Publications
Articles
LAW ENFORCEMENT DISCRETIONS IN THE WORK OF ELECTION COMMISSIONS
© S. A. Khvalev
According to Sub-paragraph 21 Article 2 of No. 67-FZ Federal law “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in the referendum of the citizens of the Russian Federation" dated June 12, 2002 [1] (hereinafter, referred to as the Federal law on basic guarantees of electoral rights), election commissions are collegial bodies which organize and arrange preparation and holding elections and referendums. Besides, if to analyze the scope of their jurisdiction settled in elections and referendum law, election commissions can also be defined as the bodies carrying out law enforcement activity. Law enforcement activity is a special form of law implementation. It is in process when a legal norm cannot be enforced without intervention of competent authorities. Public authorities are active subjects of law enforcement activity. In connection with the above mentioned, law enforcement activity can be defined as power activity of competent bodies to enforce legal norms in definite real life cases and definite individuals [2]. Axiological value of law enforcement activity should be specially highlighted here.
Law enforcement activity as law implementation form has a special social and individual value, because it acts as an obligatory means of right enjoyment for parties or guarantees right protection and restitution.
Discretion [3] has a special role in law enforcement activity, its purpose is to solve the issues raised during law enforcement activity. It is truly noted in publications that discretion is a socially reasonable legal phenomenon where law adaptability to changing historical conditions and certain situations is realized [4]. At the same time discretion at the terms of law enforcement activity acts as a means deciding certain scope of law exercising activities for a public authority.
According to Sub-paragraph 21 Article 2 of No. 67-FZ Federal law “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in the referendum of the citizens of the Russian Federation" dated June 12, 2002 [1] (hereinafter, referred to as the Federal law on basic guarantees of electoral rights), election commissions are collegial bodies which organize and arrange preparation and holding elections and referendums. Besides, if to analyze the scope of their jurisdiction settled in elections and referendum law, election commissions can also be defined as the bodies carrying out law enforcement activity. Law enforcement activity is a special form of law implementation. It is in process when a legal norm cannot be enforced without intervention of competent authorities. Public authorities are active subjects of law enforcement activity. In connection with the above mentioned, law enforcement activity can be defined as power activity of competent bodies to enforce legal norms in definite real life cases and definite individuals [2]. Axiological value of law enforcement activity should be specially highlighted here.
Law enforcement activity as law implementation form has a special social and individual value, because it acts as an obligatory means of right enjoyment for parties or guarantees right protection and restitution.
Discretion [3] has a special role in law enforcement activity, its purpose is to solve the issues raised during law enforcement activity. It is truly noted in publications that discretion is a socially reasonable legal phenomenon where law adaptability to changing historical conditions and certain situations is realized [4]. At the same time discretion at the terms of law enforcement activity acts as a means deciding certain scope of law exercising activities for a public authority.
There are totally opposite points of view regarding the possibility of discretion itself in law enforcement activity. This way, opponents of discretion suppose that it is a result of imperfection of legislative technique, poor awareness and ignorance of rules of legal writing [5], discretion by nature does not comply to the principle of legality. In opinion of some authors, law enforcement discretion creates unstable conditions for law implementation [7], it decreases stability and regularity of practical application of legislation, it lies at the root of law abuse.
From the other side, protagonists of discretion in law enforcement activity give grounds for its necessity and reality [8]. Necessity of discretion as an instrument allowing to take optimal decisions under conditions of diversified social relations come into being. In opinion of some authors, discretion is a phenomenon caused by relative certainty (abstractedness) of the most legal norms written by the state in modern society [9]. Whereas abstractedness of legal instructions is caused by their regulatory nature. Whereby, a rational law enforcement discretion does not contradict legitimacy, quite on the contrary, in case of complicated social situations when it is impossible to foresee everything, in fact discretion does provide legality in a "creative" way [10]. When developing the above mentioned approaches, Y. A. Tikhomirov highlights from the position of historical retrospective that today's role of law enforcement discretion is strengthening due to increasing importance of state administration which is based on law and organized in order to exercise legislative acts [11].
