Affiliation:
1. Institute of Philosophy and Law, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
Ural State Law University named after V.F. Yakovlev
Abstract
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.
Publisher
Dostoevsky Omsk State University
Reference20 articles.
1. Ghatan G.J. The Incentive Problem with Prospective Overruling: A Critique of the Practice. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal, 2010, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 179–211.
2. Fisch J.E. Retroactivity and Legal Change: An Equilibrium Approach. Harvard Law Review, 1996, vol. 110, pp. 1055–1123.
3. Kay R.S. Retroactivity and Prospectivity of Judgments in American Law. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 2014, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 37–67.
4. Roosevelt III K. A Little Theory Is a Dangerous Thing: The Myth of Adjudicative Retroactivity. Connecticut Law Review, 1998, vol. 31, no. 3. P. 1075–1137.
5. Shannon B.S. The Retroactive and Prospective Application of Judicial Decisions. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2003, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 811–876.