Disciplinary Misconduct Research Articles

On current problems of the mechanism of liability of judges for disciplinary misconduct: law enforcement practice, general approaches Part 4. Approaches to improving and improving the efficiency of the organizational and legal mechanism of disciplinary responsibility of judges (Continuation)

In the final, fourth part of the article, published in 2024 in the journal “State and Law”, certain results of the problems considered in its first three parts are summed up (part 1 – “Termination of the powers of a judge for a serious offense after the constitutional innovations of 2020 – constitutional or disciplinary responsibility?” (No. 3); part 2 – “On problems of disciplinary responsibility of court heads” (in two sections) (No. 4, 5); part 3 – “On the disciplinary responsibility of retired judges” (No. 6)). Conclusions are drawn about the imperfection of this mechanism with specific examples of law enforcement (and especially judicial) practice, including those caused by the imperfection of legislation in the area of public relations under consideration. Specific, including radical, proposals are being made aimed at improving and increasing the effectiveness of both the named mechanism as a whole and its individual links.

RESPONSIBILITY OF MEMBERS OF SELF-REGULATING ORGANIZATIONS: PECULIARITIES AND PROBLEMS OF REGULATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN

In the scientific literature, the understanding of the legal nature of the responsibility of members of self-regulating organizations causes conceptual discrepancies. This liability is considered as a separate type of legal liability based on civil law principles. In the laws regulating issues of self-regulation with mandatory participation, the concept of disciplinary misconduct is used, which leads to the use of the name of this responsibility as «disciplinary». Nevertheless, the special grounds for the liability of members of a self-regulating organization, the subject composition and the nature of legal relations make it possible not to identify the responsibility in question with disciplinary liability in labor and administrative law. The Law on Self-Regulation and legislative acts concerning mandatory self-regulation contain the basics of regulating liability issues, but these norms need to eliminate contradictions. In addition, it is necessary to provide for the definition of the concept of responsibility of members of self-regulating organizations and its elements (misconduct, penalties). The study of internal documents of self-regulating organizations in terms of the responsibility of their members revealed the inconsistency of the content of the documents with certain requirements of the Law on Self-Regulation. Based on the results of this work, the specifics of the responsibility of members of self-regulating organizations are noted, the features and shortcomings of the regulatory regulation of this institution in the Republic of Kazakhstan are identified, facts of violations of legal norms in law enforcement practice are revealed, and differences in the approaches of organizations to choosing the procedure for bringing to responsibility and determining liability measures are established. Solutions are proposed for the identified shortcomings. The conclusions obtained in the course of this study can be used in scientific research and legislative work.

On modern problems of the mechanism of judges’ responsibility for disciplinary misconduct: Law enforcement practice, general approaches Part 2. On the problems of disciplinary responsibility of heads of courts (section 2)

On modern problems of the mechanism of judges’ responsibility for disciplinary misconduct: Law enforcement practice, general approaches Part 2. On the problems of disciplinary responsibility of heads of courts (section 2)

On modern problems of the mechanism of judges’ responsibility for disciplinary misconduct: Law enforcement practice, general approaches Part 2. On the problems of disciplinary responsibility Of heads of courts (section 1)2

In the first part of this article (“Termination of the powers of a judge for a serious offense after the constitutional innovations of 2020 – constitutional or disciplinary liability?”) the modern problems of the mechanism of judges’ responsibility for disciplinary misconduct were considered. This second part of this article examines the current problems of the organizational and legal mechanism of disciplinary responsibility of heads (chairmen and deputy chairmen) of courts. Attention is drawn to the fact that the status of heads of courts is twofold: on the one hand, they are judges who directly administer justice, on the other hand, heads of a judicial body with powers and responsibilities to organize the work of the court (to ensure, within their powers, financial, material, resource, information and other parties), the implementation of general management of the activities of the court’s staff, and most importantly, to ensure the judicial and effective operation of the court on the principles of justice. Attention is drawn to the fact that the current legislation (and even partly the Constitution of the Russian Federation) provides for the responsibility of heads of courts for gross misconduct, which does not qualify as disciplinary, and the penalty for it is one – early termination of the powers of the head of the court, and in some cases the powers of a judge, without the possibility of applying other, less severe, penalties (penalties). It is proposed to formalize some new, real-life functions of the heads of courts with the establishment of a mechanism for their non-fulfillment. It is proposed to introduce the institution of the oath of the head of the court (separate from the oath of the judge) with the introduction of liability for violation of this oath, in particular for interference in the judicial activities of judges of the court headed by this head. Other proposals are also being made.