The common point of all the approaches to the issue of importance of law enforcement discretion is that all the academic enforcers rightly point out that discretion is an objectively existing, inevitable legal phenomenon implicated in law enforcement activity. In connection with it, it is suggested in publications to concentrate efforts on identifying and fixing effective regulators which would not let discretion lead to abuse of power [12].
There is also no agreement about the notion of law enforcement discretion and its place in the public administration system.
If to analyze all the diversity of definitions for the discretion in public administration, we can divide all the positions into several groups. At first, some academic enforcers tend to identify discretion as a kind of mental and will activity (intellectual and analytical activity) of authorized power bodies [13], consisting of the choice of the decision according to law in a certain law enforcement situation [14]. Other academic enforcers consider discretion as a right (power) of a relevant public authority to choose a way of addressing real situations [15]. According to another legal position, discretion is defined as freedom of choosing a way of addressing real situations within the limits of law-regulated jurisdiction [16]. Finally, it can be noted that discretion is considered in academic literature as a feature or as a rule of law enforcement activity. In particular, L. A. Sharnina considers discretion as an optimum decision rule in a certain law enforcement situation. As she notes, discretion is equal to an optimum decision rule, in case it corresponds to: formal logic rules (the discretion is clear, understandable, unambiguous); real abilities of those to whom the discretion is addressed (it conforms to administrative, political, social conditions); the target set by the state when regulating social relations (setting the conditions for people's togetherness, their well-being) [17]. When speaking about this approach it also should be noted that some authors consider discretion as a rationale in law enforcement [18]. B. M. Lazarev considered discretion as a will side of the relation between rationale and legality [19]. O. V. Korablina, A. A. Golovko write that discretion is an expression of such notions as legality, rationale, fairness [20].
The questions of the notion of law enforcement discretion and its definition almost does not arise in court practice. Though both Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and Supreme Court of the Russian Federation [21] have developed absolutely negative attitude to the unlimited discretion which inevitably leads to abuse of power and to violation of the rule of law and equality before the law. In order to exclude unlimited discretion in law enforcement process, Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has worked out the criterion of formal certainty of norms, which states that an obligatory rule for conducting a norm must be clear, unambiguous. Having this criterion in mind, rule-making bodies must write legal regulations, while competent judicial authorities must make a judgment on constitutionality and legibility of legal instructions if necessary [23].
At the same time there is a message in certain legal positions of Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, that under conditions of the current regulation, certain law enforcement decisions (discretions) take its shape depending on real circumstances of the case with taking into account the interpretations in law enforcement practice. Necessity to comply with the requirements of legitimacy, justifiability and justification when taking decisions (discretions) plays role of a barrier against making arbitrary decisions (discretions) [24].
In constitutional law, in point of fact, discretion comes down to discretion of election authorities during election and referendum holding [25]. Though even considering all the diversity of opinions regarding the understanding of the current notion, law enforcement discretion in the election commission activity receives little attention in the legal literature. Only the tendency to limit application of discretion in the election commission activity by protective law enforcement relations is noted there [26].
In our opinion, law enforcement discretion of an election commission is the collective expression of election commissioners' will with casting vote right (expression of authorized election commissioner's will with casting vote right), that has legal nature and is justified on social and economic grounds, while at the same time, it is made in order to exercise election commission's powers in a current law enforcement situation.
Legal ground is the prevailing condition which predetermines the very possibility of law enforcement discretion in election commission activity regarding a given issue. Legal ground defines competence of an election commission in solving the law enforcement situation occurred. Specific nature of the competence here is that, unlike other law enforcement bodies, election commissions have the power to exercise law enforcement discretion only in case when it is directly required by law or directly derives from its regulations. As a result, the absence of legal grounds eliminates the entire possibility of law enforcement discretion for an election commission. At the same time, if to consider the unique specialization of election commissions, their competence is covered by the system of the powers stipulated in the Federal law on basic guarantees of electoral rights [27].
