The legitimate interests of citizens or organizations. Protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens in court on issues of wages. List of sources used

Objective side crimes include, firstly, a socially dangerous act in the form of an action or inaction, which consists in the use by an official of his official powers against the interests of the service. In turn, the criminal use of their official powers contains two prerequisites: 1) the person acts in accordance with his official powers or directly in connection with them; 2) executive applies them against the interests of the service.

Secondly, a sign objective side is a socially dangerous consequence in the form of a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or the interests of society or the state protected by law. The criterion of materiality is evaluative and depends on the actual circumstances of the crime committed.

V jurisprudence a significant violation of the rights of citizens or organizations is understood as a violation of the rights and freedoms of individuals and legal entities, guaranteed by generally recognized principles and norms international law, The Constitution of the Russian Federation (for example, the right to respect for the honor and dignity of the individual, personal and family life citizens, the right to inviolability of home and privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraphic and other communications, as well as the right to judicial protection and access to justice, including the right to an effective remedy legal protection in a government agency and compensation for damage caused by a crime, etc.).

When assessing the materiality of harm, the degree of negative impact is taken into account wrongful act on the normal operation of the organization, the nature and size of the material damage, the number of injured citizens, the severity of the physical, moral or property damage caused to them, etc.

According to paragraph 18 of the resolution of the Plenum The Supreme Court RF of October 16, 2009 No. 19 "On judicial practice in cases of abuse of office and official powers"Violation of the legitimate interests of citizens or organizations as a result of abuse of office or abuse of office means, in particular, the creation of obstacles in the satisfaction of citizens or organizations of their needs that do not contradict the norms of law and public morality (for example, the creation of obstacles by an official that restrict the in cases stipulated by law, at its discretion, the organization for cooperation).

The third sign of the objective side is a causal relationship that should take place between the act of an official who has abused his official powers, and the socially dangerous consequences that have come as a result of this.

Subjective side a crime consists of two mandatory features: intentional guilt and motive.

In case of abuse of official powers, a person realizes that he uses his official powers contrary to the interests of the service, foresees the possibility or inevitability of a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or the interests of society or the state protected by law, and wants the specified consequences (direct intent) or deliberately allows them or is indifferent to their offensive (indirect intent).

As a motive in this crime, the legislator included a selfish or other personal interest. Judicial practice understands selfish interest as the desire of an official by committing illegal actions to obtain benefits for himself or others. property nature not related to illegal gratuitous use of property in their own favor or the benefit of other persons (for example, illegal obtaining benefits, credit, exemption from any property costs, return of property, debt repayment, payment for services, payment of taxes, etc.). Another personal interest lies in the desire of an official to benefit from a non-property nature, due to such motives as careerism, nepotism, a desire to embellish the actual situation, receive a mutual service, enlist support in solving any issue, hide his incompetence, etc.

Subject

Qualified composition this crime is provided for by Part 2 of Art. 285 CC: abuse committed by a person holding public office RF or a public office of a constituent entity of the RF, as well as the head of a body local government.

The commission of an act provided for by parts one or two of Art. 285 of the Criminal Code, entailing grave consequences, forms specially qualified staff crimes under Part 3 of Art. 285 of the Criminal Code. Grave consequences are established by the court based on the specific circumstances of the criminal case. The plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in paragraph 21 of the Resolution of October 16, 2009 No. 19 understands the grave consequences of major accidents, a long stop of transport or production process, other violation of the organization's activities, causing significant material damage, causing death by negligence, suicide or attempted suicide of the victim, etc.

Exceeding official powers (Article 286 of the Criminal Code).Immediate object crime is similar to direct object the offense specified in Art. 285 of the Criminal Code.

Additional object encroachments are the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or the interests of society or the state protected by law, as well as the health of citizens in the event that a person commits a crime under Part 3 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code.

Objective side crime is publicly characterized dangerous act, in the form of an action that clearly goes beyond the authority of an official. Clause 19 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of October 16, 2009 No. 19 "On judicial practice in cases of abuse of office and abuse of office" states that abuse of office can be expressed, for example, in the commission by an official in the execution official duties of actions that:

refer to the powers of another official (superior or equal in status);

can be committed only in the presence of special circumstances specified in the law or bylaw(for example, the use of weapons against a minor, if his actions did not create a real danger to the life of other persons);

are committed by an official alone, however, they can be performed only collegially or in accordance with the procedure established by law, in agreement with another official or body;

no one and under no circumstances has the right to commit.

The socially dangerous consequences are understood as the same consequences as in Art. 285 of the Criminal Code.

