Nesterova I.A. Administrative environmental offenses // Nesterov Encyclopedia

Every year, problems related to environmental protection accumulate in the world. In Russia, the fight against violations in the field of ecology has become a very important aspect of administrative and other branches of law. In this light, the issue of application of the norms of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses (CAO RF) in the field of environmental protection and natural resource management is of great interest.

Environmental offenses and administrative liability

In modern Russian law, environmental crimes are subject to administrative liability in accordance with the norms of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Chapter 8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “Administrative offenses in the field of environmental protection and natural resource management” is responsible for administrative environmental violations. It includes 42 articles that combine 70 independent elements of administrative offenses.

If you carefully study the compositions presented in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, questions arise related to what crimes relate to. Do they relate to the field of environmental protection or to the field of environmental management?

Violation of legal norms in the field of ecology leads to environmental violations. This is another type of illegal behavior of people or their associations.

An environmental offense is a guilty, illegal action or inaction that encroaches on the environmental legal order established in the Russian Federation and causes harm to the natural environment or actually creates a threat of such harm.

A distinctive element of an environmental-administrative offense from an environmental crime is that its subjects can be both individuals and legal entities, including business entities of various forms of ownership and subordination, as well as foreign organizations and citizens.

Current legislation regulates the age of bringing to administrative responsibility for environmental crimes.

The age at which a person can be brought to administrative responsibility for environmental offenses, subject to physical health and sanity, is 16 years.

Article 9 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On Environmental Protection” states: “Damage caused to the health and property of citizens by the negative impact of the environment as a result of economic and other activities of legal entities and individuals is subject to compensation in full.”

Administrative environmental offenses have an objective and subjective side. The subjective side characterizes the mental attitude of an individual to the committed act and its consequences and has certain specifics.

D.Yu. Gladyshev characterizes the subjective side of an environmental-legal violation as the mental attitude of the offender to his illegal behavior, which can manifest itself in action or inaction.

The intent of an administrative environmental offense can be intentional or due to negligence.

In the process of studying the characteristics of administrative environmental offenses, a difference was established between environmental-administrative offenses and other types of environmental-legal violations. The differences are not only in the subject and subjective side, but also in the level of public danger.

Types of administrative environmental offenses

Administrative liability has been established for violation of the rules for the protection and use of certain natural resources and natural complexes

Types of administrative liability for environmental violations:

• liability for violation of rules for the protection and use of land is established for damage to land;
• liability for violation of the rules for the protection and use of subsoil is provided for violation of the requirements for the protection of subsoil and hydromineral resources;
• liability for violation of the rules for the protection and use of water is settled for violation of the procedure for granting for use and the regime of use of land plots and forests in water protection zones and coastal strips of water bodies;
• liability for violation of the rules for the protection and use of natural complex resources is established for violation of rules (standards, norms) or license conditions regulating activities in internal sea waters, in the territorial sea, on the continental shelf and (or) in the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation;
• liability for violation of regulatory requirements for the protection of atmospheric air is provided for violation of the rules for the protection of atmospheric air;
• liability for violation of the rules for the protection and use of forest resources is established for violation of the procedure for the allocation of cutting areas, inspection of logging sites in forests not included in the forest fund, violation of forest management rules, violation of the rules for secondary forest use, violation of fire safety rules in forests;
• liability for violation of the rules for the protection and use of wildlife is provided for the destruction of animal habitats;
• liability for violation of requirements when carrying out work in the field of hydrometeorology, monitoring of environmental pollution and active influences on hydrometeorological and other geophysical processes.

An interesting point of view is I.B. Kalinin, who proposed the classification presented in the figure below.

According to I.B. Kalinin, “this classification is based on a system of social relations that arise in the process of resource use.”

A significant drawback of this concept is that, relying on such an important object of environmental-legal relations as environmental management, it does not affect such objects of crime as the environment as a whole and its individual elements.

For a more complete study of the types of environmental and administrative violations, it is necessary to proceed from the following classification, dividing administrative environmental violations into two main groups:

1. Offenses against property rights in the field of the environment (Articles 7.1-7.11, 8.6, 8.26,8.28 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) and the right to receive reliable information about the state of the environment (Articles 8.5, 10.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation);
2. Offenses against established rules of environmental protection and natural resource management. In this group, we can distinguish both offenses that may have as their object various elements of the environment, and those that affect only specific elements. Universal offenses are contained in articles 8.1-8.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

In administrative law science, a number of special violations are identified, which are presented in the figure below.

The basis of the division in this case is the object of the offense, but the purpose of the classification is to distribute the elements of the system of administrative offenses in the field of environmental protection in a certain logical sequence, which allows a more clear study of this institution of administrative law.

Literature

1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993, taking into account the amendments introduced by the Laws of the Russian Federation on amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation dated December 30, 2008 N 6-FKZ, dated December 30, 2008 N 7-FKZ // Parliamentary newspaper, N 4, 23-29.01. 2009
2. Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses dated December 30, 2001 N 195-FZ as amended. dated 03/12/2014 as amended. and additional, intro. in force from 04/01/2014 // "Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation", 01/07/2002, N 1 (part 1), art. 1.
3. Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation dated July 24, 2002 N 95-FZ, as amended. dated 04/22/2013 // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation, 07/29/2002, N 30, art. 3012
4. Federal Law "On Environmental Protection" dated January 10, 2002 N 7-FZ (current edition, 2016) // / Consultant Plus. Version Prof. – – M, 2016.
5. Gladyshev D.Yu. Some features of legal liability for environmental violations // Legal technology Issue No. 6 / 2012 – pp. 126-129
6. Ermakova L. Environmental offenses: Concept and delimitation // Environmental law. – 2004. – No. 4. – P. 8-9.
7. Kalinin I.B. Natural resource law - Tomsk: Publishing house Tom. University, 2009
8. Pakalov D.S. Environmental violations: structure and causes // Gaps in Russian legislation. Legal Journal Issue No. 1 / 2012. pp. -226-228

An administrative environmental offense (misdemeanor) is recognized as an unlawful, guilty action (inaction) of a citizen, official or legal entity, encroaching on the constitutional right of every person to a favorable environment, including causing harm to the environment (containing a real threat of such harm), for which a penalty is provided. administrative responsibility.

The current Code of Administrative Offenses pays much more attention to environmental protection issues than the previous one, highlighting in Art. 1.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences, this activity is one of the objectives of the legislation on administrative offenses.

Subjects of the Russian Federation have the right to adopt their own laws on administrative offenses that do not conflict with the Code of Administrative Offences. Such laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation should also create bodies (inspectorates, commissions, chambers, etc.) authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses in accordance with the legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the law of a subject of the Russian Federation can provide for only two types of administrative penalties: a warning and a fine.

An example of such legislation in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is the Code of the Volgograd Region dated June 11, 2008 No. 1693-OD “On Administrative Liability”, which provides for administrative liability for damage and (or) destruction of green spaces in public areas in populated areas (Article 6.1); destruction of rare and endangered species of animals or plants (Article 6.2); violation of the established land use regime (Article 7.2); pollution of settlement territories associated with the operation and repair of vehicles (Article 8.10); violation of the procedure for handling household waste on the territory of settlements (Article 8.14), etc.

Among the federal bodies authorized to consider cases of administrative environmental offenses, the Code of Administrative Offenses identifies (except for judges) bodies exercising control and supervision functions in the field of ensuring the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population, bodies exercising state quarantine phytosanitary control, state supervision and control over the safety handling of pesticides and agrochemicals, the quality and safety of grain and its processed products and state control over the use and protection of agricultural lands; bodies exercising control functions in the field of organization and functioning of specially protected natural areas of federal significance, bodies exercising state environmental supervision, and a number of others.

All elements of environmental offenses that may result in administrative liability are classified into four groups.

The first group includes provisions that establish liability for violation of general (basic) environmental and legal requirements that apply to all institutions of environmental law. These include violation of the legislation on environmental impact assessment (Article 8.4 of the Administrative Code), concealment or distortion of environmental information (Article 8.5 of the Administrative Code), etc.

The second group includes provisions that establish liability for violation of rules for the protection of individual natural objects. These include damage to land (Article 8.6 of the Administrative Code), violation of rules for the protection of atmospheric air (Article 8.21 of the Administrative Code), violation of rules for the protection of water bodies (Article 8.13 of the Administrative Code), violation of sanitary safety rules in forests (Article 8.31 of the Administrative Code), etc. .d.

The third group includes an offense that establishes liability for violation of the legal regime of territories with a special ecological and legal status, namely, violation of the rules for the protection and use of natural resources in specially protected natural areas (Article 8.39 of the Administrative Code). It should be borne in mind that the Code of Administrative Offenses (unlike the Criminal Code) does not contain rules establishing liability for committing environmental offenses in an environmental disaster zone.

Finally, the fourth group includes provisions that establish liability for violation of requirements in the field of environmental protection when carrying out economic or other activities (in industry, transport, etc.). These include non-compliance with environmental and sanitary-epidemiological requirements when handling production and consumption waste or other hazardous substances (Article 8.2 of the Administrative Code), violation of the rules for handling pesticides and agrochemicals (Article 8.3 of the Administrative Code), putting into operation motor vehicles with exceeding the standards for the content of pollutants in emissions or noise level standards (Article 8.22 of the Administrative Code), etc.

Consideration of all types of administrative penalties allows us to draw the following conclusions.

First, administrative penalties are relatively specific sanctions. When imposing punishment, the legislator provides environmental authorities (or the court), depending on the nature of the offense, the identity of the offender, the degree of guilt and other circumstances, with certain freedom in choosing the type and amount of punishment in accordance with Art. 4.1 Code of Administrative Offences.

Secondly, a person who has committed an administratively punishable offense, in accordance with Art. 2.9 of the Administrative Code may be exempt from administrative punishment due to its insignificance.

Thirdly, the terms for imposing administrative penalties are clearly defined. According to Art. 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, a resolution in a case of administrative liability for violation of environmental legislation cannot be made after two months from the date of its commission. In the case of a continuing administrative environmental offense (and there are quite a few of them), this period is calculated from the date of discovery of the administrative offense.

Separately, we should dwell on the problem of distinguishing between administrative and criminal liability in the field of environmental protection.

The structures of criminal and administrative environmental offenses have many similarities, but there are no clear criteria for distinguishing them from each other in administrative offenses.

They are in criminal law norms, for example, in a number of compounds such a qualifying feature is indicated as causing harm to health or death of a person due to air pollution (for example, Article 251 of the Criminal Code). Other elements mention “grave consequences” (Article 246 of the Criminal Code), “substantial harm” (Part 1 of Article 250 of the Criminal Code); “significant” and “large” damage (Articles 255 and 256 of the Criminal Code). In the note to Art. 260 of the Criminal Code, which establishes criminal liability for illegal logging of forest plantations, reveals the content of the concepts of significant and large-scale damage: “significant” is recognized as damage caused to forest plantations or trees, shrubs and vines not classified as forest plantations, calculated according to the taxes approved by the Government of the Russian Federation, exceeding five thousand rubles, large size - 50 thousand rubles, especially large size - 150 thousand rubles. The specific content of many other evaluation criteria is not disclosed in the Criminal Code.

Their interpretation is given in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 5, 1998 No. 14 “On the practice of application by courts of legislation on liability for environmental violations.”

Their interpretation is given in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 18, 2012 No. 21 “On the application by courts of legislation on liability for violations in the field of environmental protection and natural resource management.”

Thus, the Plenum explained that under “other grave consequences” in relation to Art. 246 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (violation of environmental protection rules during the performance of work) should be understood, in particular, as such a deterioration in the quality of the environment and its components, the elimination of which requires a long time and large financial costs (for example, mass diseases or death of fauna, including including fish and other aquatic biological resources; destruction of conditions for their habitat and reproduction (loss of feeding grounds, spawning grounds and wintering holes, disruption of migration routes, destruction of food supply); destruction of plant life, resulting in a significant reduction in the number (biomass) of these objects; lands). In this case, a mass death (disease) is considered to be an excess of the average statistical level of death (disease) of animals by three or more times.

In relation to Part 1 of Art. 247 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (violation of the rules for handling environmentally hazardous substances and waste), significant harm to human health is expressed in severe or moderate harm to the health of at least one person, and significant harm to the environment is its pollution, poisoning or contamination, a change in the radioactive background to values posing a danger to human health or life, etc.

Responsibility for illegal hunting provided for in paragraph "a" of Part 1 of Art. 258 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, occurs only in the presence of major damage. Damage caused by illegal hunting is considered major, based not only on the number and value of the animals caught, damaged and destroyed, but also taking into account other circumstances of the act, in particular the environmental value, significance for a particular habitat, and the population size of these animals. Major damage is caused, for example, by shooting elk, red deer (deer, wapiti), musk ox, brown and white-breasted (Himalayan) bear.

Consequently, in addition to the increased degree of public danger, the basis for qualifying an offense as a crime can be the presence of such elements as the specifics of the subject, place, method of the offense, its subject, form of guilt, etc.