Depending on the obligatory level of the relevant discretion, the legal grounds can be classified into several types. The first type is facultative legal ground, i.e. an election commission has a power to exercise a discretion (for example, Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation has a power to form one or several local commissions for control of the precinct election commissions formed on electoral precincts outside the territory of the Russian Federation [28]). Secondly, it is alternative legal ground, i.e. an election commission must choose one of a number of discretions required by law (for example, the decision of an election commission which contradicts the law, is subject to cancellation by a superior commission. The superior commission has a power to take a decision upon the matter or to provide the inferior commission with the relevant materials for re-consideration [29]). Thirdly, it is securing legal ground, i.e. a number of authorities has the same power to exercise a discretion, in this case an election commission exercises a discretion if the other bodies have not done it (for example, if an authorized body or an officer has not scheduled the period for holding regional elections, the elections will be scheduled by the election commission of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation [30]). The forth type is mandatory legal ground, i.e. an election commission is obliged to exercise a certain law enforcement discretion (for example, an election commission is obliged to take decisions stipulating the form and the words in the ballot paper, as well as the text and the quantity of absentee ballots [31]).
Social and economic justifiability as the condition for law enforcement discretion is based on the requirement that its meaning must fit administrative and social situation, where the law enforcement issue which needs solution, occurred. In this case we should agree with the opinion that the discretion must reflect the specific circumstances of the facts of the case [32]. It is social and economic justifiability as the condition for law enforcement discretion that shows significance and value of discretion in election commission activity which ensures and protects electoral rights.
Law enforcement discretion of election commissions is a complex (multilevel) legal phenomenon. That is, a generalized law enforcement discretion of an election commission is expressed in a summarized decision, order or action of the election commission.
Law enforcement discretion of election commissions is a complex (multilevel) legal phenomenon. That is, a generalized law enforcement discretion of an election commission is expressed in a summarized decision, order or action of the election commission.
While the generalized law enforcement discretion consists of more specific law enforcement discretions. Specific law enforcement discretions are caused by the fact that law enforcement activity is performed in stages. We should agree with the opinion of the authors who note that the discretion takes place in every stage of the law enforcement process [33], while it achieves its final form in the authority decision [34]. The law enforcement activity is described in such stages as, firstly, detecting the real circumstances of a law enforcement situation; secondly, detecting the legal ground for solving the law enforcement situation; thirdly, making a final decision on the law enforcement situation [35]. In the first stage of the law enforcement process the discretion takes form of a preparative securing expression of will (discretion) of election commissioners with casting vote right. The objectives to meet in the result of the preparative securing expression of will (discretion) are as follows:
- identification of the need to solve a law enforcement situation occurred;
- identification of the scope of responsibilities defining the matter of the law enforcement situation occurred [36];
- detecting the real circumstances which are significant for right salvation of the law enforcement situation
In point of fact, the preparative securing expression of will (discretion) comes down to actual classification of the circumstances of the occurred situation. As it is noted in publications, the facts and events happened (or did not happen) that provide the validity of the applying legal norm, are identified in this stage [37].
In the second stage of the law enforcement activity the discretion takes form of a formal interpretational expression of will (discretion) of election commissioners with casting vote right. The objectives to meet in the result of the formal interpretational expression of will (discretion) are as follows:
-
finding out a regulation and legal norms stipulated in it which are to be applied in the law enforcement situation occurred;
-
deciding the ability of an election commission in solving the law enforcement situation occurred;
-
interpretation of the legal norms which are to be applied in the law enforcement situation occurred [38].
The formal interpretational expression of will (discretion) consists of a legal classification of a certain law enforcement situation [39]. As it is noted in publications, the discretion appears due to the choice of a legal norm and its analysis. At the same time, during such activity the whole of actual circumstances of the case are estimated by correlating the current case with the definite legal norms, i.e. estimation of a real-life situation (actual circumstances) from a legal standpoint takes place here [40].
Then, there is a generalized discretion which is expressed in a regulatory and permissive expression of will (discretion) of election commissioners with casting vote right, formed in the third stage of the law enforcement activity. Such regulatory and permissive expression of will takes shape of a decision which has a conclusive meaning in law enforcement activity of an election commission. The objective to meet as a result of a regulatory and permissive expression of will (discretion) is building up a proper rationale which takes into account the specific discretions made in the first and second stages of the law enforcement activity of an election commission and proves social and economic justifiability of the final decision.