Also, a mandatory sign of this corpus delicti is a causal relationship between the act of an official and the socially dangerous consequences that have occurred as a result.

By design, the composition of this crime is material, therefore the crime is considered completed from the moment of the onset of socially dangerous consequences.

Subjective side characterized by deliberate guilt in the form of direct intent: the person realizes that he clearly exceeds his official powers, foresees the possibility or inevitability of a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or the legally protected interests of society or the state, and wants the specified consequences.

Subject crimes special - an official.

Skilled corpus delicti under Part 2 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code, will be in the event that the exceeding of official powers was committed by a person holding a public office of the Russian Federation or a public office of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as the head of a local government.

Especially qualifying features this crime is: the use of violence or the threat of its use (paragraph "a" part 3 of article 286 of the Criminal Code); the use of weapons or special means (clause "b", part 3 of article 286 of the Criminal Code); infliction of grave consequences (clause "c", part 3 of article 286 of the Criminal Code).

The use of violence should be understood as the actions of the perpetrator, coupled with the restriction of the victim's freedom, beating him, inflicting lung, moderate harm to health, torture of the victim.

The threat of using violence occurs in cases where the perpetrator threatens the victim with the use of violence, and the victim, in turn, has sufficient grounds to fear the implementation of this threat.

According to clause 20 of the above-mentioned resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of October 16, 2009 No. 19, the use of weapons or special means should be understood as intentional actions associated with the use by a person of the damaging properties of these objects, or their use for their intended purpose. When defining the concept of "weapon", one should be guided by the Federal Law of December 13, 1996 No. 150-FZ "On Weapons".

Special means include rubber sticks, handcuffs, tear gas, water cannons, armored vehicles, barriers, service dogs and other means in service with internal affairs bodies, internal troops, federal bodies state protection, bodies federal service security, bodies of the penal system, etc.

We considered the concept of grave consequences when analyzing the corpus delicti under Part 3 of Art. 285 of the Criminal Code.

Official forgery (Article 292 of the Criminal Code).Direct object crime is the normal activity of state bodies and local governments.

Subject crime advocates official document... Federal Law No. 77-FZ of December 29, 1994 "On a Mandatory Copy of Documents" defines official documents as documents adopted by the legislative, executive and judiciary that are mandatory, recommendatory or informational.

In science, a document means information recorded on a material carrier that has legal significance and details, allowing it to be identified, and is intended for storage, use and transmission in time and space, and under an official document - a document created by a legal or natural person, drawn up and certified in accordance with the established procedure. It must have a certain shape and the necessary requisites.

Objective side official forgery consists in entering into an official document: 1) false information - distorting the authenticity of the document by including in it records that do not correspond to reality; 2) corrections that distort its actual content - deletion or alteration in any way of a part of the text in an original document.

The crime in question is considered completed from the moment when false information or corrections are made in an official document that distort its actual content, regardless of the onset of the consequences. Whether a forged document was used or not is irrelevant for the composition of the official forgery.

In cases where the perpetrator uses a document forged by him to commit another crime, criminal liability arises in aggregate: for official forgery and for a crime committed with the use of a forged document.

WITH subjective side official forgery presupposes guilt only in the form of direct intent: the guilty person realizes that he is introducing deliberately false information or corrections into an official document that distort its actual content, and wants to do so.

Criminal liability for official forgery occurs in the presence of a mercenary or other personal interest. The content of these motives was revealed when analyzing the composition of the abuse of office (Article 285 of the Criminal Code). Committing an official forgery in the absence of selfish or other personal interest can be considered as disciplinary offense.

By the subject official fraud can be an official, as well as a civil servant or an employee of a local government body who is not an official.

Part 2 of Art. 292 CC provides for liability for acts under Part 1 of Art. 292 of the Criminal Code, which entailed material violation the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or the interests of society or the state protected by law. The content of these consequences was disclosed when analyzing the corpus delicti under Art. 285 of the Criminal Code.

Negligence (Article 293 of the Criminal Code).Immediate object crimes - interests public service and service in local government bodies.

WITH objective side negligence is characterized by three essential features:

1. Non-performance or improper performance an official of their duties. The criminal nature of the behavior of an official with negligence can be expressed in the form of both inaction (failure to fulfill his duties) and active actions (improper fulfillment of his duties). A person can be charged with non-performance or improper performance only of those duties that were assigned to him in the prescribed manner. In addition, an obligatory sign of criminal inaction is the ability to perform certain actions in specific conditions. Therefore, the lack of a real opportunity for an official to perform properly the duties assigned to him excludes criminal liability for negligence.