It can be concluded that the elements of administrative and criminal offenses are related to each other in the ratio of general and special norms. The first contain abstract formulations, the second seem to concretize them. Consequently, the administrative legal norm will be applied only in that part that is not covered by the signs of an environmental crime similar in design, i.e. goes beyond the boundaries of the signs established by the criminal law norm.

Introduction

Chapter 1. General characteristics of an administrative offense

1.1 Concept and types of administrative offenses.

1.2 Features and distinctive features of administrative offenses

Chapter 2. Environmental offenses: concept, subject, object

2.1 Concept and types of environmental offenses

2.2 Subjects and objects of responsibility

Chapter 3. Liability for environmental violations

3.2 Liability for environmental violations

Chapter 4 Problems of law enforcement practice

4.1 Problems of distinguishing between the grounds for criminal and administrative liability in the field of environmental protection

4.2 Problems of monitoring the solution of issues of environmental and sanitary-epidemiological well-being

population

Conclusion

List of sources used cove

Introduction

Environmental protection is one of the most pressing problems of our time. Scientific and technological progress and increased anthropogenic pressure on the natural environment inevitably lead to an aggravation of the environmental situation: reserves of natural resources are depleted, the natural environment is polluted, the natural connection between man and nature is lost, aesthetic values ​​are lost, the physical and moral health of people deteriorates, economic and political problems are aggravated. struggle for raw materials markets, living space.

As for the Russian Federation, it is one of the countries in the world with the worst environmental situation. Pollution of the natural environment has reached unprecedented proportions. Economic losses alone, not taking into account harm to the environment and human health, according to experts, annually amount to an amount equal to half of the country’s national income. The number one environmental problem in the Russian Federation is environmental pollution.

The number of environmental violations increases every year. They increasingly influence the state of public security and act as a factor of political destabilization in a number of regions. Environmental violations harm not only the country’s economy, but also undermine the very biological foundations of human existence.

All this dictates the need to increase the efforts of all government agencies, including law enforcement agencies, in protecting and restoring the natural human environment.

The study of environmental legislation is important because offenses violate the interests that determine the law and are protected by it, and thereby cause harm to public and personal interests and the established legal order. This is expressed in the negative consequences of an offense, which are a violation of law and order, disorganization of social relations and at the same time (though not always) the derogation, destruction of any good, value, subjective right, restriction of their use, restriction of the freedom of behavior of other subjects.

The set of legislative acts existing in the Russian Federation and relating to environmental protection serves as one of the main tools in the conservation and restoration of nature. The object of the study is social relations arising in the field of environmental protection.

The subject is administrative responsibility for environmental violations. The purpose of this work is to briefly review and analyze the essence of the phenomenon of environmental violations, as well as to review the types and degrees of liability provided for by law for environmental violations.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

Define and classify the concept and types of environmental offenses;

Analyze the subject, object of the offense, the subjective and objective aspects of the offense;

Determine the status of bodies exercising control over environmental activities;

Describe the features of administrative liability for environmental violations;

Determine the range of problems in the field of administrative liability for environmental violations.

In connection with the stated research problem, as well as the certain specificity of the tasks, it should be noted that consideration of the legal basis of administrative liability for environmental offenses involves the use of appropriate research methods that will allow for a more effective implementation of the available data. The basis of the research approach of this study was the synthesis of deductive and inductive methods. The theoretical analysis of the current legislation is complemented by an analysis of the empirical component, the practice of applying these norms in the law enforcement sphere. The formal legal method was used as a special research method.

When researching the topic, monographs and articles from periodicals by such authors as A.B. Vengerov, N.S. Malein, Yu.A. Denisov, N.A. Matuzov, A.V. Malko and others were used.

1.1 Concept and types of administrative offenses th

The legal concept of an administrative offense is enshrined in Part 1 of Art. 2.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. It “recognizes an unlawful, guilty action (inaction) of an individual or legal entity for which administrative liability is established by this Code or the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses.”

This definition is formal, since it contains only the legal characteristics of the act.

Unlawfulness is the legal recognition of antisocial behavior that is harmful to citizens, society, and the state.

The antisocial nature of crimes is so great that they are recognized as socially dangerous. And the degree of harmfulness of most administrative offenses is small; they are not socially dangerous.

So, the first sign of an administrative offense is social nuisance.

The second sign is administrative illegality. Such an act is directly prohibited by the articles of the Special Part of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation or the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses.

The third sign of an administrative offense is an act, i.e. a conscious, volitional action or inaction of one or more people.

The fourth sign characterizes the subjects of the offense - this is an act committed by an individual or legal entity. It cannot be committed by an unorganized group of citizens, a complex organization that is not a legal entity (party, financial-industrial group, etc.), a branch or other structural divisions of a legal entity.

The fifth sign of an administrative offense is guilt, that is, it is a conscious, volitional act, committed intentionally or carelessly.

The sixth sign of an administrative offense is punishability. The possibility of applying administrative penalties is a general property of administrative offenses. In most cases, if a violation is detected, the perpetrator is brought to administrative responsibility. But in a number of cases, punishment cannot be applied, for example, the statute of limitations has expired, the norm has been canceled, etc.

The classification of administrative offenses can be carried out on various grounds.

First of all, it is necessary to take into account the presence of various sources of legal regulation. Administrative liability is established by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses (Article 1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). A special part of the Code of Administrative Offenses establishes administrative liability on issues of federal significance, including for violation of the rules and norms provided for by federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation (Article 1.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Relevant examples include violation of the legislation on meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions and picketing (Article 5.38 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), driving a vehicle by a driver who does not have the documents provided for by the Traffic Rules (Article 12.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), knowingly false call to specialized services (Article 19.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

As for the relevant laws, we can mention the Law of February 14, 2003 No. 99-OZ “On Administrative Offenses in the Novosibirsk Region” (as amended on March 12, 2004). In Chapter 4 of this law, Article 4.2. establishes liability for the commission of any actions at night (from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. local time) that produce noise and disturb the peace and quiet of citizens, including personal actions of citizens, mechanical means and technical devices, with the exception of emergency and rescue operations, as well as other urgent work necessary to ensure the safety of citizens or the functioning of life support facilities for the population.

Administrative offenses can be combined into various groups that have the same main object (subject) of the offense. It is on this basis that the heads of the Special Part of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation were formed.

Thus, administrative offenses are identified that encroach on the rights of citizens (Chapter 5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), encroaching on the health, sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population and public morality (Chapter 6), in the field of property protection (Chapter 7), in the field of protection the natural environment and nature management (Chapter 8), in industry, construction and energy (Chapter 9), in agriculture, veterinary medicine and land reclamation (Chapter 10), in transport (Chapter 11), in the field of road traffic ( Chapter 12), in the field of communications and information (Chapter 13), in the field of business activities (Chapter 14), in the field of finance, taxes and fees, the securities market (Chapter 15), in the field of customs affairs (customs violations rules) (Chapter 16), encroaching on the institutions of state power (Chapter 17), in the field of protecting the State border of the Russian Federation and ensuring the regime of stay of foreign citizens or stateless persons on the territory of the Russian Federation (Chapter 18), against the order of governance (Chapter 19), encroaching on public order and public safety (chap. 20), in the field of military registration (chapter 21).

Administrative offenses can also be classified according to subjects of administrative responsibility, which include citizens, officials and legal entities.

For example, violation of the rights of a member of an election commission, a referendum commission, an observer, or an observer entails liability for both citizens and officials (Article 5.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation); Violation of the conditions for advertising business and other activities during the election campaign is the responsibility of citizens, officials and legal entities (Article 5.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Administrative offenses can also be distinguished by the form of guilt. Thus, there are intentional offenses, for example, deliberate destruction or damage to someone else’s property (Article 7.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation); offenses committed through negligence, for example, careless storage of a citizen’s identity card (passport), which resulted in the loss of this ID (passport) (Article 19.16 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

In some cases, a person is held accountable regardless of whether the offense was committed intentionally or through negligence. This applies, for example, to violations of the requirements for the rational use of subsoil (Article 8.10 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), violation of the rules for ensuring the safety of passengers on water transport vessels, as well as on small vessels (Article 11.10 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), failure to comply with deadlines for filing a customs declaration (Article 16.12 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). Administrative punishment is a measure of responsibility established by the state for committing an administrative offense, which is applied to prevent the commission of new torts, both by the offender himself and by other persons (Article 3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

There are nine types of administrative penalties. Let us dwell on a brief description of each type of administrative punishment.

A warning is an official censure of an individual or legal entity. It is issued in writing (Article 3.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). It mainly applies to persons who have committed minor administrative offenses. An example is smoking in carriages (including vestibules) of a commuter train, in places not designated for smoking on a local or long-distance train (Article 11.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

A warning should be distinguished from an oral reprimand, which is issued if a person is released from administrative liability if the offense committed is of minor significance (Article 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

An administrative fine is a monetary penalty. It is used most often and is expressed as a multiple of: 1) the minimum wage; 2) the cost of the subject of the administrative offense; 3) the amount of unpaid taxes, fees or customs duties, or the amount of an illegal currency transaction, or another specially provided amount of funds; foreign currency earnings, the cost of domestic and foreign securities, or the amount of an unpaid administrative fine (Article 3.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). The following offenses can be cited as relevant examples:

1) for violation of sanitary and epidemiological requirements for the organization of catering for the population, an administrative fine is imposed on officials in the amount of 20 to 30 times the minimum wage (Article 6.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation);

2) for petty theft of property, an administrative fine is provided in the amount of up to three times the value of the stolen property (Article 7.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation);

3) carrying out illegal currency transactions entails the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of three-quarters to one of the amount of the illegal currency transaction (Part 1 of Article 15.25 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Paid seizure of an instrument or subject of an administrative offense is their forced seizure and subsequent sale with the transfer of the proceeds to the former owner minus the costs of selling the seized item (Article 3.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). An example is the paid seizure of weapons and ammunition for violation by citizens of the rules for storing, carrying or destroying weapons and ammunition (Article 20.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

The application of this punishment has a limitation: the paid confiscation of hunting weapons, ammunition and other permitted hunting or fishing tools cannot be applied to persons for whom hunting or fishing is the main legal source of livelihood (Article 3.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Confiscation of the instrument or subject of an administrative offense consists of the gratuitous transfer to federal property or the property of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation of things that have not been withdrawn from circulation (Article 3.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). An example is the confiscation of weapons and ammunition for firing weapons in places not designated for this purpose (Article 20.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

The use of confiscation has the same restrictions that are established for paid seizure.

Deprivation of a special right granted to an individual is established for a gross and systematic violation of the procedure for using this right (Article 3.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). Thus, deprivation of the right to operate a vessel is established for driving a vessel (including a small one) by a skipper or another person in a state of intoxication (Article 11.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

The use of this type of punishment also has some limitations. For example, deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle cannot be applied to a person who uses it due to a disability (except for cases of driving while intoxicated, etc.). Deprivation of the right to hunt cannot be applied to persons for whom it is the main legal source of livelihood (Article 3.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Administrative arrest consists of keeping the offender in isolation from society (Article 3.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). It is established and imposed only in exceptional cases. For example, for disobedience to a lawful order of a police officer, a military serviceman, an employee of the authorities for control over the circulation of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, or an employee of the penal system (Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

The maximum period of administrative arrest is 15 days, and for violation of the requirements of a state of emergency or regime in the zone of a counter-terrorist operation - 30 days (Article 3.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

The use of administrative arrest, as stated earlier, has certain restrictions: it cannot be applied to pregnant women and women with children under the age of 14, persons under 18 years of age, disabled people of groups I and II, military personnel and other persons (Art. 3.9 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). Administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation of foreign citizens or stateless persons is a forced and controlled movement of these citizens and persons across the State Border of the Russian Federation outside the Russian Federation, and in cases provided for by law, a controlled independent departure of these citizens and persons from the Russian Federation ( Art. 3.10 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

This type of punishment is applied, for example, for violation of the regime at checkpoints across the State Border of the Russian Federation (Article 18.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), for violation of the regime of stay in Russia (Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Administrative deportation should be distinguished from deportation, which is a measure of administrative restraint, i.e. from the forced expulsion from the Russian Federation of a foreign citizen or stateless person in the event of termination of the legal grounds for residence or stay on the territory of Russia.

