PROCEDURAL FORMS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY OF BUSINESS ENTITIES: REGULATORY AND THEORETICAL ASPECTS

Abstract

It is based on the expediency of distinguishing the procedural form of legal liability from procedural liability. It is determined that procedural liability refers to the means of state coercion, and is implemented in such varieties as criminal procedural liability, arbitration procedural liability, administrative procedural liability, constitutional liability and civil procedural liability. It is emphasized that the functional application of procedural liability measures is aimed at finding regulatory grounds for its implementation by authorities. It is argued that the implementation of the procedural form of administrative liability is reflected in such typical models as: classical (associated with the consideration of an administrative case, with compliance with the procedure specified in the Code of Administrative Offenses); mixed; quasi-procedural; extra-procedural. It is concluded that procedural liability refers to the system of means of legal (state) coercion; as well as measures of legal liability in general, and in particular, administrative liability are its parts. It is emphasized that functionally legal liability is aimed at taking coercive measures addressed to the person who committed the offense. It is determined that procedural liability is characterized by such features as: its focus on ensuring the functioning of subjects within the legal process; its task is to ensure the protection of procedural law; is based on the application of regulatory guarantees for the implementation of procedural activities; increasing the effectiveness of protecting the interests of participants in procedural relations; preventing encroachments on procedural law and legality.