Guest
in connection with the scientific discussion on the expediency of the judicial procedure for the consideration of cases of administrative offenses, the article describes the background of its appearance in domestic law. It is largely related to the imposition of such a type of punishment as administrative arrest. The decree that marked the emergence of administrative liability in the RSFSR, at the insistence of V.I. Lenin, the appointment of arrest for violation of sanitary standards was entrusted not to the court, but to the housing and sanitary inspection. Further food commissioners and local executive committees became entitled to arrest citizens. However, the administrative authorities, using arrest as an additional resource to perform their basic managerial functions, often exceeded their powers. As a result, the Soviet government rolled back such a reform in 1922–1925. Deprivation of liberty became a criminal punishment within the court jurisdiction. In 1956, the institution of administrative arrest was revived, but within the framework of the judicial prerogative and simultaneously with the emergence of an independent judicial procedure for the consideration of cases of administrative offenses. Purpose: to substantiate the need to preserve the judicial procedure for the appointment of administrative penalties as a form of preliminary judicial control. Methods: formal-legal, historical-legal, comparative-legal. Results: the jurisdictional function of administrative bodies is secondary and, as a rule, is considered by them as a means to perform the main and more time-consuming managerial function, which is confirmed by the history of Soviet law. If the governing bodies are given the authority to independently impose the most severe punishments, they may violate personal freedom of a citizen. Conclusion: it is necessary to preserve judicial jurisdiction of cases involving administrative arrest. Othrewise, subsequent judicial control will not be able to fully restore violated personal rights.