Disqualification consists of depriving an individual of the right to occupy leadership positions in the executive management body of a legal entity, to join the board of directors (supervisory board), to carry out entrepreneurial activities to manage a legal entity, as well as to manage a legal entity in other cases. It applies to persons carrying out organizational, administrative or administrative functions in a body of a legal entity, to members of the board of directors, as well as to persons engaged in business activities without forming a legal entity (Article 3.11 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Disqualification is imposed for such offenses as, for example, fictitious or deliberate bankruptcy (Article 14.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), improper management of a legal entity (Article 14.21). Disqualification is established for a period of six months to three years. Administrative suspension of activities (introduced by Federal Law dated 05/09/2005 N 45-FZ). Administrative suspension of activities consists in the temporary cessation of the activities of persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity, legal entities, their branches, representative offices, structural divisions, production sites, as well as the operation of units, facilities, buildings or structures, the implementation of certain types of activities (works) , provision of services. Administrative suspension of activities is applied in the event of a threat to the life or health of people, the occurrence of an epidemic, epizootic, contamination (contamination) of regulated objects with quarantine objects, the occurrence of a radiation accident or man-made disaster, causing significant harm to the condition or quality of the environment, or in the event of an administrative offense in the field of turnover narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and their precursors, in the field of combating the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism, in the field of restrictions on the implementation of certain types of activities established in accordance with federal law in relation to foreign citizens, stateless persons and foreign organizations activities, in the field of rules for attracting foreign citizens and stateless persons to labor activities carried out at retail facilities (including shopping malls), in the field of management procedures, in the field of public order and public safety, as well as in the field of urban planning activities (in ed. Federal Laws of 05.11.2006 N 189-FZ, of 18.12.2006 N 232-FZ, of 24.07.2007 N 211-FZ) Administrative suspension of activities is appointed by a judge only in cases provided for in the articles of the Special Part of the Code of Administrative Offenses, if a less severe type of administrative punishment will not be able to achieve the goal of administrative punishment. Administrative suspension of activities is established for a period of up to ninety days.

The Code of Administrative Offenses provides for basic and additional administrative penalties. A warning, an administrative fine, deprivation of a special right, administrative arrest, disqualification and administrative suspension of activities can be established and applied only as basic penalties. At the same time, paid seizure and confiscation of the instrument or subject of an administrative offense, as well as administrative expulsion can be established and applied as both primary and additional punishments (Article 3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

The laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation can establish penalties only in the form of a warning and an administrative fine (Article 3.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

It is necessary to take into account that the following administrative penalties may be applied to legal entities: warning, fine, compensatory seizure, confiscation and administrative suspension of activities (Article 3.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). This is quite obvious, since other types of punishment in their content can only be applied to individuals.

Administrative punishment is imposed in accordance with the rules established by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

The general rules for imposing administrative punishment are formulated in Art. 4.1 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. They include the following provisions.

Firstly, administrative punishment is imposed within the limits established by law providing for liability for the offense committed. This means that when choosing the type and measure of punishment, one should be strictly guided by the sanction of the relevant legal norm.

Secondly, administrative punishment is imposed in accordance with the requirements of the Code. This refers to regulatory requirements relating, first of all, to the procedure for carrying out activities to consider and resolve cases of administrative offenses, as well as to review the decisions and decisions made.

Thirdly, when imposing an administrative penalty, various circumstances must be taken into account. These include the nature of the offense committed (the method of its commission, the severity of the consequences, etc.), circumstances, both mitigating and aggravating responsibility.

In relation to an individual, the identity of the perpetrator and his property status are also taken into account. In relation to a legal entity, its property and financial position is taken into account.

It should be noted that the imposition of an administrative penalty does not relieve a person from fulfilling the obligation for non-fulfillment of which he was punished (Article 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

The circumstances mitigating administrative liability include the following: 1) repentance of the person who committed the offense; 2) voluntary reporting by a person about the offense he has committed; 3) prevention by this person of the harmful consequences of the violation committed, voluntary compensation for the damage caused or elimination of the harm caused; 4) committing an offense in a state of strong emotional excitement (affect) or due to a combination of difficult personal or family circumstances; 5) commission of an offense by a minor; 6) commission of an offense by a pregnant woman or a woman with a young child. In addition, subjects considering a case of an offense may recognize other circumstances as mitigating (Article 4.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), therefore, the list of such circumstances is open.

The list of circumstances aggravating administrative liability, on the contrary, is closed. Such circumstances cannot be considered as any other than those listed below: 1) continuation of illegal behavior, despite the demand of authorized persons to stop it; 2) repeated commission of a homogeneous administrative offense, if the person continues to be considered administratively punished for the previous violation; 3) involvement of a minor in the commission of an administrative offense; 4) commission of an offense by a group of persons; 5) committing an offense during a natural disaster or other emergency circumstances; 6) committing an administrative offense while intoxicated (depending on the nature of the violation committed, this circumstance may not be considered an aggravating one) (Article 4.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

When imposing administrative penalties for a person committing several offenses, the following must be kept in mind. As a general rule, punishment is assigned for each violation committed. However, if a person has committed one action (inaction) containing elements of administrative offenses, liability for which is provided for by two or more articles (parts of articles) of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses and the consideration of cases for which is under the jurisdiction of the same subject (judge, body, official person), then the punishment is imposed within the limits of the sanction, which provides for the imposition of a more severe punishment. In this case, additional penalties provided for by each of the relevant sanctions may be imposed.

The limitation period for bringing to administrative responsibility, i.e. The period during which punishment can be imposed is established in Art. 4.5 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. The general period for making a decision in the case is two months from the date of commission of the offense, and a special period relating to certain categories of offenses (violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation on internal sea waters, territorial sea, continental shelf, etc.), including offenses entailing punishment in the form of disqualification is equal to one year.

There are two exceptions to the established rule. In the case of a continuing offense, the above periods begin to be calculated from the day the violation is discovered. If a decision is made to refuse to initiate a criminal case or to terminate a criminal case, but if there are signs of an administrative offense in the person’s actions, these terms begin to be calculated from the date the corresponding decision is made.

If the petition of the person against whom the proceedings are being conducted to consider the case at his place of residence is granted, the statute of limitations is suspended from the moment the petition is granted until the materials of the case are received by the entity authorized to consider it (Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

The period during which a person is considered subject to administrative punishment (i.e. is administratively punished) is established as follows: within one year from the date of completion of the execution of the decision imposing this punishment (Article 4.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). The end date of execution of the issued decision is determined based on the content of the punishment (full payment of the amount of the imposed fine, end of serving the administrative arrest, etc.).

When imposing an administrative penalty, questions may arise about compensation for property damage and moral harm caused by an administrative offense. As a general rule, these issues are considered by the court in civil proceedings. There is one exception: in the absence of a dispute about compensation for property damage, the judge has the right, simultaneously with the imposition of punishment, to resolve the issue of compensation for property damage (Article 4.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

In the general theory of law, at present, the following properties of an offense are distinguished, which together form its concept:

1. an offense is always an act (action or inaction);

2. always a guilty act;

3. socially dangerous act, i.e. causing or likely to cause harm to society;

4. an act contrary to the law;

5. an act for which legal liability is provided.

The listed features constitute the content of the concept of offense developed in the general theory of law and are summarized in its definitions given in scientific and educational literature.

In terms of formal logic, its characterization as a socially dangerous act indicates a generic sign of an offense; illegality and guilt form its specific differences.

The first sign of an offense is that any offense is always a definite act, under the constant control of the will and mind of a person. This is a volitional, conscious act, expressed in the action or inaction of a person.

Another important sign of an offense is illegality. Not every act - action or inaction - is an offense. But only that which is done contrary to legal dictates violates the law.

A specific expression of the wrongfulness of an act can be either a violation of a prohibition directly established in the law or in any other legal act, or a failure to fulfill the obligations imposed on legal entities by law or an agreement concluded on its basis.

Thus, an offense is only an act that is committed contrary to legal orders and violates the law.

The next most important sign of an offense is the presence of guilt.

State legal theory and practice in Russia and other countries proceed from the fact that not every unlawful act should be considered an offense, but only that committed intentionally or through negligence. In other words, it occurs due to the fault of the person.

The offense is committed by people capable of delinquency, i.e. capable of controlling their will and their behavior, being aware of their actions, realizing their illegality and being able to bear responsibility for their consequences.

Tort liability is defined in laws and other regulations. All sane persons who have reached a certain age are recognized as capable of tort.

Thus, according to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, full tort liability begins at the age of 18.

In the theory of law, as well as in practice, domestic and foreign lawyers include the presence of harm caused to a person or organization by another person or organization, and the presence of a causal connection between the unlawful act and the harm caused, as signs of an offense.

Regarding the presence of harm, not all authors share this point of view. Referring to the current legislation, they quite reasonably note, for example, that a number of norms of criminal and some other branches of law define as offenses such actions or inactions that are likely to entail harmful consequences, but have not yet entailed them. As an example, we can refer to violations of safety regulations at nuclear power plants, mines, factories, which could lead to tragic consequences; for violations of working conditions, requirements of sanitary and epidemiological services, etc., which could also lead to tragic consequences.

Thus, from the above it follows that offenses should be considered not only such illegal acts that have already entailed harmful consequences, but also those that can cause harm to society, a person or the state.

Administrative offenses have certain distinctive features.

Crimes are distinguished from misdemeanors (administrative, disciplinary) by a number of properties. The primary differences are social danger and type of illegality. Of course, first of all, the material criterion is taken into account - the level of harm caused to society. And on the basis of such an assessment, questions about the type of illegality are resolved: criminal, administrative, disciplinary.

Secondary criteria of distinction operate after the issue of the type of wrongfulness has been decided. We are talking about different procedural norms, the difference between criminal, administrative and disciplinary sanctions, the status of a criminal record or administrative (disciplinary) punishment and other secondary characteristics.

In the legal literature, there are two opinions about the social danger of offenses. Many scientists believe that all of them are socially dangerous, but crimes are more dangerous and misdemeanors less so.

The definition of the crime is contained in Part 1 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: “A crime is recognized as a socially dangerous act committed guilty of guilt, prohibited by this Code under threat of punishment.”

In Part 2 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation says: “An action (inaction), although formally containing signs of any act provided for by this Code, but due to its insignificance does not pose a public danger, is not a crime.” Consequently, a minor act cannot be recognized as a crime, since it is not socially dangerous. Resolving the issue of the insignificance of an act falls within the competence of the investigation and is based on an analysis of the elements of the offense.

In the legal literature, there has been a debate for quite a long time about whether social danger is recognized as a sign of crimes exclusively or whether it is a universal criterion for all offenses.

Supporters of the point of view that offenses are socially dangerous referred to Art. 7 Fundamentals of Criminal Law, and now on Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which states that “a crime is a socially dangerous act committed guilty of guilt, prohibited by this code under threat of punishment.” But “any type of legal liability used by the state is justified in cases where the unlawful act has a certain (greater or lesser) degree of public danger. If there is no public danger in a person’s action or inaction, he should not be held accountable for anything.” These words of the famous scientist A.E. Luneva reflect the position of most modern authors that both crimes and administrative offenses, as well as partly labor (disciplinary) and civil offenses are socially dangerous. Indeed, drinking alcohol at work or driving a vehicle while intoxicated can lead to unpredictable and often very serious consequences, as a result of which they are socially dangerous acts, although not criminal in themselves.

In this case, the problem of distinguishing between crimes and administrative offenses arises, especially when they are of a related nature, for example, hooliganism as a type of crime and petty hooliganism as a type of administrative offense. Such a criterion should be the degree of public danger, which is expressed in the presence or absence of grave consequences, the amount of material damage actually caused, the method and place of the offense and other indicators enshrined in the rules of law and characterizing individual elements of the offense and the entire composition as a whole.

So, for example, based on the presence or absence of grave consequences, it is possible to limit the composition of the administrative offense provided for in Art. 12.24 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “Violation of traffic rules or rules of operation of a vehicle, resulting in the infliction of minor harm to the health of the victim” (i.e., causing harm to health, causing his short-term disorder), from a related crime under Art. 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Violation of the Rules of the Road and Operation of Vehicles”, where liability occurs when a person driving a car, tram or other mechanical vehicle violates the Rules of the Road and Operation of Vehicles, resulting through negligence in causing grievous or moderate harm to human health or his death.

Previously, before the adoption of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 1996, there were types of crimes with the so-called “administrative prejudice”, when such signs of the objective side of the offense, such as repetition, frequency and systematicity of its commission, turned an administrative offense into a crime, provided that a person was previously brought to justice for them to administrative liability. And this was also considered a criterion for distinguishing criminal acts from non-criminal ones. Now this is not the case, since this criterion characterizes only the personality of the offender, and not the degree of public danger of the offense itself, although the repeated commission of an administrative offense is recognized by the legislator as a circumstance aggravating administrative liability (Article 4.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

At the same time, the objective side itself often characterizes the degree of social danger of an offense.

It is unlikely that it will be possible to come to a common decision if the criteria for a socially dangerous act are not clearly defined. It seems that only an act that has caused or is actually capable of causing significant damage to social relations should be considered socially dangerous. Such acts in their totality in a certain historical situation violate the conditions of existence of a given society. From this point of view, most administrative offenses cannot be considered socially dangerous.

So, the main difference between a crime and a misdemeanor is the social danger of the act. An additional feature is the type of illegality. This formal sign is especially important when the offense is committed by a legal entity. After the act is qualified as a crime or an administrative offense, secondary differences appear: the procedure for bringing to justice, the types and amounts of punishment, etc.

