XV Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2023

The question of the subjects of legal relations for compensation for harm caused by unlawful actions of law enforcement and judicial bodies and their officials has remained and remains the most entertaining for centuries in terms of compensation for harm caused by public authorities. Because Art. 1070 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in its semantic load, refers to the infliction of harm from illegal actions of law enforcement agencies in the form of arrest, detention, illegal criminal prosecution and the application of other procedural measures of responsibility, is compensated at the expense of the treasury of the Russian Federation, and also, in cases directly indicated in the law at the expense of the treasury of the subject of the Russian Federation or the treasury of the municipality in full and regardless of the fault of officials. Whence it follows that it is the state that is the subject that is obliged to compensate for harm in accordance with Art. 1070 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

The imposition of compensatory obligations on the state to compensate for harm is explained by the fact that the illegal activities of public authorities, as noted by L. R. Dussaeva, are considered in legal practice as a failure by the state to comply with its direct obligation to protect the rights, freedoms and legitimate functioning of the designated organs.

Considering the issue of subjects within the framework of Article 1070 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it should be noted that the bodies listed in Article 1070 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation are only links in the system created by the state to compensate for harm caused by the bodies of officials.In any legal relationship from causing harm (legal relations for compensation for harm caused by law enforcement, judicial bodies and their officials are no exception), the subjects of obligations to compensate for harm are three links:actual tortfeasor; victim of harm caused by officials (authorized person for compensation for harm); a third party who may be held liable for damages. Considering the above links, it is worth referring to Article 1070 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which states that the actual tortfeasors are the bodies of inquiry, preliminary investigation, prosecutor's office and court, as well as their officials.

Of particular importance for this study is the fact that the state is the bearer of sovereignty and exercises its state power and prosecutes for criminal offenses through the law enforcement and judicial bodies created by it for this purpose, as well as officials of these bodies.

It is impossible not to agree with the positions of scientists on the correctness of laying responsibility on the state, since the harm caused by the illegal activities of law enforcement and judicial bodies and their officials must be considered as a violation by the state itself of its obligation to protect the rights, freedoms, legitimate interests of citizens, as well as the failure of the state to ensure the legitimate functioning of bodies and officials endowed with power functions.

According to Art. 1070 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, harm caused to a citizen as a result of illegal actions of law enforcement and judicial bodies and their officials is compensated at the expense of the treasury of the Russian Federation, and in cases provided for by law, at the expense of the treasury of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation or the treasury of a municipal formation in full and regardless of fault of officials of the relevant state body. On behalf of the treasury, the relevant financial authorities act if, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 125 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, this obligation is not assigned to another body.

Within the framework of this issue, it is necessary to consider an unusual point of view, according to which the treasury is considered as a subject of law, so the Soviet and Russian lawyer, legal scholar S.N. Bratus said that “The state is not the property of the treasury, but the treasury itself as a subject of civil law. This is not an object, these are not objects, but this is the state itself, acting as a treasury. However, the position of S.N. Bratus did not find approval from Yu.Kh. Kalmykov, who spoke about the need to consider the treasury exclusively as property, since there is no special body – the treasury. To date, such a body exists, but it is impossible to say that the treasury is a state and it is impossible to single out the treasury as a subject of law.Summarizing the above, we can conclude that the formation of a legal regime in which harm is compensated by the state at the expense of the treasury significantly increases the effectiveness of the institution of compensation for harm, as it provides citizens and legal entities with a more reliable and quick source of compensation, thus the state provides timely protection and full recovery social justice than in the case of compensation for harm by individual officials or public authorities.

Bibliography:

1. Azarov V.A., Suprun S.V. Protection of the property interests of the individual in the areas of operational-search and criminal procedure activities: Monograph. Omsk: Omsk Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. 2001, p. 14.

2. Bratus S.N. Legal responsibility and legitimacy. - M.: Legal literature, 1976. S. 83.

3. Dusaeva L. R. Subjects of legal relations for compensation for harm caused by illegal actions of law enforcement agencies // Scientific almanac. 2020. No. 3-2 (65). pp. 53-55.

4. Kalmykov Yu.Kh. Favorites. Proceedings. Articles / Comp. O.M. Kozyr, O.Yu. Pintail. M.: Statut, 1998. S. 213-215.