Considering all the mentioned, it is obvious that law enforcement discretion as a complex legal phenomenon ensures enhanced responsiveness of election commissions to law enforcement situations occurred during their activity. In this regard, discretion ensures dynamics of law enforcement activity of election commissions. At the same time, while we agree that law enforcement discretion aims finding such a legal optimum which conforms most of all with the principles of legality, rationale and fairness [41], we should also note that such law enforcement discretion influences the quality of the decisions taken by election commissions as well.
1. Collection of legislative acts of the Russian Federation, No.24 (2002), article 2253.
2. O. V. Korablina. Discretion in law enforcement activity (general-purpose and ethic aspects), thesis, PhD in Law. Saratov city, 2009. P. 19.
3. A. A. Golovko. Is it acceptable to join legality and discretion? (Some theory and practice questions) // Law and Politics. No. 3 (2006). Pp. 24-30; A. B. Stepin. Judicial discretion in private law (theory and practice questions), thesis, PhD in Law. Volgograd city, 2002. P. 8; D. M. Chechot. Administrative justice (theory questions). 1973. P. 68.
4. O. V. Korablina. Noted above. P. 8.
5. O. V. Korablina. Noted above. P. 53.
6. A. B. Sakharov. Planning of criminal policy and prospects of criminal law // Planning of measures for crime prevention: based on colloquium materials. Moscow city, 1982. P. 9-10.
7. M. M. Anosova. To the question of the influence of enforcer's discretion on the content of an object of law enforcement relations in the international sphere (based on Article 244 of Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) // ConsultantPlus [web source]: legal reference system.
8. V. B. Goncharov, V. V. Kozhevnikov. The question of enforcer's discretion in law enforcement // State and law. No. 3 (2001). P. 51-60.
9. O. V. Korablina. Noted above. P. 53; O. A. Papkova. The notion of judicial discretion // The Russian Law Journal. No. 12 (1997). P. 105.
10. A. A. Golovko. Noted above. P. 24-26.
11. Y. A. Tikhomirov. Administrative discretion and law // The Russian Law Journal. No. 4 (2000). P. 70-79.
12. O. V. Korablina. Noted above. P. 64.
13. V. G. Antropov. Law enforcement discretion: the notion and genesis (logical and semantic analysis): dissertation abstract. PhD in Law. Volgograd city, 1995. P. 14; P. A. Gook. Independence and judicial discretion // ConsultantPlus.
14. D. V. Boyko. Law enforcement discretion, legality and abuse of power // ConsultantPlus; A. A. Berezin. The limits of law enforcement discretion: thesis, PhD in Law. Nizhny Novgorod city, 2007. P. 7; P. A. Gook. Noted above; O. A. Papkova. Judicial discretion. Moscow city, 2005. P. 39.
15. K. P. Yermakova The notion and subjective limits of law enforcement discretion // The Russian Law Journal. No. 8 (2009). P. 91-98; Y. Gracheva. Is judicial discretion possible in case of shortcomings in criminal law? // Criminal law. No. 3 (2010). P. 108-112; M. M. Anosova. Noted above.
16. D. M. Chechot. Noted above. P. 68; A. B. Stepin. Noted above. Pp. 30-31; P. A. Gook. Noted above.
17. L. A. Sharnina. To the question of distinction between discretion and abuse of power in constitutional law // Constitutional and municipal law. No. 7 (2011). P. 11-14.
18. A. E. Lunev, S. S. Tudenikin, C. A. Yampolskaya. Socialist legality in Soviet state administration. Moscow city, 1948. P. 63.
19. B. M. Lazarev. The conception of administrating authorities. Moscow city, 1972. P. 92.
20. O. V. Korablina. Noted above. P. 3.
21. See, for instance: Determinations of Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 6-O dated Jan. 18, 2001, Paragraph 2 "On the request by Federal Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District about verification of constitutionality of Article 120 Paragraph 1 and 3 and Article 122 Paragraph 1 of Tax Code of the Russian Federation" // Collection of legislative acts of the Russian Federation, No.10 (2001), article 995.