Failure to perform or improper performance of official duties due to inexperience, lack of qualifications, knowledge, in the absence of bad faith or negligence in the service cannot be qualified as negligence.

2. Consequence in the form of large damage or significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or the interests of society or the state protected by law. The concept of a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or the interests of society or the state protected by law is similar to that considered in the abuse of official powers. According to the footnote to Art. 293 of the Criminal Code, damage is recognized as large damage, the amount of which exceeds one million five hundred thousand rubles.

In the absence of consequences due to negligence in the service, the official's actions constitute a disciplinary offense and should not be qualified as negligence.

3. The presence of a causal link between failure or improper performance by an official of his duties and causing harm.

The corpus delicti is material, the crime is considered completed from the moment of infliction of consequences in the form of large damage or significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or the interests of society or the state protected by law.

WITH subjective side negligence is characterized by carelessness in the form of frivolity or negligence. Negligence is deemed to have been committed out of frivolity if an official does not perform or improperly performs his official duties, foresees that such behavior may significantly violate the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or the interests of society or the state protected by law, but presumptuously without sufficient grounds for that. expects to prevent these consequences. In case of negligence, an official does not foresee the possibility of a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or the interests of society or the state protected by law as a result of non-performance or improper performance of his duties, although with the necessary care and foresight he should and could have foreseen these consequences.

Qualified view negligence (part 2 of article 293 of the Criminal Code) is a failure to perform or improper performance by an official of his duties, which, through negligence, caused grievous harm health or death of a person.

Particularly qualifying feature negligence (part 3 of article 293 of the Criminal Code) is a failure to perform or improper performance by an official of his duties, resulting in the death of two or more persons through negligence. In the event of the death of a person or the infliction of serious harm to health due to improper performance of his professional duties by a person who is not special entity in the context of Art. 293 of the Criminal Code, liability arises accordingly under Part 2 of Art. 109 or part 2 of Art. 118 of the Criminal Code.

The majority of researchers-administrators realize the right of citizens to apply to the authorities state power and local governments are most often seen as filing a complaint.

Considering the meaning and purpose of the complaint, D.N. Bakhrakh draws attention to the fact that “a complaint filed by a citizen against decisions, actions (inaction) of official bodies is an important balancing point. If one subject of administrative and legal interaction - a government body or a local government body - has and exercises the right to publish legal acts management, then another subject - a citizen - in turn has the right to appeal against the issued act, demand its revision or cancellation ”^].

After all, it is known that administrative legal relations are characterized by a slightly different position of the participants in comparison, for example, with civil legal relations. The latter relations are built on the basis of the legal equality of the subjects, while administrative legal relationship this quality is not provided. In these conditions, the rights of a non-authoritative subject - a citizen - in comparison with the rights of an imperious subject and are balanced by the right to appeal against his actions or inaction.

According to D.N. Bahrakha, “... from the point of view legal properties complaints can be divided into: 1) administrative, i.e. considered out of court, in administratively; 2) judicial, considered by the courts in the process of administering justice in the order of criminal, civil administrative or constitutional proceedings ”^].

We are primarily interested in administrative complaints, of which, based on legal grounds, general and special are highlighted. On the present stage the right to a general complaint is an absolute, inalienable and practically unlimited right of a citizen. Any person with general legal capacity can file a general complaint with any official and for any reason and issue.

With regard to the subject of the complaint, it should be noted that the act as a whole, that is, the decision, action (inaction) of an official or a public authority or local government body as a whole, can be appealed.

"The basis for filing a complaint is the assessment of these decisions, actions (inaction) of official bodies, their officials on the part of citizens as unlawful, illegal."

Regulated by the Federal Law of May 2, 2006 No. 59-FZ "On the Procedure for Considering Citizens 'Appeals", the procedure for considering citizens' appeals applies to all appeals from citizens, with the exception of appeals that are subject to consideration in accordance with the procedure established by federal constitutional laws and other federal laws " (part 2 of article 1). It is these appeals (complaints) that act as "special" ones.

Considering the essence of a special complaint, it should be noted that it can be submitted in a much narrower spectrum than a general complaint. At the same time, “general and special complaints are not competing elements, as well as the right to file a general and special complaint among themselves. These types of administrative complaints complement each other. "

Special administrative complaints include complaints:

a) on acts tax authorities Part 1 of Section VII Tax Code Russian Federation dated July 31, 1998 No. 146-FZ;
b) on decisions on cases about administrative offenses Art. 1 ch. 30 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation of December 30, 2001 No. 195-FZ;
c) arising from the relations that develop within the collectives of organizations and public associations;
d) served by persons with special legal status(refugees, internally displaced persons, etc.)
e) in the sphere administrative appeal decisions and actions (inaction) of subjects electoral process- in the legislation on elections.