Public danger is a systemic sign of an offense. It arises from the interaction of simple, primary signs of the offense, named in the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the Labor Code of the Russian Federation: the form of guilt, the amount of damage, the method, time, place of the commission of the act, the signs of its subject, etc. Therefore, to qualify the act as a crime under the relevant article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation or as a misdemeanor under the article of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to analyze the characteristics of specific offenses. Thus, administratively punishable theft differs from the corresponding crime by such features as the value of the stolen property, the method of theft (robbery and robbery, regardless of the harm caused, are crimes), committed by a group, repeatedly, by a person who has previously been convicted of theft two or more times.

A number of criteria that make it possible to determine whether hooligan actions are socially dangerous or not can be identified by comparing the texts of Art. 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and 20.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Hooligan actions constitute a crime if they grossly violate public order, express clear disrespect for society, accompanied by the use of violence against citizens or the threat of its use, as well as the destruction or damage of other people's property. Hooliganism is considered petty if it consists of obscene language in public places, offensive harassment of citizens, or the commission of other actions that demonstratively violate public order and the peace of citizens.

Article 7.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation establishes the administrative liability of citizens for the intentional destruction or damage of someone else's property. But such actions may also result in criminal liability if they caused significant damage (Part 1 of Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), were committed in a hooligan manner (Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), or by arson (Part 2 of Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Comparing administrative offenses with disciplinary ones, first of all, it should be said that both of them, as a rule, are not socially dangerous.

As for the formal sign - illegality, there are serious features here. Everything related to administrative offenses: their composition, the system of sanctions and others, is regulated by administrative law.

The fight against disciplinary offenses is regulated by labor law, but the disciplinary liability of students, military personnel, and employees of paramilitary services is regulated by administrative law, and of prisoners by criminal law. At the same time, the elements of disciplinary offenses are established in the most general form and are not specified.

Significant differences exist between the subjects of these offenses. The subject of a disciplinary offense can only be a citizen - an employee of a certain organization. And this responsibility comes for violation of labor and official duties.

The manager, the subject of linear authority, is held accountable for disciplinary offenses, and the representative of the authorities, the subject of functional authority in relation to persons who are not officially dependent on him, is held accountable for administrative liability.

2.1 Concept and types of environmental offenses

An environmental offense is a guilty, unlawful act that violates the environmental legal order established by environmental, natural resource and other legislation and causes harm to the natural environment and human health, or to the environmental rights and interests of citizens and legal entities.

An environmental violation causes harm to the environment. When it comes to environmental harm, various terms are used in legislation: harm, damage, lost profits, losses. For example, the Law “On Environmental Protection” talks about compensation for damage caused by environmental violations. The Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes the right of everyone to compensation for damage caused to their health or property by an environmental offense (Article 42). The Law “On Environmental Protection” provides for compensation for damage caused to the health of citizens by the adverse effects of the environment (Article 89).

There is no clear legislative concept of administrative environmental violation. The Federal Law “On Environmental Protection” of January 10, 2002 No. 7-FZ does not contain, unlike the previously valid basic environmental act, either a definition of an environmental offense or an environmental crime, or a list of elements. But in the doctrine of environmental law such a concept has been developed. An administrative environmental offense is understood as an illegal, guilty (intentional or careless) action (or inaction) that has caused or could cause harm to the environment and for which the legislation provides for administrative liability.

In the science of environmental law, the study of administrative environmental offenses has received less attention than criminal liability for environmental crimes.

The Civil Code of the Russian Federation defines the concept of “losses” (Article 15) - these are expenses that a person whose right has been violated has made or will have to make to restore the violated right, loss or damage to his property (real damage), as well as lost income, which this person would have received under normal conditions of civil circulation if his right had not been violated (lost profit).

Environmental harm is understood as any deterioration of the state of the environment that occurred as a result of violation of legal environmental requirements, and any associated derogation of a material and intangible benefit protected by law, including human life and health, property of individuals and legal entities. The components of environmental harm are damage, lost profits and moral harm. Environmental damage primarily manifests itself in the form of environmental pollution, spoilage, destruction, damage, depletion of natural resources, and destruction of ecological systems. As a result, damage to the health and property of citizens and legal entities may be caused.

Environmental harm is often associated with loss of benefits, i.e. failure of the resource user to receive income that he could have received under normal conditions. For example, a farmer could have obtained a higher crop yield if the environment had not been polluted.

According to the Federal Law of November 23, 1995 N 174-FZ "On Environmental Expertise", the objects of state environmental expertise at the federal level include feasibility studies and projects for construction, reconstruction, expansion, technical re-equipment, conservation and liquidation of organizations and other objects of economic activity Russian Federation and other projects, regardless of their estimated cost, departmental affiliation and forms of ownership, the implementation of which may have an impact on the natural environment within the territory of two or more constituent entities of the Russian Federation, including materials created by citizens or legal entities of the Russian Federation with the participation of foreign citizens or foreign legal entities, organizations, the volume of foreign investments in which exceeds 500 thousand US dollars. An exhaustive list of objects of state environmental assessment carried out at the federal level and the level of constituent entities of the Federation is determined according to Art. 11, 12 of the Federal Law "On Environmental Expertise".

A positive conclusion of the state environmental assessment is one of the mandatory conditions for financing and implementing the object of the state environmental assessment. A positive conclusion of the state environmental assessment has legal force for a period determined by the specially authorized state body in the field of environmental assessment conducting a specific state environmental assessment. The legal consequence of a negative conclusion of the state environmental assessment is a ban on the sale of the object of the state environmental assessment.

The Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation has the right to terminate, suspend or limit economic and other activities carried out in violation of the conclusions of the state environmental assessment, as well as prohibit the commissioning of facilities, the construction or reconstruction of which was carried out in violation of these conclusions. Consideration of cases of administrative offenses is the responsibility of officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia and its territorial bodies exercising state environmental control, specified in Part 2 of Art. 23.29 Code of Administrative Offences.

According to Art. 1 of the Federal Law "On Environmental Protection" control in the field of environmental protection (environmental control) means a system of measures aimed at preventing, identifying and suppressing violations of legislation in the field of environmental protection, ensuring environmental protection, ensuring compliance by economic and other entities activity requirements, including standards and regulatory documents in the field of environmental protection.

According to Art. 1 of the Federal Law “On Environmental Protection”, environmental pollution means the entry into the environment of a substance and (or) energy, the properties, location or quantity of which have a negative impact on the environment.

Information about the radiation situation, classified as environmental information, within the meaning of Federal Law No. 3-FZ of January 9, 1996 “On Radiation Safety of the Population,” must contain information about the negative impact of ionizing radiation on the environment.

Environmental information also includes information about the state of the natural environment, its pollution and man-made emergency situations that have had, are having, may have a negative impact on the natural environment. In accordance with the Federal Law "On the Hydrometeorological Service", the specified information is required to be provided by legal entities, regardless of their organizational and legal form, and by individuals collecting information about the state of the natural environment and its pollution. The procedure for providing Roshydromet with information on the state of the natural environment, its pollution and man-made emergencies that have had, are having, may have a negative impact on the natural environment is determined by the Regulations approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 14, 2000 N 128.

According to the Regulations, this information is obtained on the territory of the Russian Federation, including internal sea waters, the territorial sea and the airspace above them, as well as within the exclusive economic zone, on the continental shelf of the Russian Federation, in the ionosphere and near-Earth space using various means of collecting information.

Fertile soil layers include, in particular, chernozem - soil rich in humus, mainly in steppe and forest-steppe regions. In accordance with the Federal Law of July 16, 1998 N 101-FZ “On state regulation of ensuring the fertility of agricultural lands,” the fertility of agricultural lands is understood as the ability of the soil to satisfy the needs of agricultural crop plants for nutrients, air, water, heat, biological and physical and chemical environment and ensure the yield of agricultural crops. According to Art. 8 of this Federal Law, owners, owners, users, including tenants, of land plots are required to provide information on the use of agrochemicals and pesticides to the relevant executive authorities.

In accordance with Art. 13 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, land users, landowners and tenants of land plots are obliged to carry out measures for the reclamation of disturbed lands, restoration of soil fertility, timely involvement of lands in circulation, as well as for the preservation of soil fertility and their use when carrying out work related to land disturbance.

During construction and mining operations involving soil disturbance, the fertile soil layer is removed and used to improve unproductive lands.

In relation to land plots from agricultural lands, the obligation of owners, land users, landowners, tenants to use this category of land in ways that should not cause harm to the land as a natural object, including leading to degradation, pollution, littering of land, poisoning, damage, destruction natural soil layer and other negative (harmful) impacts of economic activities, established by clause 1 of Art. 6 of the Federal Law of July 24, 2002 N 101-FZ “On the turnover of agricultural land”.

Failure to fulfill, improper fulfillment by owners of land plots from agricultural lands, land users, landowners, tenants of these land plots of this obligation are qualified as improper use of the land plot in question and entail sanctions in the form of its forced seizure from the owner, forced termination of the lease, forced termination of the right to permanent (perpetual) use, rights of lifelong inheritable possession, rights of gratuitous fixed-term use of a land plot from agricultural lands, applied in the manner prescribed by the Land Code of the Russian Federation, Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 6 of the Federal Law "On the Turnover of Agricultural Land", regardless of whether the violator is subject to administrative penalties established by the commented article.

Damage to the land is expressed in actions (inaction) leading to the loss of the natural properties of the fertile layer or their deterioration. This offense is expressed in non-compliance with the rules for the use of land established by current legislation, which results in causing the specified harm.

In accordance with clauses 2, 3 of Art. 38 of the Federal Law "On Environmental Protection" it is prohibited to commission buildings, structures, structures and other objects without completing the land reclamation work provided for in the projects. Violation of this regulation by managers and members of commissions for the commissioning of these facilities is qualified in accordance with the commented article.

The responsibilities of owners of land plots from agricultural lands, land users, landowners, tenants for the use of these land plots in accordance with the intended purpose of this category of land, in ways that exclude harm to the land as a natural object, are established in paragraph 1 of Art. 6 of the Federal Law of July 24, 2002 N 101-FZ "On the turnover of agricultural land."

General requirements in the field of environmental protection during the placement, design, construction, reconstruction, commissioning, operation, conservation and liquidation of buildings, structures, structures and other objects are determined by Art. 34 of the Federal Law of January 10, 2002 N 7-FZ "On Environmental Protection", according to which the design, construction, reconstruction, commissioning, operation, conservation and liquidation of these facilities that have a direct or indirect negative impact on the environment, are carried out in accordance with environmental protection requirements.

At the same time, measures should be taken to protect the environment, restore the natural environment, rational use and reproduction of natural resources, and ensure environmental safety.

Violation of requirements in the field of environmental protection entails the suspension of the placement, design, construction, reconstruction, commissioning, operation, conservation and liquidation of buildings, structures, structures and other objects as prescribed by executive authorities exercising public administration in the field of environmental protection .

Termination in full of the placement, design, construction, reconstruction, commissioning, operation, conservation and liquidation of these facilities in case of violation of requirements in the field of environmental protection is carried out on the basis of a court decision and (or) arbitration court.

According to paragraph 3 of Art. 37 of the Federal Law “On Environmental Protection”, during the construction and reconstruction of buildings, structures and other objects, measures are taken to restore the natural environment and reclaim land.

Requirements in the field of environmental protection during land reclamation, placement, design, construction, reconstruction, commissioning and operation of reclamation systems and separately located hydraulic structures are determined by Art. 43 of the Federal Law "On Environmental Protection".

Failure to fulfill or untimely fulfillment of duties to bring lands into a condition suitable for use for their intended purpose, or to reclaim them after completion of the development of mineral deposits, including common minerals, construction, reclamation, logging, exploration and other work, including those carried out for intra-economic or own needs - entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of ten to fifteen times the minimum wage; for officials - from twenty to thirty minimum wages; for legal entities - from two hundred to three hundred minimum wages.

2.2 Subjects and objects of responsibility

All environmental offenses (as well as others) are divided into misdemeanors and crimes. The composition of an environmental offense (like any other) includes four elements: object, objective side, subjective side, subject.

The object represents a set of social relations for the protection of the natural environment, the rational use of its resources and ensuring environmental safety.

The natural environment as a whole and its individual components (water, air, animals, for example) are the subject of an offense. This is one of the most important signs of an environmental violation.

It is this that makes it possible to determine in the orbit of which relationships a natural resource is involved (what is its socio-economic essence) and to distinguish the offenses in question from others. Thus, catching fish in a river in violation of established rules constitutes illegal fishing, and the same actions committed in a fishing pond constitute theft of property, since in the latter case fish is not a natural resource found in a natural environment, but is a commodity. -material value. Air pollution in industrial premises (mines, workshops, etc.) cannot be considered an environmental offense. Here the act encroaches not on relations to protect a natural object, but on relations to protect health during the performance of labor functions.