22. See, for instance: Determination of Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 55-АПГ13-4 dated Oct. 16, 2013 // ConsultantPlus; Judgment by Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. ГКПИ-11594 dated Jul. 12, 2011 // ibid.
23. See: Judgment by Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 3-П dated Apr. 25, 1995 "In verification of constitutionality of Article 54 Part 1 and 2 of Housing Code of Russian Soviet Federated Socialistic Republic upon the claim of Ms. L. N. Sitalova" // Collection of legislative acts of the Russian Federation, No.18 (1995), article 1708; Judgment by Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 16-П dated Nov. 11, 2003, Paragraph 6 "In verification of constitutionality of provisions of Article 81 Paragraph 2 of Budget Organization and Budget Process Act of Chelyabinsk region upon the petition of Chelyabinsk Regional Court" // Collection of legislative acts of the Russian Federation, No.46 (2003), article 4509.
24. See, for instance: Determinations of Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 1888-О dated Oct. 18, 2012, Paragraph 2.1 "On dismissal of a request for hearing of Mr. P. I. Chernukhin's claim about violation of his constitutional rights by Article 125 Part 1 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation" // ConsultantPlus; Determination of Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 632-ОО dated May 27, 2010; Judgment by Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 2-П dated Feb. 5, 2007, Paragraph 4 "In verification of constitutionality of provisions of Articles 16, 20, 112, 336, 376, 377, 380, 381, 382, 383, 388 и 389 of Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation upon the inquiry of Tatarstan Republic Cabinet Council, claims of JSC "Nizhnekamskneftekhim" and JSC "Khakasenergo", along with the claims of a number of citizens" // Collection of legislative acts of the Russian Federation, No.7 (2007), article 932.
25. L. A. Sharnina. Types of discretion in constitutional law // Constitutional and municipal law. No. 15 (2009). P. 2-7.
26. Ibid.
27. See: Federal law on basic guarantees of electoral rights, art. P. 23-27.
28. See: Federal law on basic guarantees of electoral rights, art. 26, paragraph 8.
29. See: Federal law on basic guarantees of electoral rights, art. 20, paragraph 11.
30. See: Federal law on basic guarantees of electoral rights, art. 10, paragraph 8.
31. See: Federal law on basic guarantees of electoral rights, art. 62, paragraph 3 and art. 63, paragraph 4.
32. P. V. Markov. Noted above. Pp. 92-97; A. B. Stepin. Noted above. P. 4.
33. L. N. Berg. Judicial discretion and its limits (general-purpose aspect): thesis, PhD in Law. Yekaterinburg city, 2008. P. 10, 91-93.
34. P. A. Gook. Noted above.
35. Y. P. Borulenkov. Interpretation in law enforcement // Justice of the Peace. No. 1 (2013). Pp. 20-26; I. V. Dementiev. Tax law enforcement as an implementation form of tax legal norms // Financial law. No. 6 (2013). P. 21-24.
36. A. Barok. Judicial discretion. Moscow city, 1999. P. 20-33.
37. L. N. Berg. Noted above. P. 91.
38. L. N. Berg. Noted above. P. 95; N. V. Gromova. The role of judicial discretion in tax law interpretation // ConsultantPlus.
39. Theory of the State and Law / main editor V. D. Perevalov. Moscow city, 2005. P. 241; Theory of the State and Law / edited by M. N. Marchenko. Moscow city, 2000. P. 566.
40. L. N. Berg. Noted above. P. 93.
41. A. A. Berezin. The limits of law enforcement discretion. P. 43.
24. See, for instance: Determinations of Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 1888-О dated Oct. 18, 2012, Paragraph 2.1 "On dismissal of a request for hearing of Mr. P. I. Chernukhin's claim about violation of his constitutional rights by Article 125 Part 1 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation" // ConsultantPlus; Determination of Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 632-ОО dated May 27, 2010; Judgment by Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 2-П dated Feb. 5, 2007, Paragraph 4 "In verification of constitutionality of provisions of Articles 16, 20, 112, 336, 376, 377, 380, 381, 382, 383, 388 и 389 of Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation upon the inquiry of Tatarstan Republic Cabinet Council, claims of JSC "Nizhnekamskneftekhim" and JSC "Khakasenergo", along with the claims of a number of citizens" // Collection of legislative acts of the Russian Federation, No.7 (2007), article 932.