Also special order consideration of complaints is established by the Federal Constitutional Law of February 26, 1997 No. 1-FKZ “On the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation”. As the conditions for the admissibility of complaints, it was established that it must be transferred to the Commissioner no later than one year from the date of violation of the applicant's rights and freedoms or from the day when the applicant became aware of their violation. The Ombudsman considers complaints about decisions or actions (inaction) of state bodies, local authorities, officials, civil servants, if the applicant appealed these decisions or actions (inaction) in a judicial or administrative procedure, but does not agree with the decisions taken on his complaint. Therefore, the complaint must be accompanied by copies of the decisions taken following the consideration of the complaint in a judicial or administrative procedure.

A complaint to the Commissioner must be personified, come from specific individuals (citizens of Russia, stateless persons and foreign citizens located on the territory of the Russian Federation), and also contain information about the violation, in the opinion of the applicant, of his rights and freedoms.

Acceptance by the Commissioner for consideration of other applications not related to his mandate to implement state protection human rights, is an unacceptable interference with the competence of the legislative, executive and judicial authorities.

Expressing his point of view regarding the administrative complaint, L.L. Popov, believes that "citizens' appeals cannot be reduced to the actual administrative complaints, but also include proposals and statements, which is reflected in the current legislation."

Yu.A. Tikhomirov, who focuses on precisely judicial appeal actions and decisions that violate the rights of citizens, pointing out, nevertheless, that “sometimes an appeal to the court should be preceded by a complaint to the name of a higher organization, but it is the judicial procedure of appeal that is recognized by him as the leading one”.

Yu.M. Kozlov directly calls an administrative complaint "a means of protecting the rights and interests of citizens." However, he does not consider the very fact of filing a complaint to be a remedy. In his opinion, “this is obvious for two reasons: not all complaints are justified, often they are the result of the delusion of their authors; a legally imperious and binding decision on a complaint can only be made by an authorized body (official) ”.

The approach of Yu.M. Kozlov to consider complaints seems reasonable, because the citizen himself does not have the authority to protect his actually violated right. “These powers are possessed by an official to whom a citizen applies with a complaint. And it is his decision, which gives rise to the implementation of the necessary measures to restore or properly fulfill the violated right of a citizen, and is considered a real means of protecting the rights and legitimate interests of citizens. "

Thus, we can conclude that this type of appeal as a complaint is one of the means of protecting violated rights, freedoms or legal interests of a citizen. In turn, officials of public authorities and local self-government bodies, to which a citizen applies, are obliged to make a decision that will be aimed at their restoration and protection.

As part of the analysis, regarding such a type of appeal as a complaint, we would also like to draw attention to the fact that it is legally defined as a request from a citizen to restore or protect his violated rights, freedoms or legitimate interests or the rights, freedoms or legitimate interests of others. persons.

Although we do not agree that the complaint can be interpreted as a request. Indeed, when compiling it, a citizen sets out the circumstances, provides evidence confirming the violation of his rights and substantiates his claims aimed at protecting and restoring them. Therefore, in our opinion, a complaint is nothing more than a demand.

For example, B.V. Maslov, in his dissertation research, reasonably suggests that the legislative definition of a complaint should be set forth as “a citizen's demand for the restoration of his violated rights, freedoms or legitimate interests or the rights, freedoms or legitimate interests of others”. We agree with his point of view that “the use of the term“ request ”in the law does not fully correspond to the content of the constitutional right of a citizen to appeal, since the law must correspond to the obligation to commit certain actions from the state. A request in this sense provides an alternative to the behavior of the subjects of management, which in turn may entail restrictions in the exercise of the citizen's right to appeal. "

Also, the author draws attention to the need to remove the words "or protection" from the legislative definition. "Such an amendment is necessary, since it is impossible to protect" violated rights, freedoms or legitimate interests ", they have already been violated, they can only be restored" ^]. But this position of the author, in our opinion, does not seem entirely correct, since the complaint may contain a message not only about a committed violation of the right that requires restoration, but also about an impending violation that requires protection.

Thus, in our opinion, in the Federal Law "On the Procedure for Considering Citizens' Appeals in the Russian Federation", a citizen's complaint can be defined as a citizen's demand to restore or protect his violated rights, freedoms or legitimate interests or the rights, freedoms or legitimate interests of others.