In environmental offenses, their subject matter should always be considered in connection with the object. An isolated analysis of the subject does not allow us to understand the relationship to which the damage is caused, and gives rise to errors and confusion in the legal assessment of the offense.

The sanctions of the above articles provide for fines in various amounts, restriction of freedom, correctional labor, arrest for various periods, imprisonment, deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities.

The direct object of environmental crimes is social relations protected by criminal law on the use of certain types of natural resources and objects, ensuring law and order when implementing specific types of impact on the environment, environmental safety of the population and territories, preserving the condition and quality of the environment and its components.

The objective side is expressed through an act (action or inaction), various rules, criminal consequences and the reason for the connection between them.

The subjective side is both intentional and careless guilt.

If an environmental offense is committed, harm is caused to natural objects.

Thus, illegal cutting of trees and bushes (Article 8.28 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), littering of forests with household waste and garbage (Article 8.31 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) are committed intentionally, and destruction or damage to forests as a result of careless handling of fire (Article 8.32 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, Art. 261 of the Criminal Code) only due to negligence.

A number of acts, such as pollution of the natural environment (Article 8.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, Articles 250, 251, 252 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), violation of requirements for the protection of subsoil and hydromineral resources (Article 8.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) can be committed intentionally, related to the consequences are careless. The motives and goals of intentional environmental offenses can be different and, as a rule, are not indicated as elements of the offense, but can be taken into account when assigning punishment as aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Subjects of environmental offenses can be both individuals and legal entities, including business entities of various forms of ownership and subordination, as well as foreign organizations and citizens.

The problem of distinguishing between environmental offenses and crimes will be described in detail in the second section of this work. Since (as will be shown below) the difference between a misdemeanor and an offense very often consists only in the scale of the damage caused, but not in the nature of the action as such, let us analyze those acts that are qualified by modern Russian legislation as environmental crimes. The analysis of offenses is omitted in this work, since they are for the most part formalized forms of crimes.

So, environmental offenses are considered:

Pollution, clogging, depletion of surface or groundwater, drinking water sources or changes in their natural properties; - violation of the rules for the release of pollutants into the atmosphere or violation of the operation of installations, structures and other objects, if this resulted in pollution or a change in the natural properties of the air;

Marine pollution;

Poisoning, pollution or other damage to land with harmful products of economic or other activities due to violation of the rules for handling fertilizers, plant growth stimulants, pesticides and other dangerous chemical and biological substances during their storage, use and transportation, resulting in harm to human health or the environment; - destruction or damage to forests (as well as plantings not included in the forest fund) as a result of careless handling of fire or other source of increased danger;

Illegal felling (without appropriate permission), as well as damage to the point of stopping the growth of trees, shrubs and lianas in forests of the first group or in specially protected areas of forests of all groups, as well as trees, shrubs and lianas that are not included in the forest fund or are prohibited from cutting , if they are committed in a significant amount;

Destruction of critical habitats for organisms listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation, resulting in a sharp reduction in the number or death of populations of these organisms;

Illegal hunting, if this act is committed with the infliction of major damage, with the use of a mechanical vehicle or aircraft, explosives, gases or other methods of mass destruction of birds and animals, in relation to birds and animals, hunting of which is completely prohibited, on the territory of a reserve or reserve or in an environmental disaster zone or in an environmental emergency zone; - illegal harvesting of fish, sea animals and other aquatic animals or commercial marine plants, if it caused major damage or was carried out using a self-propelled floating vehicle, electric current, chemicals and explosives, or in an environmental disaster zone, in spawning areas or on migration routes to him;

Logging, construction of bridges, dams, transportation of wood and other forest products from cutting areas, carrying out tearing and other work, as well as operation of water intake structures and pumping mechanisms in violation of the rules for the protection of fish stocks, if they resulted in massive death of fish or other aquatic animals; - violation of the provisions of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On Environmental Protection” when designing industrial, agricultural, scientific and other facilities by persons responsible for their compliance, if this resulted in significant changes in the radiation background, harm to human health, mass death of animals or other serious consequences or other serious consequences; - production of prohibited types of hazardous waste, transportation and storage, burial, use or other handling of radioactive, bacteriological, chemical substances and waste in violation of established rules, if this created a threat of causing significant harm to human health or the environment; - illegal production, processing, acquisition, storage, transportation or shipment for the purpose of sales, as well as illegal sale of potent or toxic substances or equipment for production and processing;

Violation of the rules for the protection and use of subsoil during the design, siting, construction, commissioning and operation of mining enterprises and underground structures not related to the extraction of mineral resources, as well as unauthorized development of mineral resource areas, if these actions caused significant damage; - violation of the regime of specially protected natural areas and natural objects (reserves, sanctuaries, natural monuments), resulting in significant damage;

Destruction and damage to cultural historical monuments, natural complexes and objects taken under state protection; - concealment or distortion of information about events, facts or phenomena that pose a danger to human life and health or to the environment committed by a person obliged to provide the population with such information;

Illegal handling of radioactive materials, e.g. destruction of radioactive materials;

Theft or extortion of radioactive materials;

Violation of safety rules during the placement, design, construction and operation of nuclear energy facilities, if this could lead to the death of a person or radioactive contamination of the environment;

Violation of safety rules when handling microbiological or other biological agents or toxins, if this resulted in harm to human health, the spread of epidemics or epizootics, or other serious consequences;

Violation of veterinary rules, which through negligence resulted in the spread of epizootics.

3.1 Bodies exercising control over environmental activities

A system of measures aimed at preventing, identifying and suppressing violations of legislation in the field of environmental protection, ensuring compliance by economic and other entities with requirements, including standards and regulatory documents, in the field of environmental protection is control in the field of environmental protection (environmental control).

Environmental control can not only be carried out by the state. In accordance with the legislation, the following types of environmental control are distinguished:

State environmental control;

Industrial environmental control;

Municipal environmental control;

Public environmental control.

There are also general environmental control, carried out by the highest bodies of state power and administration, and special control, carried out by bodies authorized in the field of environmental protection.

Any of these types of control should be carried out in order to:

Ensuring that relevant authorities, legal entities and individuals comply with legislation in the field of environmental protection;

Compliance with requirements, including standards and regulations, in the field of environmental protection;

Ensuring environmental safety.

To determine the objects of economic and other activities, natural objects subject to federal state environmental control, the Government of the Russian Federation adopted the List of officials of the federal executive body exercising federal state environmental control (federal state inspectors in field of environmental protection).

The rights, duties and responsibilities of state inspectors in the field of environmental protection are defined in Art. 66 of the Federal Law "On Environmental Protection". Among them, the following can be distinguished: to visit, for the purpose of inspection, organizations, objects of economic and other activities, regardless of the form of ownership, including objects subject to state protection, defense objects, civil defense objects, to get acquainted with documents and other materials necessary for the implementation of state environmental control ; check compliance with regulations, state standards and other regulatory documents in the field of environmental protection, the operation of treatment facilities and other neutralizing devices, control means, as well as the implementation of plans and measures for environmental protection; verify compliance with requirements, norms and rules in the field of environmental protection during the placement, construction, commissioning, operation and decommissioning of production and other facilities; suspend economic and other activities of legal entities and individuals if they violate legislation in the field of environmental protection; bring to administrative responsibility persons who have committed violations of legislation in the field of environmental protection; other powers determined by law.

Environmental control is one of the means of environmental protection management. In the context of environmental deterioration and changes in socio-economic living conditions, the Russian state is taking measures to strengthen state environmental control and its legal framework. The provisions approved by the Government of the Russian Federation on specially authorized state bodies in the field of environmental protection, on other ministries, state committees and departments provide for powers designed to ensure constant, systematic and general environmental control.

Industrial environmental control, as a rule, is carried out by the environmental service of legal business entities and entities. This type of control “includes verification of the implementation of environmental protection plans, including those providing for the improvement of technologies and improvement of product quality, compliance with environmental rules, standards and regulations of production activities, construction of environmental facilities, work on the reclamation of disturbed lands, elimination of other negative consequences of production activities".

Municipal control in the field of environmental protection (municipal environmental control) is carried out on the territory of a municipality by local government bodies or bodies authorized by them in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and in the manner established by regulatory legal acts of local government bodies.

According to the legislation of the Russian Federation, public environmental control can be carried out in various forms: a) public hearings and their specific form - parliamentary hearings; b) referendums; c) public environmental assessment; d) appeals to the media; e) sending complaints, statements, claims to law enforcement agencies and the court."

The legislation on administrative offenses consists of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, which came into force on July 1, 2002, and the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses adopted in accordance with it. The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation separately in the Special Part identifies Ch. 8 - administrative offenses in the field of environmental protection and natural resource management. “The generic object of environmental offenses is public relations for environmental protection, rational use of natural resources and ensuring environmental safety.” In a special article. 23.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation determines the powers of bodies exercising state environmental control to consider cases of administrative offenses; in Art. 23.21 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation determines the powers to consider cases of administrative offenses of bodies exercising state control over the use and protection of lands; in Art. 23.22 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation defines the powers to consider cases of administrative offenses of bodies exercising state geological control in Art. 23.23 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation determines the powers to consider cases of administrative offenses of bodies exercising state control over the use and protection of water bodies; in Art. 23.24 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation determines the powers to consider cases of administrative offenses of bodies authorized in the field of use, protection and protection of the forest fund; in Art. 23.25 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation determines the powers to consider cases of administrative offenses of the bodies protecting the territories of state natural reserves and national parks; in Art. 23.26 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation determines the powers to consider cases of administrative offenses of bodies authorized in the field of protection, control and regulation of the use of wildlife classified as hunting objects and their habitat; in Art. 23.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation determines the powers to consider cases of administrative offenses of fishery protection authorities; in Art. 23.28 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation defines the powers to consider cases of administrative offenses of hydrometeorology and environmental monitoring bodies, in Art. 23.31 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation defines the powers to consider cases of administrative offenses of state mining and industrial supervision bodies, and in Art. 28.3 defines officials authorized to draw up protocols on administrative offenses.

An administrative environmental offense is recognized as an illegal, guilty action or inaction that encroaches on the environmental legal order established in the Russian Federation, the health and environmental safety of the population, causes harm to the environment or contains a real threat of harm, for which administrative liability is provided.

The main features that serve to distinguish the composition of an administrative offense. This is repetition (Article 260, paragraph 2), the presence of intent (Article 258), major damage, causing harm to human health, animals, agricultural production (Articles 248, 249, 252 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, etc.).

The following types of administrative penalties are applied to offenders in the field of administrative proceedings: fine, warning, forfeiture of the instrument or subject of the administrative offense, confiscation of the instrument or subject of the administrative offense; deprivation of a special right granted to an individual. The imposition of a fine does not relieve the perpetrators of the obligation to compensate for the harm caused and eliminate the consequences of the administrative offense.

Chapter 4. Problems of law enforcement practice

4.1 Problems of distinguishing between the grounds for criminal and administrative liability in the field of environmental protection

The currently actively developing law enforcement practice on environmental offenses in the administrative and criminal sectors requires the specialization of individual departments of internal affairs bodies in environmental protection, and justifies the creation of environmental prosecutor's offices in many cities.

The high degree of public danger of environmental offenses is due to the fact that the object of their encroachment is the stability of the environment and natural resource potential, as well as guaranteed by Art. 42 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation everyone has the right to a favorable environment.

According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, “everyone has the right to a favorable environment, reliable information about its condition and to compensation for damage caused to his health or property by an environmental violation” (Article 42).

In accordance with Art. 1 of the Law of the Russian Federation of April 27, 1993 “On appealing to the court of actions and decisions that violate the rights and freedoms of citizens,” every citizen has the right to file a complaint with the court if he believes that unlawful actions (decisions) of state bodies, local government bodies, institutions, enterprises and their associations, public associations or officials have their rights and freedoms violated.

Article 41 of the previously existing Law of the RSFSR of December 19, 1991 “On the Protection of the Natural Environment” established:

1) when locating enterprises, structures and other objects, compliance with the requirements for environmental protection, rational use and reproduction of natural resources, taking into account the immediate and remote environmental, economic, demographic, moral consequences of the activities of these objects must be ensured, with the priority of protecting human health and well-being population;

2) determination of the construction sites of enterprises, structures and other objects is carried out in accordance with Art. 28 of the Land Code of the RSFSR and Art. 11 of the Law of the RSFSR "On the sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population" in the presence of a positive conclusion from specially authorized state bodies of the Russian Federation in the field of environmental protection, sanitary and epidemiological supervision and a decision of local self-government bodies. In necessary cases, when locating objects that affect the environmental interests of the population, a decision is made based on the results of a discussion or referendum.

When considering criminal cases arising in connection with violations of environmental legislation, problems arise with distinguishing environmental crimes from environmental offenses, that is, guilty of illegal acts that cause harm to the environment and human health, for which administrative liability is established.