25. L. A. Sharnina. Types of discretion in constitutional law // Constitutional and municipal law. No. 15 (2009). P. 2-7.
26. Ibid.
27. See: Federal law on basic guarantees of electoral rights, art. P. 23-27.
28. See: Federal law on basic guarantees of electoral rights, art. 26, paragraph 8.
29. See: Federal law on basic guarantees of electoral rights, art. 20, paragraph 11.
30. See: Federal law on basic guarantees of electoral rights, art. 10, paragraph 8.
31. See: Federal law on basic guarantees of electoral rights, art. 62, paragraph 3 and art. 63, paragraph 4.
32. P. V. Markov. Noted above. Pp. 92-97; A. B. Stepin. Noted above. P. 4.
33. L. N. Berg. Judicial discretion and its limits (general-purpose aspect): thesis, PhD in Law. Yekaterinburg city, 2008. P. 10, 91-93.
34. P. A. Gook. Noted above.
35. Y. P. Borulenkov. Interpretation in law enforcement // Justice of the Peace. No. 1 (2013). Pp. 20-26; I. V. Dementiev. Tax law enforcement as an implementation form of tax legal norms // Financial law. No. 6 (2013). P. 21-24.
36. A. Barok. Judicial discretion. Moscow city, 1999. P. 20-33.
37. L. N. Berg. Noted above. P. 91.
38. L. N. Berg. Noted above. P. 95; N. V. Gromova. The role of judicial discretion in tax law interpretation // ConsultantPlus.
39. Theory of the State and Law / main editor V. D. Perevalov. Moscow city, 2005. P. 241; Theory of the State and Law / edited by M. N. Marchenko. Moscow city, 2000. P. 566.
40. L. N. Berg. Noted above. P. 93.
41. A. A. Berezin. The limits of law enforcement discretion. P. 43.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in the referendum of the citizens of the Russian Federation": No. 67-FZ Federal law // Collection of legislative acts of the Russian Federation, No.24 (2002), article 2253.
2. "On dismissal of a request for hearing of Mr. P. I. Chernukhin's claim about violation of his constitutional rights by Article 125 Part 1 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation": determination of Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 1888-О dated Oct. 18, 2012 // ConsultantPlus [web source]: legal reference system.
3. Determination of Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 55-АPG13-4 dated Oct. 16, 2013 // ConsultantPlus [web source]: legal reference system.
4. "In verification of constitutionality of Article 54 Part 1 and 2 of Housing Code of
Russian Soviet Federated Socialistic Republic upon the claim of Ms. L. N. Sitalova": judgment by Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 3-П dated Apr. 25, 1995 // Collection of legislative acts of the Russian Federation, No.18 (1995), article 1708.
Russian Soviet Federated Socialistic Republic upon the claim of Ms. L. N. Sitalova": judgment by Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 3-П dated Apr. 25, 1995 // Collection of legislative acts of the Russian Federation, No.18 (1995), article 1708.
5. "On the request by Federal Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District about verification of constitutionality of Article 120 Paragraph 1 and 3 and Article 122 Paragraph 1 of Tax Code of the Russian Federation": determination of Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 6-O dated Jan. 18, 2001, Paragraph 2 // Collection of legislative acts of the Russian Federation, No.10 (2001), article 995.
6. M. Anosova. To the question of the influence of enforcer's discretion on the content of an object of law enforcement relations in the international sphere (based on Article 244 of Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) // ConsultantPlus [web source]: legal reference system.
7. G. Antropov. Law enforcement discretion: the notion and genesis (logical and semantic analysis): dissertation abstract. PhD in Law / V. G. Antropov. Volgograd city, 1995. 20 p.