LIST OF USED Sources

1. Bakhrakh D.N., Semenov A.V. The concept " administrative complaint"// Administrative law at the turn of the century: Interuniversity collection scientific papers... Yekaterinburg: USU; Ural State Law Academy, 2003.S. 118-131.
2. Bakhrakh D.N., Semenov A.V. The concept of "administrative complaint" // Administrative law at the turn of the century: Interuniversity collection of scientific papers. Yekaterinburg: USU; Ural State Law Academy, 2003.S. 118-131.
3. Bakhrakh D.N., Russian B.V., Starilov Yu.N. Administrative law: Textbook for universities. 2nd ed., Rev. and add. M., 2008.S. 145.
4. SZRF. 2006. No. 19. Art. 2060.
5. Bakhrakh D.N., Semenov A.V. The concept of "administrative complaint" // Administrative law at the turn of the century: Interuniversity collection of scientific papers. Yekaterinburg: USU; UrHYuA, 2003.S. 118-131.
6. SZRF. 1998. No. 31. Art. 3824.
7. SZRF. 2002. No. 1 (part 1).
8. Federal Laws of December 26, 1995 No. 208-FZ "On joint stock companies"// SZ RF. 1996. No. 1. Art. 1; dated January 12, 1996 No. 7-FZ "On non-profit organizations"// SZ RF. 1996. No. 3. Art. 145; of September 26, 1997 No. 125-FZ "On freedom of conscience and on religious associations" // SZ RF. 1997. No. 39. Art. 4465; dated May 19, 1995 No. 82-FZ "On public associations" // SZ RF. 1995. No. 21. Art. 1930; and etc.
9. Federal Law of February 18, 1993 No. 4528-1 "On Refugees" // Bulletin of the SND and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. 1993. No. 12. Art. 425; Law of the Russian Federation of February 19, 1993 No. 4530- "On internally displaced persons"// SZ RF. 1995. No. 52. Art. 5110 // SZ RF. 2005. No. 1 (part 2). Art. 107.
10. Federal Laws of May 18, 2005 No. 51-FZ "On the election of deputies The State Duma Federal Assembly Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2005. No. 21. Art. 1919; dated November 26, 1996 No. 138-FZ "On securing constitutional rights citizens of the Russian Federation to elect and be elected to local government bodies "// SZ RF. 1996. No. 49. Art. 5497; and etc.
11. NWRF. 1997. No. 9. Art. 1011.
12. Tambovtsev V.V. Commentary on the Federal constitutional law“On the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation”. M., 2006.S. 95.
13. Popov L.L. Administrative law. M., 2005.S. 203.
14. Tikhomirov Yu.A. On the concept of development of administrative law and process // State and Law. M., 1998. No. 1. P.42.
15. Kozlov Yu.M. Reception and consideration of complaints of workers in the bodies of the Soviet government controlled// Soviet state and law. Moscow: Nauka, 1954, No. 4. P. 42-44.
16. Alekhin A.P., Kozlov Yu.M. Administrative law of the Russian Federation. M., 1999. P. 35.
17. See: Art. 4 Federal law of May 2, 2006 No. 59-FZ (as amended on May 7, 2013) "On the procedure for considering applications from citizens in the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 2006. No. 19. Art. 2060.
18. Maslov B.V. Institute of Citizens' Appeals to administrative law... Abstract of thesis. dis. ... Cand. jurid. sciences. M., 2008.S. 22.

Protection of civil rights is a set of measures applied to ensure the free and proper implementation of subjective rights, including judicial protection, legislative, economic, organizational and technical and other means and measures, as well as self-defense.

The subjective right to defense provides for:

possibility of committing authorized person own positive actions;
possibility of claim certain behavior from the obligated person.

The subjective right to protection involves the protection of not only the rights themselves (for example, property), but also the interests protected by law. For example, as a result of a fire in a warehouse, the things stored in it burned down. In this case, we cannot talk about the protection of property rights to no longer existing things. But the interests of the owner can be protected by compensation for damage or in another way.

There are two main forms of protection of civil rights: jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional.

The jurisdictional form of protection means the activities of state-authorized bodies to protect violated rights or disputed subjective rights. A person whose rights and legitimate interests have been violated illegal actions, applies for protection to state or other competent authorities (to the court, arbitration court, arbitration court, higher instance, etc.), which are authorized to take the necessary measures to restore the violated right and suppress the offense. Moreover, if the case is being considered by the court ( general jurisdiction, arbitration, arbitration), then they talk about general (judicial) order of protection. If a complaint is filed with a higher management or state body, then it comes O special (administrative) order of protection.

