Siberian Law Review

The study focuses on analyzing Turkish national legislation regarding the territorial and administrative structure of local governance. The relevance of this research stems from the limited exploration of this subject within domestic legal studies. This article is based on the national Turkish legislation, presented in the Author’s translation. The Author describes the legal framework governing local government in Türkiye’s villages, with particular emphasis on the structure and organization of local governance. The analysis of local government legislation was conducted to achieve several aims: first, to identify the territorial structure of local governance; second, to define the local governance system at the lowest level of public authority, specifically in villages; and third, to clarify the legislative delineation of the roles and responsibilities of local governance bodies and officials. The study explores both the foundational and evolving territorial and administrative principles underpinning local governance in Türkiye, highlighting their resilience and effectiveness, which have endured for over a century. The article draws attention to attempts at reforming these territorial and administrative foundations in line with Türkiye’s broader state development goals. The Author employs general, specialized, and specific scientific methods, including formal-logical, historical-legal, analysis and synthesis, abstraction, and problem-chronological methods, to provide a comprehensive overview of Turkish legislation, examine its evolution, and draw conclusions. Notably, the study identifies a direct correlation between the issues facing rural municipalities and Türkiye’s territorial governance structure, which is, in turn, shaped by the country’s administrative-territorial organization. An analysis of Türkiye’s local governance system throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries illustrates a hybrid model of local governance. 

This article presents a comparative analysis of the structure of norms in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, based on positions of the highest legislative and judicial authorities, as well as the opinions of legal scholars on administrative liability for violations committed under extraordinary legal regimes (including states of emergency, high-alert, and antiterrorism regimes). Particular attention is given to administrative offenses outlined in Articles 20.3, 20.5, 20.5.1, 20.6, 20.6.1, 20.7, 20.19, and 20.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and their relationship to similar norms in the Draft of the Administrative Code from May 29, 2020, developed by the Russian Ministry of Justice. It is noted that most norms regarding administrative liability for violations under extraordinary legal regimes are drafted as blanket norms that refer to regulatory laws, often without detailed guidance on their application. The Authors suggest that using this legislative approach is appropriate in cases where it enhances the effective implementation of extraordinary regimes and ensures clarity in the regulation of accountability. The Authors conclude that inconsistent changes to administrative legislation can lead to conflicts within the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and propose a comprehensive approach to improving administrative legislation, specifically in Chapter 20 of the Code. This includes developing methodological recommendations to support administrative offense cases related to extraordinary legal regimes.

The concept of administrative discretion has become a significant topic in legal scholarship, focusing not on abstract legal terms and concepts, but on the fundamental possibility and extent (intensity, boundaries, limits) of judicial review of the legality of discretionary decisions, actions (or inaction) by public administration. In this context, the article examines the legal positions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Plenum) as reflected in its resolutions adopted after the enactment of the Russian Federation’s Law No. 4866-1, “On Appealing Actions and Decisions Violating Citizens' Rights and Freedoms in Court”, dated April 27, 1993. These resolutions concern the judicial review of the legality of discretionary decisions, actions (or inaction) of public administration contested by citizens and organizations through administrative and arbitration proceedings. The purpose of the study is to outline the development trends of these legal positions and assess their capacity to ensure substantive judicial review of the legality of discretionary decisions, actions (or inaction) by public administration. Employing dialectical, formal-logical, historical, formal-legal methods, and the method of legal interpretation, the Author concludes that the Plenum’s legal positions have evolved from an initial disregard of the issue to the establishment of concrete criteria for such a review. This progression, despite certain limitations noted in the article, significantly supports meaningful judicial review of the legality of discretionary decisions, actions (or inaction) by public administration, thereby enhancing the protection of citizens' rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests, as well as those of organizations. The Author suggests that a comprehensive solution would not involve the legislative proposal, made by some authors, to abandon the requirement for courts to determine the illegality of such decisions or actions as a prerequisite for satisfying an administrative claim. Instead, a more effective approach would be the enactment of a federal law on administrative procedures, which is currently absent. Such a law would comprehensively outline principles to serve as criteria for substantive judicial review of the legality of administrative discretion. Until the adoption of this federal law, the Author advocates for a new legal position by the Plenum to clarify how judicial practice interprets the legal requirement for satisfying an administrative claim challenging discretionary decisions or actions by public administration. Specifically, this would involve defining the requirement for courts to establish that the challenged decision, action (or inaction) violated the rights, freedoms, or legitimate interests of the administrative claimant. Adopting the proposed legal position, as outlined in this article, would remove the immunity of administrative discretion from judicial review.