The problem of determining the grounds for distinguishing between criminal and administrative liability leads to the concealment of environmental crimes from accounting, since they are recorded in the form of administrative offenses.

If difficulties arise in distinguishing between a criminal act and an administrative offense, special attention should be paid to clarifying all the circumstances characterizing the composition of an environmental offense, the consequences of the unlawful act, the amount of harm caused and the damage caused.

When considering cases related to violations of environmental legislation, it is of particular importance to establish a causal relationship between the committed acts and the harmful consequences that have occurred or the emergence of a threat of causing significant harm to the environment and human health. It is also necessary to find out whether the harmful consequences were caused by other factors, including natural ones, and whether they occurred regardless of the established violation, as well as whether illegal acts were committed in a state of extreme necessity.

Thus, the distinction between criminally punishable harvesting of aquatic animals and plants (Article 256 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and a similar administrative offense must be carried out based on the presence of major damage, the use of a self-propelled floating vehicle or explosives and chemicals, electric current or other methods of mass extermination, as well as depending on the circumstances of the place where the act was committed (spawning sites or migration routes to them, the territory of a nature reserve, wildlife sanctuary, zone of environmental disaster or zone of environmental emergency).

The distinction between illegal hunting, punishable criminally (Article 258 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and an administrative offense - violation of hunting rules should be made according to the qualifying elements of the crime: causing major damage, using a mechanical vehicle or aircraft, explosives, gases and other methods mass destruction of birds and animals, as well as if the act was committed in relation to birds and animals, the hunting of which is completely prohibited, either on the territory of a reserve, wildlife sanctuary, or in an environmental disaster zone or in an environmental emergency zone.

When considering cases of illegal cutting of trees and bushes (Article 260 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), it should be borne in mind that the distinction is made with an administrative offense, liability for which is provided for in Art. 63 of the RSFSR Code of Administrative Offenses, is carried out on the subject: corpus delicti, provided for in Part 1 of Art. 260 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, constitutes illegal cutting of trees, bushes and vines in forests of the first group, in specially protected areas of forests of all groups not included in the forest fund or prohibited from cutting, if these acts are committed in a significant amount.

Considering cases related to violations of environmental legislation. Courts should determine the extent of damage caused in each specific case. When determining the volume of compensation for environmental damage and calculating the amount of damage caused by an environmental offense and subject to compensation, one must be guided by both centrally approved calculation methods and established rates, and regional norms that specify the provisions of federal legislation.

By virtue of Art. 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for violating the legislation of the Russian Federation on environmental protection, a person may be brought to administrative responsibility within one year from the date of commission of the administrative offense.

According to the protocol, the environmental violation was committed in July 2005. Consequently, the one-year period established by law for bringing K. to administrative responsibility at the time of consideration of the case by the city court had not expired.

Under such circumstances, the judicial panel had no legal grounds for terminating the administrative violation case.

4.2 Problems of monitoring the solution of issues of environmental and sanitary-epidemiological well-being of the population

Monitoring the resolution of issues of environmental and sanitary-epidemiological well-being of the population is urgently necessary, since natural, man-made and terrorist situations dictate the need to strengthen the entire range of measures on these problems.

The right to a healthy environment is a kind of core of the right to a favorable environment - its necessary and permanent, most protected by law and most successfully implemented part. The object of the right to a healthy environment is such a natural environment (its quality), the condition of all components of which corresponds to established sanitary and hygienic standards. The concept of a “healthy” environment is associated, essentially, only with standards (maximum permissible concentrations, maximum permissible regulations, obuv, etc.), and a favorable environment is not only healthy (unpolluted), but also resource-intensive, environmentally sustainable, aesthetically rich and diverse human environment. A comparable approach exists in the Federal Law “On the Sanitary and Epidemiological Welfare of the Population” (Article 1): favorable conditions for human life – the state of the environment in which there is no harmful impact of its factors on humans (harmless conditions) and there are opportunities for restoration of damaged conditions. functions of the human body; safe conditions for humans - a state of the environment in which there is no danger of harmful effects of its factors on humans.

In addition, the Law of the Russian Federation “On Environmental Protection” does not establish any special rules for compensation for harm caused to the health and property of citizens as a result of violation of legislation in the field of environmental protection, and therefore, at present, this area of ​​relations is regulated directly by civil legislation.

The lack of formalized criteria for favorability causes significant difficulties in law enforcement and human rights activities. The difficulty of implementing the current constitutional norm (Article 42) is that it is possible to confirm or refute favorability in many situations only by expert means, since stability, aesthetics, balance and its other attributes are purely evaluative concepts. In turn, conducting examinations of this kind is a big problem - due to the lack of proven and generally accepted methods that make it possible to obtain conclusions acceptable for legal practice. Traditional examinations ordered by the courts to identify the causal relationship of the resulting disease or other health disorder with the influence of a specific harmful factor resulting from an accident or other pollution of natural objects, if they are carried out, often lead to a dead end. A person may not get a specific disease from this particular factor, although his general health inevitably suffers, his immunity decreases, existing chronic diseases worsen, and genetic disorders occur. And it turns out that, despite the obviousness of the environmental origin of the harm, causation as a legally significant category is unprovable. The situation is even more hopeless for victims when forensic medical examinations are appointed, but are not carried out due to lack of funding, the necessary specialists or other circumstances.

Of particular interest is the methodology for assessing environmental health. Conducting alternative types of research, namely bioindication, biotesting of other natural objects and ecosystems, may turn out to be even more preferable (fast, cheap, effective) than examinations carried out directly on people. For a long time, specialists from various branches of science have recognized that the universal criterion for the quality of the natural environment is the level of public health.

The shortcomings of this approach in law enforcement practice are well known. Only a small part of the harmful substances in use and circulation are regulated. In addition, the real consequences of non-compliance with regulations and standards may be completely different than those determined by calculation. There are known difficulties in carrying out environmental monitoring, without proper organization of which it is generally impossible to count on any reliability of the data justifying the decisions made. Linking only to current standards makes it difficult or impossible to make informed, safe decisions in their absence. The so-called tentatively safe exposure levels only emphasize the approximate nature of traditional methods for assessing the condition of natural objects. Meanwhile, there is a strict dependence of law precisely on these (normative) methods. As a result, there are insurmountable difficulties in proving compensation for harm caused to the environment and human health by pollution and other types of impacts - harm that is real, quite tangible, but qualified according to existing canons as “legitimate.” Here lies one of the significant reasons for the low efficiency of the legal mechanism for environmental protection.

The legislator does not limit the concept of environmentally harmful activities only to the framework of its illegality.

Environmental regulation remains gaping in terms of establishing maximum permissible loads (MPL) on the natural environment during the formation of territorial production complexes, the development of industry, agriculture, construction and urban reconstruction.

Thus, the most common problems of law enforcement practice in the field of environmental offenses are declarative nature and undeveloped norms. Lack of specific environmental quality indicators.

Conclusion

As a result of the analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn.

Violation of environmental legislation and failure to comply with the rules for protecting the natural environment today is extremely dangerous, therefore the legislation for offenses in this area provides for disciplinary, property, administrative and criminal liability depending on the guilt, environmental risk, and the degree of environmental danger of the actions of persons.

The work examines administrative responsibility for committing environmental offenses.

Environmental offenses, that is, guilty, illegal acts that violate environmental legislation and cause harm to the environment and human health.

A special chapter (Chapter 8) of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is devoted to administrative offenses in the field of environmental protection and responsibility for their commission.

The elements of environmental offenses are mainly concentrated in Chapter 8 “Administrative offenses in the field of environmental protection and natural resource management.” Some of them are placed in Chapter 7 “Administrative offenses in the field of property protection”, some - in Chapter 10 “Administrative offenses in agriculture, veterinary medicine and land reclamation”. The analysis of administrative legislation on liability for environmental offenses allows us to draw a number of conclusions. The number of articles has been changed and the number of elements of environmental offenses has been significantly expanded. The number of articles providing for liability for certain types of administrative offenses has been reduced by generalizing the characteristics of the offense. This eliminates the actual repetition of such special charges as obstruction of the activities of officials of control and supervision bodies, failure to comply with their legal requirements and instructions. Now these norms are contained in Chapter 19 “Administrative offenses against the order of management” and include elements of disobedience to a legal order or requirement of an official of a body exercising state supervision (control); obstruction of this official from carrying out his official duties (part 1 of article 19.4); failure to comply within the prescribed period with a legal order (resolution, presentation) of the body (official) exercising state supervision (control) to eliminate violations of the law (Part 1 of Article 19.5); failure to take, by resolution (representation) of the body (official) considering the case of an administrative offense, measures to eliminate the causes and conditions that contributed to the commission of an administrative offense (Article 19.6). Special offenses for failure to comply with legal requirements and obstruction of the exercise of powers of officials of the bodies protecting the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation are provided only if they relate to stopping a vessel, inspecting it, etc.

Although most of the elements of environmental offenses are formulated as formal, the constructions of material elements are also preserved.

The approach to the use of such composition structures as general and special has changed: the new Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation includes a number of general compositions (Articles 8.1 - 8.5), which, among other things, also fulfill the role of reserve norms. The signs of the objective side of many

traditional elements of environmental offenses. In a number of cases, the characteristics of the subject of an administrative offense are disclosed in detail. So, according to Art. 8.5 “Concealment or distortion of environmental information” the subject of the infringement is complete and reliable information about the state of the environment and natural resources, about sources of pollution of the environment and natural resources or other harmful effects on the environment and natural resources, about the radiation situation and other environmental objects.

The regulations defining the system of subjects of application of administrative penalties have become more complex, which reflects the complexity of the very structure of control and supervisory authorities. Departments such as the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation have the authority to apply administrative sanctions in a number of areas.

Thus, the existing legal regulations are significantly streamlined in environmental legislation. Special environmental and administrative legislation was harmonized. Responsibility has been introduced for types of behavior that were not previously punishable administratively. The characteristics of many compounds, first of all, the subject and the objective side, have been clarified.

However, there are also many shortcomings in the legislation in the field of environmental violations. Therefore, common

The problems of law enforcement practice in the field of environmental offenses are declarative nature and undeveloped norms. Lack of specific indicators of the quality of a favorable environment.

The Federal Law “On Environmental Protection” does not adequately address issues of liability for environmental violations and does not provide for types of environmental violations.

The application of administrative penalties to persons who have committed offenses in the field of use and protection of natural resources is an effective means of preventing the commission of new offenses both by the person who committed the offense and by other persons. The justified application of administrative penalties helps strengthen the rule of law and educate citizens in the spirit of compliance with the laws.

In the current environment, any steps aimed at weakening supervision and control in the environmental sphere should be assessed extremely negatively. Generalization of the experience of environmental institutions allows us to draw a conclusion about the need to further improve their activities.

One of the ways of such an approach in organizing environmental activities is the adoption of interdepartmental regulations covering related issues of environmental protection.

It is necessary to create new structures in all regions, the prototype of which can be the environmental police.

It should be noted that in January 2009, an environmental police department began operating in the Novosibirsk region, whose task is to systematically combat environmental offenses.

The main functions of the new division of the city police department are the identification, suppression and prevention of environmental crimes and administrative violations in this area, analysis of environmental crimes and offenses in the field of environmental protection in Novosibirsk.

Also, the environmental police will monitor the territories adjacent to enterprises and organizations of the city - their sanitary condition, facts of illegal acquisition of land, etc.

A new department in the structure of the department for combating offenses in the consumer market and implementing administrative legislation of the Internal Affairs Directorate for Novosibirsk was created by a resolution of the mayor and an order of the head of the Main Internal Affairs Directorate for the Novosibirsk Region.

The effectiveness of the system for resolving disputes, identifying elements of offenses and perpetrators, imposing and executing fair punishment for environmental violations remains the weak point of environmental activities, which also require perfection.

List of sources and literature used

Regulatory acts

1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation, adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993: as amended. dated December 30, 2008 // Russian newspaper.-1993.-December 25.-No. 13.

2. Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses dated December 30, 2001 N 195-FZ (as amended on March 16, 2006)//SZ RF.- 2002.- N 1 (Part 1). - art. 1.

3. Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On Environmental Expertise” dated November 23, 1995 No. 174-FZ, as amended. dated April 15, 1998 // SZ RF. -1995. - No. 48.- art. 4556.

4. Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On Environmental Protection” dated January 10, 2001 No. 7-FZ // SZ RF. -2002. - No. 2.- art. 133.