In cases stipulated by law, the protection of civil rights can be carried out in an administrative manner. In this case, an administrative decision can be appealed to a court. Thus, mixed (administrative and judicial) the procedure for protection is that first a complaint is filed with the appropriate state body, and then a claim can be filed with a court.

Non-jurisdictional form of protection - a set of actions of citizens and human rights organizations that are committed independently, without resorting to state and other competent authorities.

General ways to protect the rights of participants civil turnover, including subjects entrepreneurial activity, established by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. These include:

recognition of the right. This method of protection can only be carried out in judicial procedure... For example, due to the loss of documents, it becomes impossible to exercise certain civil rights. Such rights can be restored by the court;
restoration of the situation that existed before the violation of the right, and the suppression of actions that violate the right or create a threat of its violation. Most often, this method of protection is resorted to by the non-owning owner, filing a claim for the reclamation of certain property from the illegal possession of the owner. An example is eviction from an illegally occupied apartment;
recognition of a voidable transaction as invalid and application of the consequences of its invalidity, application of the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction. This method of protection is a kind of the previous one, since the recognition of the transaction as invalid due to the revealed unfair action (inaction) of the partner (deception, deception, collusion, sham deal etc.), as well as the pursuit of selfish goals (illegal receipt of income) by partners leads to the restoration of the situation that existed before the conclusion of the transaction;
invalidation of an act government body or a local government court or arbitration court. At the suit of a citizen or legal entity, the court may consider the issue of compliance of the contested act with laws or other legal acts and decide to invalidate it in whole or in part. In this case, the cancellation of the act by the issuing authority is not required;
self-defense rights. An example of self-defense in entrepreneurial activity can be a retention by a creditor (including a commission agent, a custodian) of a thing that has turned out to be in his possession, subject to transfer to the debtor, in the case when the debtor has not fulfilled his obligation to pay for this thing or has not reimbursed the creditor for the costs and losses associated with it;
awarding the performance of an obligation in kind. For example, in cases where the work was performed by the contractor with deviations from the work contract, which worsened the result of the work, or with other shortcomings, the customer has the right to demand the gratuitous elimination of the shortcomings in reasonable time... The performance of an obligation in kind (actual performance) is usually opposed to payment monetary compensation: for the situation under consideration - a commensurate reduction in the price of the work performed or reimbursement of the customer's expenses for eliminating deficiencies;
damages, including those caused by state bodies and local authorities. For example, a legal entity or a citizen-entrepreneur may apply to a court or arbitration court with a claim against a government or administration body for compensation for losses caused by an act adopted by the named bodies in violation of the law, or by non-fulfillment or improper performance by these bodies of their duties;
recovery of a penalty;
compensation for moral damage. Moral injury, as well as physical, are classified as "non-property harm", that is, caused to non-property benefits: health, honor, dignity, good name, personal integrity, privacy, etc .;
termination or change of legal relationship. For example, if deviations in work from the terms of the work contract or other shortcomings in the work result were not eliminated within a reasonable time period established by the customer or are significant and irreparable, the customer has the right to refuse to perform the contract and demand compensation for the losses caused;
invalidation of an act of a state body or local self-government body. Not normative act state body or local self-government body, and in cases provided for by law, also a normative act that does not comply with the law or other legal acts and violate civil rights and the interests of a citizen or legal entity protected by law may be declared invalid by a court.

Other methods provided by law are also possible. They can include various actions... For example, the seller has the right to demand from the buyer to return the goods to him if, within the period stipulated by the contract, the transferred goods are not paid.

Protection of civil rights in an administrative manner is carried out by appeal to higher authority(to the official). At the same time, it is important that any decision made when resolving a dispute in an administrative manner can be challenged in court. In some cases, consideration of a dispute in an administrative procedure must necessarily precede an appeal to the court. For example, a court (arbitration court) has the right to consider cases related to the refusal to provide or to the seizure land plots, only after the decision is made by the relevant local government. In other cases, a person who considers his civil rights violated has the right to choose: go to court or try to resolve the dispute in an administrative manner.

In cases established by legislation for a certain category of economic (contractual) disputes, as well as if it is provided for by an agreement, it may be applied pre-trial (claim) dispute settlement procedure.

The law establishes the procedure for making claims about things bought in retail... In this case, a claim is understood as a document that has legal character and representing a claim of a creditor against a debtor for payment of a debt, compensation for losses, payment of a fine, elimination of defects in the delivered product, the thing sold, the work performed. Reasonable claims are subject to satisfaction. If the claim is not satisfied (if the claim is rejected in whole or in part, or if a response to the claim is not received), the injured party has the right to file a claim with the court.

