively. The constitutional allocation of administrative proceedings as an independent form of justice allows us to state the need for legislative development of such an important institution as the institute for the rehabilitation of persons who are not only unreasonably involved in proceedings on administrative offenses, but also illegally brought to administrative responsibility. In other words, the institution of rehabilitation of subjects of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses unlawfully brought to administrative responsibility constantly requires significant changes, primarily related to improving its effectiveness in the field of respect for the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of all persons involved in administrative proceedings.

In order to bring the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation in line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the provisions of international legal acts, it is required to shift the center of the state's doctrinal and political efforts in the field of recognition and observance of the rights of citizens and organizations from formal recognition of the state's obligation to compensate for harm caused by public authorities to real administrative and legal regulation of the restoration of the rights of persons illegally brought to administrative responsibility, i.e.e. the adoption of a number of legal norms ensuring the guarantee of the right to rehabilitation of persons unlawfully brought to administrative responsibility.

According to the author, in order to ensure the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and improve the quality of the administrative process (in terms of proceedings on administrative offenses), it is necessary to introduce the chapter "Rehabilitation" into Russian administrative legislation. Compensation for damage caused by illegal actions of the body (official) authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses", where, as the basis for the emergence of the right to rehabilitation, it should be considered the issuance of a decision against a person by a judge, body (official) authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses, to terminate the case on the grounds of:

1) the absence of an administrative offense event;

2) the absence of the composition of an administrative offense;

3) repeal of the law or its individual provisions establishing administrative responsibility;

4) recognition as Constitutional The Court of the Russian Federation unconstitutional law or its individual provisions establishing administrative liability, or other normative legal act to be applied in this case of an administrative offense, on which the qualification of the act as an administrative offense depends;

5) expiration of the limitation period for bringing to administrative responsibility;

It is necessary to consolidate the provision that the decision made on rehabilitative grounds is not rehabilitation as such, but only the basis giving rise to the right to rehabilitation. In this chapter, it is necessary to consolidate the provision that recognizing a person as innocent, i.e. a person who cannot be subjected to any restrictions on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation, the court, the body (official) authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses recognizes the right to rehabilitation for this person. And the right to rehabilitation already includes the whole range of compensatory and restorative measures: the right to official recognition of a citizen's innocence in an offense incriminated to him, expressed in an appropriate legal act, the right to compensation for property damage, elimination of the consequences of moral harm and restoration of labor, pension, housing and other rights.

At the same time, the person must send a notification explaining the procedure for compensation for damage.

The right to compensation for property damage should include the right to compensation for wages, pensions, allowances, and other funds that the rehabilitated person lost as a result of proceedings on an administrative offense, confiscated or turned into state income on the basis of a court decision, his property, fines and procedural costs collected from him in pursuance of the decision on the case on an administrative offense, as well as interest for the unjustified use of funds paid as an administrative fine for the time the funds were in the budget, the amounts paid to them for providing legal assistance, as well as other documented expenses.

The body (official) that made the decision on the rehabilitation of a person is obliged to bring him an official apology in writing for the harm caused, as well as to determine the amount of moral damage. The amount of the payment is determined by the legislation. If the case is terminated by the court, these actions are performed by the judge who reviewed the case. If information about the detention of the rehabilitated person, the administrative suspension of his activities or certain types of his activities, the bringing of the rehabilitated person to administrative responsibility and other illegal actions applied to him were published in the press, distributed on radio, television or other mass media, then at the request of the rehabilitated person,

Persons who have been restricted in their labor, pension, housing and other rights in connection with administrative liability are restored to their respective rights. The procedure and terms of restoration of rights are determined by law.

Any person who has been unlawfully subjected to measures to ensure the proceedings in a case has the right to compensation for harm in the order of administrative and legal rehabilitation, and is reimbursed from the state budget in full, regardless of the fault of the judge, body (official) authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses according to the rules of this chapter. The damage caused to a person as a result of the illegal application of measures to ensure the proceedings in the case is reimbursed from the state budget in full, regardless of the fault of the judge, the body (official) authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses.

Damage must also be compensated to legal entities, including damage caused to the business reputation of a legal entity.

According to the author, if the demand for rehabilitation or compensation for harm is not satisfied or the person does not agree with the decision, for the fullest restoration of the rights of the rehabilitated person, the chapter "Rehabilitation" must provide for the right to apply to court in civil proceedings.

These proposals are aimed at solving the main task - to increase the effectiveness of the realization of the right of a person affected by the actions of administrative authorities, including in cases of illegal administrative liability for rehabilitation.

The validity of the author's proposals is confirmed by the experience of the Republic of Kazakhstan, where the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offenses dated 05.07.2014 N 235-V of the SAM contains chapter 48 "Rehabilitation. Compensation for damage caused by illegal actions of the body (official) authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses" (Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offenses dated July 5, 2014 N 235-ZRK // Information and legal system of normative legal acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Access mode: www.adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K1400000235#z3239 (date of application: 08/04/2023).). This chapter contains norms that provide for the full or partial rehabilitation of a person illegally brought to administrative responsibility. Among others, this chapter contains a provision that if the demand for rehabilitation or compensation for harm is not satisfied, or the person does not agree with the decision, he has the right to apply to the court in civil proceedings (art.869 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).

As part of the administrative reform of the last decade, which has affected many areas of public administration of the Russian Federation, much attention is paid to improving legislation on administrative offenses and administrative procedural legislation. It is planned to fully update the norms in these areas and adopt new codes. However, if the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation has existed in our country for a long time, then the procedural administrative code will be adopted for the first time in Russian history.

It is assumed that the procedural code will be aimed at regulating the procedure for proceedings in cases of administrative offenses in the initiation, consideration and revision of cases of administrative offenses, as well as the procedure for the execution of decisions in cases of administrative offenses. It will include amended and revised norms that are currently contained in the procedural part of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.

It is difficult not to agree with the opinion of Yu.I. Popugaev ^{[15, pp.19-24]} that the fundamental guidelines for the development of the new Administrative Code of the Russian Federation should be generally accepted legal principles (justice, legal certainty, equality before the law, etc.), the provisions of Chapter two of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which form the basis of the legal status of an individual, as well as decisions (rulings, rulings) of the ECHR, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, adopted by them in connection with the revealed problems of the application of administrative and tort legislation.

Currently, as part of the reform of administrative legislation, the issue of the prospects of the institute of administrative and legal rehabilitation is actively discussed in the draft Procedural Code of the Russian Federation (Draft "Procedural Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses" (prepared by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, project ID 02/04/06-20/00102945) (not included in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, text as of 06/16/2020)). Currently, there are no norms in the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation on compensation for damage in connection with the illegal prosecution of a person. However, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation sets out general rules on liability for harm caused by government agencies, local governments, as well as their officials. Nevertheless, without special provisions, many issues of compensation for damages in connection with illegal administrative prosecution remain at the discretion of the court. Amendments on the right to rehabilitation will make the procedure for compensation for harm more understandable and transparent (Review: "The Ministry of Justice has submitted a revised draft of the Procedural Code of the Russian Federation"// SPS "ConsultantPlus").

In the draft procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the institute of administrative and legal rehabilitation is reflected in articles 1.17-1.22.

It is encouraging to see that within the framework of the administrative reform carried out by the state, prospects have appeared for the introduction of the institute of rehabilitation of persons brought to administrative responsibility into the administrative legislation of the Russian Federation.