Scientific and educational literature

1. Administrative law of Russia: Textbook / B. N. Gabrichidze and others - M.: TK Welby, 2006. - 680 p.

2. Administrative law: Textbook / Ed. L.L. Popova. - M., 2004. - 786 p.

3. Administrative law of the Russian Federation / Rep. ed. N.Yu. Khamaneva.- M.: Yurist, 2005.-553 p.

4. Administrative law: Textbook (second edition, revised and expanded)/Ed. L.L. Popova.- M.: Yurist, 2005.- 678 p.

5. Bakhrakh D.N. Administrative law: Textbook for universities.-M.:NORMA, 2005.-344 p.

6. Bogolyubov S.A. Environmental law: Textbook for universities.-M.: NORMA-INFRA-M, 2002.- 667 p.

7. Brinchuk M.M. Environmental law (Environmental law). - M.: Yurist, 2004.-213p.

8. Dubovik O.L. Environmental law: Textbook. - M.: TK Welby, Prospect, 2003. - 258 p.

9. Makovik R.S. Land law. Environmental law: Summary of training courses in definitions, diagrams, comments. - M.: TON-Vocational Education, 2003.-174 p.

10. Article-by-article commentary on the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, expanded, using materials from judicial practice: In two books./ Ed. A.B. Agapova.- M.: Publishing house "Statut", 2006.- 789 p.

11. Solovey Yu.P., Chernikov V.V. Commentary on the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses: Introductory. - M.: Yurayt-M., 2002. - 324 p.

12. Timoshenko I.V. Administrative responsibility: Textbook. - M.: ICC “MarT”; Rostov n/d: Publishing center “MarT”, 2004.- 288 p.

13. Environmental law: Course of lectures and workshop/Ed. Doctor of Law, Prof. Yu.E. Vinokurova. - M.: Publishing house "Exam", 2003.-164 p.

14. Environmental law of Russia. Collection of materials of scientific and practical conferences. Issue four / Ed. A.K. Golichenkova. - M., 2003.-216 p.

15. Bolshakov A.A. Bringing to administrative responsibility for an offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 16.23 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation//Modern Law.- 2005.- No. 7.-P.35-39.

16. Blankov A., Shcheglova I. Administrative responsibility for offenses in the field of entrepreneurship. // Law.-2001.- No. 9.- P.82-83.

17. Bolshakov A.A. Bringing to administrative responsibility for an offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 16.23 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation//Modern Law.- 2005.- No. 7.-P.35-39.

18. Blankov A., Shcheglova I. Administrative responsibility for offenses in the field of entrepreneurship. // Law.-2001.-No.9.-S.82-83.

19. Dubovik O.L. Administrative liability for environmental violations: preliminary assessment of legislative reform // Environmental Law. - 2002. - N 2. - P. 32-34.

20. Zbanatsky O. On administrative contradictions//EZH-Lawyer.- 2007.- No. 13.-P.34-39.

21. Lukyanov V. Administrative offenses encroaching on public safety//Russian justice.- 2001.- No. 8.-P.17-24.

22. Pridannikova M.A. On some issues of interpretation and application of Article 15.26 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences//Jurist.- 2005.- No. 12.-P.31-35.

23. Stukanov A. The danger of administrative offenses // Legality. - 2005. - No. 11. - P. 9-13.

24. Ruchkin A.N. On the issue of the concept and types of administrative offenses of a selfish nature // Russian investigator. - 2005. - No. 3.-P.24-27.

25. Sharov A.V. On the main elements of administrative reform//Journal of Russian Law.- 2005.- No. 4.-P.18-21.

Anastasia Sergeevna Makarova, student, Orenburg State University, Orenburg [email protected]

Administrative liability for environmental violations

Abstract. This article defines the concept of administrative liability applied for environmental violations. The essence of administrative responsibility and its features is revealed. Classifications of the list of administrative offenses in the field of environmental protection and natural resource management and types of punishment for these offenses are given. It also identifies the main functions of administrative responsibility for violation of environmental legislation. Key words: administrative responsibility, offense, administrative offense, code of administrative offenses, environmental legislation.

Currently, the extraction and processing of mineral raw materials is the basis of the Russian economy. Scientific and technological progress and increased anthropogenic influence on the natural environment lead to an aggravation of the environmental situation in the country: pollution of the natural environment, depletion of natural resources, deterioration of public health, etc. In this regard, one of the most pressing problems is the protection of the natural environment. The number of environmental offenses is increasing every year. Environmental violations lead to unfavorable changes in the field of environmental protection and natural resource management. The law does not provide a precise definition of the concept of an environmental violation. But most often, any unlawful, guilty action or inaction of an individual or legal entity that does not comply with environmental legal norms and for which the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation or the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation provides for administrative liability is taken as an administrative environmental offense. Administrative liability is a multidimensional and multifaceted category of administrative law. It requires the most in-depth and complete study, according to for many reasons: Firstly, administrative responsibility is a type of state coercion controlled by administrative legal norms. Understanding the legal nature of administrative responsibility, the ability to compare measures of administrative responsibility with other types of administrative legal coercion is the most important task of administrative law, administrative law science and legal practice.

Secondly, legal norms establishing measures of administrative responsibility, elements of administrative offenses, and the procedure for using measures of administrative responsibility constitute a separate part of administrative law, called the institution of administrative responsibility. Knowledge of the institution of administrative responsibility is equally necessary when exercising state supervision in various areas: taxation, environmental protection, road safety, fire safety, etc.

Thirdly, administrative responsibility finds its external expression in the course of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses, which are carried out by joint actions of bodies and officials of the executive branch, local government, and judges. Professor A.B. Agapov believes that “administrative liability is coercive measures applied to a (individual, legal) person guilty of committing an administrative offense, limiting the property (non-property) rights of the violator or establishing additional responsibilities” Professor D.M. .Ovsyanko understands administrative responsibility as “the application of penalties for administrative offenses by relevant bodies and officials in order to have an educational impact on the offender and other persons.” Having summarized the most common definitions of administrative responsibility, it can be defined as a type of legal responsibility, which is expressed in the appointment by a body or official by a person vested with the appropriate powers, administrative punishment to an individual or legal entity that has committed an administrative offense. The concept of an administrative offense is contained in Art. 2.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation: “An administrative offense is an unlawful, guilty action (inaction) of an individual or legal entity for which administrative liability is established by this Code or the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses.” Administrative liability is characterized by:  firstly, the presence of its own legal framework governing various aspects of law enforcement activities of state authorities and local self-government;  secondly, it is of a universal nature, that is, its norms and rules are binding on all persons, both individuals and legal entities;  thirdly, it is appointed only for administrative offenses. The fundamental principles of administrative responsibility are: 1) the principle of legality; 2) the principle of inevitability of responsibility; 3) the principle of individualization of responsibility; 4) the principle of fairness; 5) the principle of the presumption of innocence (consists in the fact that a person against whom proceedings are being conducted for an administrative offense is considered innocent until his guilt will not be proven in the manner prescribed by the Code of Administrative Offenses, and established by a decision of the judge, body, or official who considered the case that has entered into legal force. )6) the principle of expediency (assumes compliance of the chosen measure of administrative legal action with the goals of administrative responsibility) 7) the principle of humanism (consists in the fact that the measure of punishment should not humiliate human dignity, his honor and other natural rights and freedoms of a person) Administrative responsibility in the field of environmental offenses occurs only for the commission of an act containing a specific element of an administrative offense. Unlike other types of legal liability, it is of a departmental nature. The peculiarity of administrative liability in the field of natural resource management and environmental protection is as follows:  the subject of an environmental offense is considered to be the totality of social relations developing in the sphere of use and protection of subsoil, lands, waters, forests, atmospheric air, and also flora and fauna;  occurs only for specific offenses defined in legislation as administrative;  administrative liability for environmental offenses provides for a warning, an administrative fine, confiscation of the instrument of committing an administrative offense, administrative arrest, administrative suspension of activities, withdrawal of a license to use resources , compensation for damage caused to the natural environment, and administrative expulsion for foreign citizens and stateless persons;  administrative liability is imposed on both citizens of the Russian Federation and foreign citizens, stateless persons, as well as officials and legal entities;  applied in accordance with the competence of the special authorized body or official;  according to Article 3.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, only penalties provided for by law can be applied, but Article 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for the possibility of exemption from them if the offense is insignificant. Bringing to administrative responsibility for environmental offenses does not relieve the guilty person from the obligation to compensate for environmental damage caused ( harm). This is explained by the fact that although the fine is of a material nature and is a punitive measure, and not compensation for harm: the corresponding amount of the fine does not go to the victim for compensation for harm, but is sent in accordance with the law to the budget or special accounts of environmental funds. The amount of the administrative fine imposed for citizens, ranges from three to twenty minimum wages (minimum wage); for officials from 3 to 200 minimum wages; for legal entities from 100 minimum wages. In ch. 8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “Administrative offenses in the field of environmental protection and natural resource management” includes a number of articles providing for administrative liability for environmental offenses. The list of administrative offenses in the field of environmental protection and natural resource management can be conditionally classified according to various criteria. According to the types of natural resources that are damaged, they are divided into the following groups: 1) in the field of environmental information (Article 8.1, 8.4, 8.5, 8.40); 2) protection of lands (Articles 8.6,8.7,8.8);

3) protection of subsoil (Articles 8.9, 8.10, 8.11);

4) protection of atmospheric air (Article 8.21.);

5) protection of water resources (Articles 8.12–8.20);

6) forest protection (Article 8.24–8.32.);

7) protection of wildlife (Articles 8.33–8.38.);

8) disposal of production waste (Articles 8.2,8.19);

9) in the field of agriculture (Article 8.3);

in the field of transport (Article 8.22, 8.23). It can also be divided into the following groups:  The first group consists of offenses establishing liability for violation of basic environmental legal norms, which apply to all institutions of environmental law. These requirements include: Article 8.4. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “Violation of the legislation on environmental impact assessment”; Article 8.5. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “Concealment or distortion of environmental information”, Article 8.41. “Failure to pay fees for negative impact on the environment within the established time limits”, Article 8.46. “Failure to fulfill or untimely fulfillment of the obligation to submit an application for state registration of objects that have a negative impact on the environment, to provide information to update registration information”  The second category includes offenses that establish liability for violation of rules for the protection of individual natural objects. Such as damage to land (Article 8.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation); Violation of rules for the protection of water bodies (Article 8.13. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation); Violation of rules for the protection of atmospheric air (Article 8.21. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation); Violation of the rules for the use of forests (Article 8.25 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation); Violation of the rules for the protection of aquatic biological resources (Article 8.38 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation); Violation of the rules for protecting the habitat or migration routes of wildlife and aquatic biological resources (Article 8.33 of the Code of Administrative Offences);  The third group includes the elements of the offense that determine responsibility for failure to comply with the legal order of lands with a special environmental and legal status. For example, Article 8.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “Failure to fulfill obligations for land reclamation, mandatory measures to improve land and protect soils”;  The fourth group includes offenses due to failure to comply with conditions in the field of environmental protection on the farm or other activities. These include non-compliance with environmental and sanitary-epidemiological requirements when handling production and consumption waste, substances that destroy the ozone layer, or other hazardous substances (Article 8.2. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation); Violation of the regime for carrying out economic and other activities within the boundaries of flood zones, flooding (Article 8.44 of the Administrative Code); Violation of the rules for the operation of water management or water protection structures and devices (Article 8.15 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation); Unauthorized use of forests, violation of the rules for the use of forests for agriculture, destruction of forest resources (Article 8.26. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). etc. Administrative responsibility for environmental crimes carries out several key functions:  stimulating compliance with environmental legal norms;  compensatory, aimed at compensating for losses in the environment and compensation for damage to human health;  preventive, ensuring the prevention of new crimes;  punitive, consisting in punishing the perpetrator for committing environmental violations. In addition to Chapter 8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation on the commission of environmental offenses, the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of January 10, 2002 “On Environmental Protection” (Article 75), the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of March 30, 1999 “On the Sanitary and Epidemiological Welfare of the Population” (Article 55), the Land Code Code of the Russian Federation of October 25, 2001 (Article 74), Forest Code of the Russian Federation of January 29, 1997 (Article NO), Water Code of the Russian Federation of November 16, 1995 (Article 130), Law of the Russian Federation of February 21, 1992 "About the subsoil" (Article 49) and others. These articles list the types of legal liability, including administrative ones, for non-compliance with environmental legislation. Failure to comply with environmental legislation, as well as failure to comply with rules for protecting the natural environment, is today considered extremely dangerous, in connection with this legislation provides for offenses in this area various types of legal liability depending on guilt, the level of environmental threat, as well as environmental risk.

The elements of environmental administrative offenses are concentrated in Chapter 8 “Administrative offenses in the field of environmental protection and natural resource management.” Some of them are placed in Chapter 7 “Administrative offenses in the field of property protection”, as well as part in Chapter 10. “Administrative offenses in agriculture, veterinary medicine and land reclamation.” There are some elements of environmental offenses in Ch. 19 “Administrative offenses against management order.”

Administrative liability is established for non-compliance with environmental requirements during planning, feasibility studies of projects, design, placement, construction, reconstruction, commissioning, operation of enterprises, structures or other facilities (Article 8.1), non-compliance with environmental and sanitary-epidemiological requirements when handling with production and consumption waste or other hazardous substances (Article 8.2), violation of the rules for handling pesticides and agrochemicals (Article 8.3), violation of the legislation on environmental assessment (Article 8.4), concealment or distortion of environmental information (Article 8.5).