8. Barok. Judicial discretion / A. Barok. Moscow city: Norma, 1999. P. 20-33.
9. N. Berg. Judicial discretion and its limits (general-purpose aspect): thesis, PhD in Law / L. N. Berg. Yekaterinburg city, 2008. 202 p.
10. A. Berezin. The limits of law enforcement discretion: thesis, PhD in Law / A. A. Berezin. Nizhny Novgorod city, 2007. 203 p.
11. V. Boyko. Law enforcement discretion, legality and abuse of power // ConsultantPlus [web source]: legal reference system.
12. P. Borulenkov. Interpretation in law enforcement // Justice of the Peace. No. 1 (2013). P. 20-26.
13. A. Golovko. Is it acceptable to join legality and discretion? (Some theory and practice questions) // Law and Politics. No. 3 (2006). P. 24-30.
6. M. Anosova. To the question of the influence of enforcer's discretion on the content of an object of law enforcement relations in the international sphere (based on Article 244 of Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) // ConsultantPlus [web source]: legal reference system.
7. G. Antropov. Law enforcement discretion: the notion and genesis (logical and semantic analysis): dissertation abstract. PhD in Law / V. G. Antropov. Volgograd city, 1995. 20 p.
8. Barok. Judicial discretion / A. Barok. Moscow city: Norma, 1999. P. 20-33.
9. N. Berg. Judicial discretion and its limits (general-purpose aspect): thesis, PhD in Law / L. N. Berg. Yekaterinburg city, 2008. 202 p.
10. A. Berezin. The limits of law enforcement discretion: thesis, PhD in Law / A. A. Berezin. Nizhny Novgorod city, 2007. 203 p.
11. V. Boyko. Law enforcement discretion, legality and abuse of power // ConsultantPlus [web source]: legal reference system.
12. P. Borulenkov. Interpretation in law enforcement // Justice of the Peace. No. 1 (2013). P. 20-26.
13. A. Golovko. Is it acceptable to join legality and discretion? (Some theory and practice questions) // Law and Politics. No. 3 (2006). P. 24-30.
14. B. Goncharov. The question of enforcer's discretion in law enforcement / V. B. Goncharov, V. V. Kozhevnikov // The State and law. No. 3 (2001). P. 51-60.
15. A. Gook. Independence and judicial discretion // ConsultantPlus [web source]: legal reference system.
16. P. Yermakova. The notion and subjective limits of law enforcement discretion // The Russian Law Journal. No. 8 (2009). P. 91-98.
17. V. Korablina. Discretion in law enforcement activity (general-purpose and ethic aspects), thesis, PhD in Law / K. P. Ermakova. Saratov city, 2009. 178 p.
18. M. Lazarev. The conception of administrating authorities / B. M. Lazarev. Moscow city: Law literature, 1972. 280 p.
19. E. Lunev. Socialist legality in Soviet state administration / A. E. Lunev, S. S. Tudenikin, C. A. Yampolskaya. Moscow city: Juristical Publication of USSR Justice Ministry, 1948. 136 p.
20. B. Sakharov. Planning of criminal policy and prospects of criminal law // Planning of measures for crime prevention: based on colloquium materials. Moscow city, 1982. P. 9-10.
21. B. Stepin. Judicial discretion in private law (theory and practice questions), thesis, PhD in Law / A. B. Stepin. Volgograd city, 2002. 224 p.
22. Theory of the State and Law: textbook / main editor V. D. Perevalov. Moscow city: High Education, 2005. 496 p.
23. A. Tikhomirov. Administrative discretion and law // The Russian Law Journal. No. 4 (2000). P. 70-79.
24. M. Chechot. Administrative justice (theory questions) / D. M. Chechot. Leningrad city: LGU, 1973. 134 p.
25. A. Sharnina. Types of discretion in constitutional law // Constitutional and municipal law. No. 15 (2009). P. 2-7.
26. A. Sharnina. To the question of distinction between discretion and abuse of power in constitutional law // Constitutional and municipal law. No. 7 (2011). P. 11-14.