1. Committing by an official of actions that clearly go beyond his powers and entail a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or the interests of society or the state protected by law, -
is punishable by a fine of up to eighty thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or any other income of the convicted person for a period of up to six months, or by deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to five years, or arrest for a term of four to six months, or imprisonment for a term of up to four years.
(as amended by Federal Law of 08.12.2003 N 162-FZ)
2. The same act, committed by a person holding a public office of the Russian Federation or a public office of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as by the head of a local self-government body, -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for a period of one to two years, or by imprisonment for a term of up to seven years, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or not.
(as amended by Federal Law of 08.12.2003 N 162-FZ)
3. Acts, foreseen in parts the first or second of this article, if they are committed:
a) with the use of violence or with the threat of its use;
b) with the use of weapons or special means;
c) with the infliction of grave consequences, -
shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of three to ten years, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.

Commentary on Article 286

1. The direct object of abuse of office is, in principle, no different from the object of criminal abuse of office. Additional objects of this crime may be health, honor and dignity of the individual, constitutional and other rights and freedoms and other interests of a person, society and the state.
2. The objective side of the crime is characterized by: a) actions (commission of actions by an official that clearly go beyond his powers), b) harmful consequences (significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or the interests of society or the state protected by law) and c) causation between the specified actions and consequences.
3. The norm stipulating responsibility for exceeding official powers is special in relation to the norm on responsibility for. Exceeding official powers is a special kind of abuse of official powers. When delimiting abuse of office from exceeding them, judicial practice proceeds from the fact that in the first case, the official uses the rights and powers granted to him by law, contrary to the interests of the service, and in the second, he commits actions that clearly go beyond his official competence. These can be actions: a) which relate to the powers of another official (for example, a superior or an employee of another department); b) either could have been committed by the official himself - only in the presence of special circumstances specified in the law or by-law (for example, the use of weapons or special means); c) actions that no one under any circumstances has the right to commit (for example, beatings or other violence) (see BVS USSR. 1990. N 3. S. 3). In theory, these three types of abuse of office usually include the commission by an official alone of actions that should be performed only collegially.
4. The concept of the harmful consequences of this crime (a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or the interests of society or the state protected by law) is understood in the same way as in the abuse of official powers.
Thus, the district court Ts. Was found guilty of exceeding official powers and sentenced under Part 1 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As indicated in the verdict, Ts., Being the chairman of the city territorial committee of ecology and natural resources, committed actions that clearly went beyond his powers, which entailed a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of this organization, as well as the interests of the state protected by law in the form of a shortfall in funds from taxes and fees.
In protest, the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation raised the issue of canceling the verdict and dismissing the case due to the absence of corpus delicti in Ts .'s actions. The Bureau regional court The protest was satisfied on the following grounds.
The duties of Ts. Included participation in the organization and conduct of the state ecological expertise, the development and preparation of documentation, the issuance of opinions to physical and legal entities, ensuring the formation and use of funds from the off-budget environmental fund in agreement with the administration of the city and region. The relevant regulations allow managers, when concluding contracts for the performance of paid services and works, to take into account the financial situation of customers, their belonging to the budgetary sphere in order to resolve the issue of providing discounts. The amount of discounts should be reflected in contracts and settlements with them. Ts. In violation of these requirements issued environmental opinions and endorsed draft resolutions of the mayor of the city on the allotment of land plots for privatization, lease and other purposes in the absence of letters of orders, without drawing up written calculations of the cost of labor costs for the survey of the object and without paying customers for issuing conclusions, as a result what the territorial committee of ecology and natural resources did not receive funds in the amount of 3189 rubles. 81 kopecks
The court in the verdict in violation of the requirements of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation did not substantiate his conclusion as to why the violation of the rights and legitimate interests of the organization and the interests of the state protected by law, caused by Ts .'s actions, were recognized as significant. From the testimony of witness K. - Chairman of the State Regional Committee for Protection the environment, as well as from other materials of the case, it is clear that C.'s unlawful activity had no significant consequences. Consequently, in the actions of Ts. There is no structure of a criminal offense (BVS RF. 2002. N 8. S. 13).
5. The subject of the crime is an official, i.e. just as in the case of abuse of office, a government representative or a person performing organizational and administrative, administrative and economic functions in state bodies, local governments, state and municipal institutions, as well as in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation.
