|Articles and journals | Tariffs | Payments | Your profile|
Published in journal "The Union of Criminalists and Criminologists", 2015-3 in rubric "The young criminalists and criminologists", pages 361-366.
Resume: The article considers the general issues of administrative responsibility in the sphere of budget and finance legislation provision and analyzes the current budget institution. The author applies the comparative-legal, dialectical and logical methods. The conclusions of the study can be used in the process of application of administrative responsibility for such offences. At present, there are two views on the question, what branch of law should the complex institution of responsibility be assigned to. According to one position, it is necessary to preserve the administrative responsibility provisions; according to another, it is necessary to maintain the supremacy of the Administrative Offences Code in this sphere. The research methodology is based on dialectics, abstraction, analysis, synthesis, deduction, the formal-legal, comparative-legal and statistical methods and the method of intersectoral legal studies. The specificity of budget offences requires to establish a special period of limitation. During the previously established annual period, the measures of responsibility for the violations of budget legislation couldn’t be applied effectively. In accordance with the new version of the article 4.5 of the Administrative Offences Code, the new period of limitation for administrative offences in the budget sphere is two years. Yet another positive moment is the correlation of some compositions of administrative offences in the Administrative Offences Code with the types of budget offences in the Budgetary Code. Now the Budgetary Code contains only five types of budget offences, and all of them have the corresponding compositions of administrative offences.
Keywords: offence, provisions, financial and legal responsibility, administrative responsibility, budget legislation, conviction, restrictions, budget, guarantees, compensation
Geykhman O. M. Byudzhetno-pravovaya otvetstvennost': Avtoref. ... dis. kand. yurid. nauk. M., 2004. 174 c.
Zalibekova D.Z. Problemy otvetstvennosti za narushenie byudzhetnogo zakonodatel'stva // Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal. 2015. ¹ 8. URL: http://www.eurasiafinace.ru/novosti-v-mire/748-problemy-otvetstvennosti-za-narushenie-byudzhetnogo-zakonodatelstva.html
Konyukhova T.V. Ob otvetstvennosti za narushenie byudzhetnogo zakonodatel'stva // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. M., 2010. ¹ 4 (160). URL: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ob-otvetstvennosti-za-narushenie-byudzhetnogo-zakonodatelstva
Parygina V. A., Tedeev A. A. Kommentariy k Byudzhetnomu kodeksu Rossiyskoy Federatsii. M., 2006.
Pokachalova E.V., Razgil'dieva M.B. Institut otvetstvennosti za narusheniya byudzhetnogo zakonodatel'stva RF: problemy pravoprimeneniya i tolkovaniya // Izvestiya vuzov. Pravovedenie. 2011. N 2.
Correct link to this article:
just copy this link to clipboard