The state of recidivism indicates that the theoretical, legislative and law enforcement issues of its prevention is still relevant. There are different levels and directions of this warning. When developing and implementing appropriate measures, it is necessary to consider the current situation and existing opportunities in a particular state, the positive experience accumulated in it, the practices implemented in other countries, as well as the prospects for development. This study was conducted to reveal the opinions of convicts and employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia on certain issues of preventing recidivism, as well as to develop proposals for improving measures aimed at this prevention, with regard to the state of recidivism. The study analyzed and summarized official statistical data, conducted a questionnaire survey of convicts and employees of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, studied the experience of other countries in the sphere of the penitentiary and post-penitentiary impact on convicts, and studied the results of studies conducted by other authors. The work presents the results of the analysis and synthesis of statistical data on recidivism over a long period, as well as the data of the author’s survey, and articulates specific proposals for changing existing and new developing measures to prevent recidivism.

The purpose of the study is to identify the main trends and factors influencing the development of the theoretical concept of the legal system and possible categories derived from it. The methodological basis of the research is represented by such scientific methods as dialectical, logical, historical, predictive, systemic analysis and content analysis. This made it possible, in view of achievement of the said objective, to analyse the works of Russian and foreign comparativists, both the founders of modern comparative jurisprudence and novice researchers, as well as the materials of scientific conferences on the problem under investigation. The result of the study was the conclusion that the complex nature of the category “legal system” makes it possible to form a holistic picture of legal reality. At the same time, the result of the research depends on the criterion laid as a basis for this concept. The paper also substantiates the fact that presently one may observe a tendency towards a comprehensive understanding of the legal system, towards rejection of the formational approach in favour of the socio-cultural one, with regard for a number of other internal and external factors affecting the formation and functioning of the legal system. The novelty of the study was the conclusion that the concept of the legal system, as well as the categories derived from it, so far represent the basic theoretical function in formulating hypotheses, setting goals and objectives of comparative legal research. At the same time, the authors note that a unified approach to comprehending the essence, typology and classification of legal systems is objectively not possible in the conditions of multiple legal cultures and traditions of legal consciousness, which, ultimately, should be assessed as a positive stimulus for further research.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9694-9840Аннотация. В статье рассмотрена законодательная регуляция, содержание и алгоритм проверки правомерности административного акта с учетом того, что противоправность административного акта является одной из предпосылок обоснованности административного иска об оспаривании в праве ФРГ. На основе германской юридической литературы и судебной практики раскрывается принцип законности публичного управления, а также описываются вытекающие из указанного принципа предпосылки правомерности административного акта. Принцип законности публичного управления содержит два компонента: принцип приоритета закона, согласно которому органы публичного управления должны действовать в соответствии с законом, и принцип оговорки в законе, в соответствии с которым органы публичного управления вправе действовать только в том случае, если они были уполномочены на это законом. Следовательно, административный акт является правомерным, если он базируется на уполномочивающем правовом основании, при его издании были соблюдены законодательные требования относительно компетентности издавшего органа, процедуры принятия акта и его формы (формальная правомерность) и орган публичного управления должным образом реализовал требования правового основания относительно правовых условий его применения и выбора правовых последствий (материальная правомерность). В качестве правового последствия закон может предусматривать обязательное (связанное) решение либо предоставлять публичной администрации свободу выбора между различными вариантами действий (свобода усмотрения). Усмотрение при этом должно быть осуществлено в соответствии с целью предоставленных полномочий и с соблюдением границ, установленных законом, а также вытекающих из конституционных принципов соразмерности, равного обращения и соблюдения основных прав.

The study’s objective is to develop theoretical provisions revealing the conceptual features of forming and implementing conciliation procedures. The authors pay special attention to the most controversial issues that prevent their dissemination in the Russian Federation. The methodological basis of the study consisted of dialectical analysis, which allowed to evaluate the results of rule-making and law enforcement; the comparative-legal method contributed to an objective assessment of the quality of existing legislation; the systematic method allowed to interpret the categorical apparatus on the example of studying “conciliation procedures”; the method of legal modeling allowed to formulate a model of conciliation procedures, which has a separate, independent place in the legislation of several countries. The result of the work was to draw attention to the meaning of “conciliation procedures” in its empirical and functional aspect and to prove that conciliation procedures, with their objective and subjective justification, are a fundamental category of modern objective law, in which the freedom of choice of subjects of law is not limited to permissive and administrative means, but must be justified by the essence of the dispute being resolved and the final result. The study’s novelty is the conclusion that in some cases, the reference to legislation providing for “conciliation procedures” for legal entities is not always consistent and does not reflect its ontological nature. For, conciliation procedures, expressing an example of the permissive rule of Russian legislation with the peculiarities of its legal regulation of certain legal institutions, should be aimed at developing voluntary settlement by the parties to a legal dispute as a special type of social conflict.