Избирательная ретроактивность: критерии определения момента признания нормативного правового акта недействующим в порядке административного судопроизводства (А.М. Чирнинов, журнал "Правоприменение", том 6, N 4, октябрь-декабрь 2022 г.)

Чирнинов А.М. Избирательная ретроактивность: критерии определения момента признания нормативного правового акта недействующим в порядке административного судопроизводства

А.М. Чирнинов - кандидат юридических наук, старший научный сотрудник отдела права Институт философии и права Уральского отделения Российской академии наук, доцент кафедры конституционного права Уральский государственный юридический университет им. В.Ф. Яковлева

Исследуются критерии, используемые судами общей юрисдикции для определения момента, с которого нормативный правовой акт или его часть признаются недействующими. Обобщаются все возможные точки отсчета и анализируется, насколько корректно суды мотивируют выбор конкретных темпоральных параметров своего решения. Выявлены ситуации, когда нормативные правовые акты признавались недействующими на будущее время, хотя их дисквалификация со дня принятия не подрывала бы конституционные ценности, но в то же время способствовала бы восстановлению прав граждан и полноценной реализации принципа правового государства. Обосновывается необходимость закрепления в Кодексе административного судопроизводства РФ конкретных критериев для определения момента признания нормативного правового акта недействующим.

Ключевые слова: Судебный нормоконтроль, ретроактивность, административное судопроизводство, недействующий нормативный правовой акт, обратная сила

Chirninov A.M. Selective retroactivity: criteria for determining the moment of declaring a law null and void in a russian administrative judicial proceedings

A.M. Chirninov - PhD in Law, Senior Researcher Institute of Philosophy and Law, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Associate Professor, Department of Constitutional Law Ural State Law University named after V.F. Yakovlev

The subject. Any legal order is based on a strict hierarchy of normative acts, built according to their legal force. This hierarchy has been ensured by, among other things, exercising judicial review. In Russia, a normative act can be challenged on the grounds that it contradicts laws of greater legal force, except for the Russian Constitution, in the procedure provided for in Chapter 21 of the Russian Code of Administrative Proceedings. In doing so, one of the crucial questions to be decided in the course of judicial review of normative acts is the determination of the moment when a normative act contradicting a normative act of greater legal force ceases to be valid. This temporal aspect is extremely important because it determines whether individuals whose rights have been violated by law enforcement acts (acts involving application of the law) based on a null and void law are entitled to seek judicial relief. The purpose of the article is to confirm or refute hypothesis about the permissibility of a situation in which unlawful normative act remains valid for a certain time. The methodology of research includes formal legal analysis and interpretation of the norms of the Russian Code of Administrative Proceedings, decisions of the Russian Constitutional Court and other courts.

The main results, scope of application. This article deals with the criteria used by Russian courts of general jurisdiction to determine the moment from which a normative act becomes invalid. The study summarizes all the available options and analyzes how correctly courts justify their choice of a specific timeline and whether their rulings are consistent with constitutional requirements. Having considered recent Russian case law, the author concludes that the current rules for determining the moment of declaring a law null and void are unsatisfactory since they do not provide clear and unambiguous criteria, guided by which Russian courts could determine the moment a normative act becomes invalid. The Russian Code of Administrative Proceedings only indicates three options: a court may strike down a law from the date of its adoption, from the date a judgment enters into legal force, or from another date determined by the court. As a result, courts can rule on the retroactivity of their judgments in their sole discretion, which significantly increases the risks of selective justice and arbitrary law enforcement practice. The guidelines developed by the Plenum of the Russian Supreme Court is of little help because while offering some criteria, they contain only dispositive rules, which only aggravates the state of uncertainty. The study also shows that Russian courts tend to declare a challenged law invalid only for the future, even though its disqualification from the moment of its introduction would not undermine constitutional values and, at the same time, would lead to a fairer judgment, allowing to safeguard the rule of law and restore the rights violated by a null and void law. Conclusions. The author argues that in any case, new legal rules announced by a court should have retroactive effect if it promotes a legal status of citizens in relations with the Russian state and public authorities. This approach should be taken in cases concerning social grants, pensions, and other social benefits. This approach can also be taken in cases where the state is a losing party in a civil action.

Keywords: Judicial review, retroactivity, administrative judicial proceeding, null and void law, retroactive force