Selective retroactivity: criteria for determining the moment of declaring a law null and void in a Russian administrative judicial proceedings
https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(4).162-178
Abstract
The subject. Any legal order is based on a strict hierarchy of normative acts, built according to their legal force. This hierarchy has been ensured by, among other things, exercising judicial review. In Russia, a normative act can be challenged on the grounds that it contradicts laws of greater legal force, except for the Russian Constitution, in the procedure provided for in Chapter 21 of the Russian Code of Administrative Proceedings. In doing so, one of the crucial questions to be decided in the course of judicial review of normative acts is the determination of the moment when a normative act contradicting a normative act of greater legal force ceases to be valid. This temporal aspect is extremely important because it determines whether individuals whose rights have been violated by law enforcement acts (acts involving application of the law) based on a null and void law are entitled to seek judicial relief. The purpose of the article is to confirm or refute hypothesis about the permissibility of a situation in which unlawful normative act remains valid for a certain time. The methodology of research includes formal legal analysis and interpretation of the norms of the Russian Code of Administrative Proceedings, decisions of the Russian Constitutional Court and other courts.
Keywords
judicial review,
retroactivity,
administrative judicial proceeding,
null and void law,
retroactive force
Supporting agencies: The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 19-311-60022.
About the Author
A. M. Chirninov
Institute of Philosophy and Law, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
Ural State Law University named after V.F. Yakovlev
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PhD in Law, 1 Senior Researcher, 16, Sof’i Kovalevskoi ul., Yekaterinburg, 620108;
Associate Professor, Department of Constitutional Law, 21, Komsomol’skaya ul., Yekaterinburg, 620066
References
1. Ghatan G.J. The Incentive Problem with Prospective Overruling: A Critique of the Practice. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal, 2010, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 179–211.
2. Fisch J.E. Retroactivity and Legal Change: An Equilibrium Approach. Harvard Law Review, 1996, vol. 110, pp. 1055–1123.
3. Kay R.S. Retroactivity and Prospectivity of Judgments in American Law. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 2014, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 37–67.
4. Roosevelt III K. A Little Theory Is a Dangerous Thing: The Myth of Adjudicative Retroactivity. Connecticut Law Review, 1998, vol. 31, no. 3. P. 1075–1137.
5. Shannon B.S. The Retroactive and Prospective Application of Judicial Decisions. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2003, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 811–876.
6. Rhodes C.W. Loving Retroactivity. Florida State University Law Review, 2018, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 383–442.
7. Tang A., Smith Jr F.O. Can Unions Be Sued for Following the Law. Harvard Law Review, 2018, vol. 132, no. 2, pp. 24–41.
8. Dashjian M.B. The Prospective Application of Judicial Legislation. Pacific Law Journal, 1993, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 317–400.
9. Krent H.J. The Puzzling Boundary Between Criminal and Civil Retroactive Lawmaking. Georgetown Law Journal, 1995, vol. 84, pp. 2143–2184.
10. Vaypan G. Good Governance and Property Rights of the State: The Dubovets Case before the European Court of Human Rights and the Russian Constitutional Court. Review of Central and East European Law, 2019, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 296–304.
11. Yarkov V.V., Spitsin I.N. Contesting of normative legal acts in court: Procedure de lege lata and ways of improving. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo = Herald of Saint-Petersburg University. Law, 2018, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 554–567. (In Russ.).
12. Nikitin S.V. Indirect judicial normative control: notion and issues of realization. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2014, no. 1, pp. 88–101. (In Russ.).
13. Stepanov V.V. Procedural consequences of acknowledging invalid the utility resource (service) consumption standard. Semeinoe i zhilishchnoe parvo = Family and housing law, 2019, no. 2, pp. 47–50. (In Russ.).
14. Ilyin A.V. Invalidation of regulations as a ground for review of court orders for change in circumstances. Zakon = Law, 2018, no 8, pp. 122–136. (In Russ.).
15. Beswick S. Retroactive Adjudication. Yale Law Journal, 2020, vol. 130, no. 2, pp. 276–365.
16. Nikitin S.V. The role of legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the development of judicial review of normative acts. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2011, no. 10, pp. 55– 68. (In Russ.).
17. Kazantsev A.O. Constitutional review and the review by courts of general jurisdiction: comparative analysis. Rossiiskoe pravo: obrazovanie, praktika, nauka = Russian Law: Education, Practice, Science, 2019, no. 1, pp. 34–44. (In Russ.).
18. Nemtseva V.B. Legal force of a court decision in cases of contesting normative acts. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitration and civil proceedings, 2010, no. 11, pp. 13–15. (In Russ.).
19. Gadzhiev G.A. Regulatory compliance verification combined with tort lawsuits is an effective way to protect the rights of entrepreneurs. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii = Herald of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation, 2018, no. 12, pp. 63–71. (In Russ.).
20. Ermakov E.Yu. Legal consequences of judicial compliance assessment require further improvement. Rossiiskii sud'ya = Russian Judge, 2020, no. 7, pp. 30–35. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Chirninov A.M. Selective retroactivity: criteria for determining the moment of declaring a law null and void in a Russian administrative judicial proceedings. Law Enforcement Review. 2022;6(4):162-178. https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(4).162-178
Views:
344
Email this article 