6. The subjective side is characterized by willful guilt (direct or indirect intent). The person realizes that his actions clearly go beyond the granted powers, foresees that they will lead to the infliction of significant harm to law enforcement interests, and wants such consequences to occur, or deliberately allows their occurrence or is indifferent to their occurrence.
7. Part 2 of Art. 286 provides for increased liability for an act provided for in Part 1 of this article, committed by a person holding a public office of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as by the head of a local government body (this feature is understood in the same way as in Article 285 of the Code).
8. Part 3 of Art. 286 designs formulation for particularly aggravating circumstances. It is formed by acts provided for in part 1 or 2 of this article of the Criminal Code, if they are committed: a) with the use of violence or with the threat of violence, b) with the use of weapons or special means, c) with the infliction of grave consequences.
9. The use of violence should be understood as inflicting beatings (Article 116 of the Criminal Code), causing intentional slight harm to health (Article 115), intentionally or through negligence causing moderate harm to health (Article 112 and parts 3 and 4 of Article 118), causing death by negligence (Article 109), infliction of torture (Article 117) and deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm without aggravating circumstances (Part 1 of Article 111).
10. The threat of violence is understood as the threat of the use of the above types of violence, as well as the threat of murder or infliction of grievous bodily harm (Article 119).
11. Causing, in excess of official powers, intentional grievous bodily harm under aggravated and especially aggravating circumstances, as well as murder, is additionally qualified under Part 2, 3 or 4 of Art. 111 or h. 1 or 2 of Art. 105.
12. It should be noted that the threat of using violence in excess of official powers must be real. Only in this case it turns a simple corpus delicti into a particularly qualified one.
By the verdict of the district people's court S. was convicted under paragraph "a" of Part 3 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. He was found guilty that, as an official (deputy head of the investigative department of the GOVD), he committed actions that clearly went beyond his powers and entailed a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, with the use of violence and the threat of its use. While on another vacation, he came to the house of V-s and, clearly exceeding his official powers, demanded from In-a transfer B. and P. money in the amount of 12,870 thousand rubles. (non-denominated), believing that V. twice sold the same shares of JSC. Making demands, S. grabbed V. by the lapel of his jacket and threatened to put him in the cell of the temporary detention center. On the same day S. unlawfully demanded from V-th a receipt for the payment of the specified amount to her, and she was forced to write it, since S. threatened to imprison her husband.
Judicial board on criminal cases of the regional court upheld the verdict. In protest, the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation raised the issue of changing court decisions: re-qualification of S.'s actions from clause "a" part 3 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on Part 1 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, considering that the fact of the use of violence or the threat of violence by S. in the commission of a crime in the case has not been proven. The Presidium of the Regional Court upheld the protest, stating that S.'s seizure of V.'s lapels was not a use of violence. The threat to S. to deprive V. also cannot be regarded as a real threat to use violence, since there were no grounds for his detention (BVS RF 2002. N 11. pp. 12-13).
13. The use of weapons should be understood as the use of firearms, pneumatic, gas and cold weapons (for its characteristics, see when considering the content of Article 222) for the purpose of causing physical harm (for example, a shot to kill) or for the purpose of mental influence, when the use of a weapon represented a real threat to the life or health of a citizen (for example, a shot from a firearm was fired in the immediate vicinity of the victim, in connection with which the latter had the opinion that his life and health were in real danger). If the abuse of office was accompanied only by a demonstration of weapons that did not pose a real threat to the life and health of a citizen, the deed can be considered as the commission of this official crime with the threat of violence.
14. Special means in relation to the qualified personnel in question include devices or devices designed to repel an attack by criminals, to stop riots, etc. (for example, handcuffs, a straitjacket, devices like "Bird cherry", batons, etc.). The concept of their use or the threat of their use are identical to the content of these concepts in relation to the use or threat of use of weapons.
15. The concept of grave consequences is an evaluative concept and is concretized taking into account the circumstances of a particular criminal case (for example, the infliction of death by negligence on the victim, his mental illness, etc.).
Thus, the military court of the garrison found the commander of the anti-aircraft missile battalion, Lieutenant Colonel B., guilty of exceeding his official powers, which entailed grave consequences, i.e. in a crime under paragraph. "in" Part 3 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. B. gave six soldiers "on lease" to carry out construction work at the dacha from a private person. Among other things, the soldiers had to dig a deep drainage trench around the house. This work was carried out with a gross violation of safety measures, as a result of which an unreinforced earthen trench wall collapsed on the soldiers working at the bottom of the trench. Three soldiers were under the rubble. One of them was able to get out from under the blockage, the other also survived, but received a broken jaw, a fracture of the scapula and an eye injury, and the third - K. suffocated under the crumbling earth (Izvestia. 2003. January 16).

All about tuning cars

The legitimate interests of citizens or organizations. Protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens in court on issues of wages. List of sources used