The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for this responsibility for violation of the rules for the protection and use of certain natural resources and natural complexes. Responsibility is provided for in Art. 8.6-8.40 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. This is a violation of the rules for the protection and use of land (damage to land, Article 8.6) and other violations associated with increased responsibilities for intended use, failure to implement mandatory measures to improve land and protect soils (Article 8.7-8.8).

Administrative liability for violation of rules and requirements for protection and rational use, as well as for carrying out work on geological study of subsoil (Articles 8.10 - 8.11).

Administrative offenses in the field of environmental protection and natural resource management are also provided for in Articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation 8.12-8.15.

Responsibility under these articles arises for violation of the procedure for granting for use and the regime of use of land plots and forests in water protection zones and coastal strips of water bodies and violation of the rules for the protection of water bodies, rules for water use, operation of water management or water protection structures and devices. Further, the elements of administrative offenses related to violation of the rules of protection and use of the continental shelf and in the exclusive economic zone of the Russian Federation (Articles 8.18 – 8.21).

Responsibility for violation of atmospheric air protection rules related to the operation of motor vehicles exceeding the standards for the content of pollutants in emissions or noise level standards (Article 8.21 – 8.23). Liability for violation of the rules for the protection and use of forest resources, inspection of logging sites in forests not included in the forest fund, as well as violations of forest management rules, violation of the rules for secondary forest management, etc. (Articles 8.25–8.32). The elements of offenses entailing liability for violation of rules for the protection and use of wildlife, destruction of animal habitats (Article 8.29), violation of rules for the habitat or migration routes of animals, violation of the established procedure for the creation, use or transportation of biological collections (Article 8.34), destruction of rare or endangered species species of animals or plants (Article 8.35), violation of the rules of relocation, acclimatization or hybridization of objects of the animal world (Article 8.36), violation of the rules for the use of objects of the animal world (Article 8.37) and

violation of the protection of fish stocks (Article 8.38), violation of the rules for the protection and use of natural resources in specially protected natural areas (Article 8.39).

Administrative liability arises for violation of requirements when carrying out work in the field of hydrometeorology, monitoring of environmental pollution and active influences on hydrometeorological and other geophysical processes (Article 8.40).

Managers and other employees of other organizations, as well as persons engaged in business activities, who have committed administrative offenses in connection with the performance of organizational and economic functions

without forming a legal entity, bear administrative responsibility as officials, unless otherwise provided by law.

Administrative responsibility is borne by military personnel and other persons who are subject to the Disciplinary Regulations (Article 2.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Legal entities are subject to administrative liability for committing administrative offenses provided for in the articles of Section II of the Code or the laws of constituent entities of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses.

In administrative legislation, environmental offenses are formulated into the following groups: protection of ownership of natural resources (Chapter 7); environmental protection and resource management (Chapter 8) and in agriculture, veterinary medicine and land reclamation (Chapter 10). The group of environmental offenses associated with violation of laws in the field of protection of ownership of natural resources is the following: unauthorized occupation of a land plot (Article 4.1 ), destruction of special signs (Article 7.2), use of subsoil without a permit (license) or in violation of the conditions provided for by the permit (license) (Article 7.3), unauthorized development of mineral resource areas (Article 7.4), unauthorized extraction of amber ( Art. 7.5), unauthorized occupation of a water body or use of it without permission (license) (Art. 7.6), damage to hydraulic engineering, water management or

water protection structure, arrangement or installation (Article 7.7), unauthorized occupation of a land plot of the coastal strip of a water body, water protection zone of a water body or zone (district) of sanitary protection of sources of drinking and domestic water supply (Article 7.8), unauthorized occupation of a forest area or a forest plot not included in the forest fund (Article 7.9), unauthorized assignment of the right to use land, subsoil, a forest fund plot, a forest plot not included in the forest fund, or a water body (Article 7.10), use of fauna objects without permits (licenses) (Article 7.10), illegal allocation of land plots on specially protected lands of historical and cultural significance (Article 7.16).

The listed administrative offenses committed in the field of protection of ownership of natural resources generally cover the range of environmental relations arising from the use and protection of the environment.

According to Article 2.1. Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, an administrative offense is an unlawful, guilty action (inaction) of an individual or legal entity for which administrative liability is established.

As can be seen from the content of the article, the new Code does not use the term “administrative offense”, but uses the concept of “administrative offense”. Administrative liability occurs if, by their nature, the offender’s actions do not entail criminal liability. Subjects of administrative liability are individuals and legal entities. Citizens are brought to administrative responsibility if they reach the age of sixteen at the time of committing an administrative offense (Article 2.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). As for the administrative liability of officials, they are subject to the specified liability in the event of an administrative offense in connection with non-fulfillment or improper execution

their official duties (Article 2.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Administrative legislation understands an official as a person, permanently, temporarily or in accordance with special powers

carrying out the functions of a representative of government, that is, vested in the manner prescribed by law with administrative powers in relation to persons who are not officially dependent on him, as well as a person performing organizational and administrative or administrative functions in state bodies, local bodies

self-government, state bodies and municipalities, as well as in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and military formations of the Russian Federation.

Administrative offenses committed in agriculture, veterinary medicine and land reclamation also include a large group of offenses. Responsibility for these offenses is determined by Articles 10.1-10.3, 10.6-10.10 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

For example, Article 10.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “Violation of the procedure for the import and export of regulated products (regulated material, regulated cargo)” and other articles aimed at protecting the environment in agriculture. A Art. 10.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for liability for violation of animal quarantine rules or other veterinary and sanitary rules in the field of animal conservation. As can be seen from these elements, environmental administrative offenses are committed by individuals (citizens and officials), as well as legal entities.

The procedure for bringing perpetrators to administrative responsibility for environmental offenses is regulated by the norms of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and the Rules for the implementation of environmental control by officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation and its territorial bodies, approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation on April 17, 1996.

For the commission of administrative offenses the following administrative penalties may be established and applied: warning; administrative fine; compensated seizure of the instrument or object

administrative offense; confiscation of the instrument of commission or

the subject of the administrative offense; deprivation of a special right granted to an individual; administrative arrest; administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation of a foreign citizen or stateless person; disqualification (Article 3.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

The most widespread practice in the application of punishment is a fine. The main purpose of this punishment is

prevention of illegal actions committed in more severe forms,

and entailing detrimental consequences for natural objects. The current legislation provides for the possibility of indexing the amount of fines imposed in the field of environmental protection and natural resource management.

The bodies that are granted the right to impose administrative penalties are specially authorized state bodies of the Russian Federation in the field of environmental management and environmental protection (sanitary and epidemiological supervision, nature protection committees of the constituent entities of the Federation, land control bodies, labor inspectorates of trade unions and others).

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, when imposing an administrative penalty on an individual, the nature of the administrative offense committed by him, the identity of the perpetrator, his property status, and circumstances mitigating administrative responsibility are taken into account. Similar rules of administrative punishment are established for legal entities.

No one can be held administratively liable twice for the same administrative offense. State inspectors play an important role in ensuring law and order in the field of environmental protection. They carry out measures to prevent, identify and eliminate environmental violations and bring those responsible to justice. For example, when an environmental violation is detected

The fishing inspector and hunting inspector draw up a protocol on an administrative offense in accordance with Article 28.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. An individual is given the opportunity to familiarize himself with the contents of the protocol, and he has the right to make comments that are attached to the protocol.

Based on the protocol, the state environmental protection inspector issues a resolution to impose a fine for an administrative offense on the basis of Article 75 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Environmental Protection” and Art. 3.5 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

The amount of the fine imposed on the perpetrator depends on the degree of guilt of the offender and the harm caused. The decision to impose a fine is drawn up in at least three copies, one of which is handed over to the guilty party against a signature or sent by mail.

The fine must be paid within 15 days. The decision to impose a fine can be appealed in court or arbitration court. The perpetrator is not exempt from compensation for damage caused by an environmental offense.

In accordance with Article 78 of the Law “On Environmental Protection”, compensation for damage to the environment caused by violation of legislation in the field of environmental protection is carried out voluntarily or by decision of a court or arbitration court.

Outwardly close to administrative fines are some monetary sanctions applied in the field of civil law relations. These are, in particular, penalties imposed for violation of timber release rules

on the vine. They, however, cannot be identified with administrative fines, since each of them has specific characteristics.

In the adopted law of the Russian Federation of June 22, 2007. No. 116 -FZ “On amendments to the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses in terms of changing the method of expressing the monetary penalty imposed for an administrative offense.” The law was aimed at eliminating the minimum wage, since it made it difficult to calculate monetary penalties as administrative

punishment of persons violating environmental legislation.

In Art. 3.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, an administrative fine is defined as a monetary penalty, which is expressed in rubles and is established for citizens in an amount not exceeding five thousand rubles; for officials - fifty thousand rubles; for legal entities - one million rubles or can be expressed as a multiple. Further, the legislator explains what exactly this multiplicity is expressed in. We emphasize that the procedure when the administration of state reserves, state inspectors for the use and protection of land, for monitoring the operation of gas purification and dust collection plants transfer the materials they have prepared for consideration to administrative commissions under municipal authorities is not entirely justified.

As a result of such transfer, the time frame for considering cases is delayed, in some cases they are resolved less skillfully than by special bodies, excessive paperwork arises between inspections and administrative commissions, and control over the implementation of decisions made is complicated. The commission often shows liberalism towards offenders, giving them the opportunity to evade responsibility provided for by law.

Practice shows that the effectiveness of administrative responsibility in the field of environmental protection and natural resource management depends on the efficiency of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses (many cases are considered in violation of the established 2-month period from the date of the offense, and for ongoing offenses - two months from the date of discovery ). There are other reasons leading to a decrease in the effectiveness of administrative activities to combat environmental violations.

In recent years, in the practice of applying environmental legislation, there has been a tendency to tighten liability. Thus, changes were made to the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses dated June 22, 20051. These changes mainly concern Articles 8.24-8.32. They are talking about responsibility in the field of environmental protection.

For example, Article 8.26 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation “Violation of the rules for secondary forest management”, the content of which is not clear to everyone. Essentially, it is about grazing livestock where it is prohibited, about the unauthorized collection or destruction of “forest litter,” that is, mosses, lichens, and swamp cover. In addition, this article states that it is also a violation to place apiaries where it is not allowed, and to collect tree sap, mushrooms and berries where this should not be done. In connection with the change in articles, the sanctions are as follows: fines have increased, and confiscation of the “instrument of the offense” has appeared and

prepared products. Article 2.28 talks about illegal cutting of trees, damaging them or digging up bushes, vines and trees. Moreover, both in the forest and in forest nurseries and plantations. There was only one clause in this article. Now a second clause has appeared, which determines that if the destruction or digging up of bushes, vines, trees occurs with the use of mechanisms, vehicles, self-propelled machines and other equipment, and if these actions do not fall under criminal liability, but only under administrative liability, then a fine will be levied from citizens - from 1.5 to 2.5 thousand rubles with confiscation of excavated equipment and equipment, and from officials - from 3 thousand to 4 thousand rubles. From legal entities - from 30 thousand to 40 thousand rubles. And everywhere, confiscation of equipment and dug up plants is also provided. In order for these new articles to work, the same federal law amended Article 23.1. It talks about judges considering administrative cases. Articles that have been amended have been added to the list.

At the same time, emphasizing the positive phenomenon - the increase in fines, we note that their size is still small for the destruction of natural objects. But what is dug, mined or harvested will more than cover it, and also provides a certain benefit. Therefore, there must be sanctions that will not make it possible to destroy nature.

In addition, a new article 8.41 has been introduced, establishing liability for failure to pay fees for negative environmental impacts within the established time limits. It seems that the application of this article by environmental authorities will to some extent improve the state of the environment.

The revival of administrative commissions in the constituent entities of the federation is indicative. Thus, in the Chelyabinsk region, the Legislative Assembly of September 27, 2007. The law “On Administrative Commissions” was adopted. The law allowed municipalities to create administrative commissions that will consider only cases of violations provided for by the regional law “On Administrative Offenses.” This approach to resolving this issue does not contradict federal legislation.

The commissions will consider cases of violations of local rules regarding landscaping and landscaping, ticketless transport, keeping animals and other matters at the local level.

It is assumed that administrative commissions will help relieve justices of the peace. The decision of the administrative commissions is binding. The quantitative composition of the commission will be at least 5 people, all of whom except the head will perform their functions on a voluntary basis.

The law determined that in municipalities with a population of up to 95 thousand people the chairman will work part-time, in cities and regions with a population of more than 95 thousand people - full-time. Thus, in Chelyabinsk and Magnitogorsk, commissions will be created in each district. For this purpose, seven and three rates have been allocated, respectively. These figures are minimal; the municipality can increase the number of commissions, expand their number, and add paid positions. Financial expenses will be covered by the regional budget.