On modern problems of the mechanism of judges’ responsibility for disciplinary misconduct; law enforcement practice, general approaches. Part 1. Termination of the powers of a judge for a serious offense after the constitutional innovations of 2020 – constitutional or disciplinary responsibility?

The article criticizes the current situation regulated by law, in which a gross disciplinary misconduct of a judge, entailing the early termination of his judicial powers, is considered as a measure of disciplinary responsibility. The conclusion is substantiated that the early termination of the powers of a judge for gross misconduct should entail a measure of not disciplinary, but constitutional responsibility. The mechanism of constitutional responsibility of a judge is partially provided for by the constitutional innovations of 2020 only for a little over two thousand judges, and the Federation Council can apply it, which is not typical for a legislative body, and which destroys the unity of the status of judges. The rationale for its development should be based on the premise that a judge’s gross misconduct, which deserves early termination of his powers, is primarily a violation of the judge’s oath, which currently does not provide for any consequences under current legislation and corporate regulation. Appropriate proposals are made with the necessary justifications.

Modern Means of Evidence before Administrative Investigation Committees under Jordanian Legislation: A Comparative Study

This study sought to identify the foremost modern methods of evidence employed before the Administrative Investigation Committee for detecting disciplinary misconduct. In conformity with Article 146/B/2 of Civil Service Bylaw No. 9 of 2020, the legislative framework in Jordan has primarily centered on establishing conventional rules governing the presentation of evidence. It is a well-established tenet that the burden of proof rests with the administration, necessitating a comprehensive demonstration of the evidential basis underpinning their misconduct allegations. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the administration to provide indisputable evidence in cases where employees are accused of disciplinary infractions. Simultaneously, employees have to present evidence that contradicts these allegations. Investigative committees are tasked with examining the necessary evidence to establish the accuracy of these claims. The study found a significant gap in the legislative framework pertaining to modern methods of evidence within the Jordanian civil service Bylaw. While these methods are acknowledged in general legal provisions, this recognition is considered insufficient due to variations among different employment systems. Therefore, this study recommends explicitly incorporating modern evidence presentation methods into legislation to align with ongoing scientific and technological progress and facilitate their widespread adoption. Consequently, there is a need to revise legislative regulations governing employment systems and include the methods at the core of this investigation. This study addresses the ambiguity in Jordan's legal framework related to validating allegations against public employees before administrative investigators using an analytical and comparative approach, juxtaposing the legal provisions of Jordan and Egypt in this context.

Failure to take measures to prevent and resolve conflicts of interest: labor law issues

The subject of the study is the failure to take measures to prevent and resolve conflicts of interest. Failure to take measures is considered as an element of the objective side of disciplinary misconduct in labor relations, the composition of which is defined in paragraph 7.1. part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, along with such elements as "conflict of interest" and "loss of trust". The types of measures are studied, the collision of their anti-corruption and labor-law nature; the subject of taking measures; the possibility of choosing a measure by an employee and an employer; the legal consequences of non-acceptance; the head as a subject of responsibility in case of non-acceptance of measures; the obligation to notify about a conflict of interests; the content of the concepts of "prevention" and "settlement". The object of the study is labor relations in terms of disciplinary responsibility for corruption offenses and related official legal relations. The author uses the general scientific method of dialectical cognition, as well as a number of private scientific methods: technical-legal, systemic-structural, formal-logical (deduction, induction, definition and division of concepts) and others. The article discusses the following problematic issues: 1) the ratio of measures provided for by anti-corruption legislation with labor law institutions, in particular, transfer to another job and suspension from work; 2) the possibility of abuse of the right by the employer and violation of the rights of the employee when taking measures; 3) the situation of legal deadlock when it is impossible to take measures; 4) unjustified inconsistency of legal regulation of measures in labor and official legal relations. The article draws conclusions about the illegality of dismissal only for failure to inform about a conflict of interest; about the priority of the employee's right to choose a measure to avoid abuse of the right by the employer; about the unification of legal regulation of suspension from work for the period of investigation of corruption misconduct or dismissal of the head for failure to take measures in labor and official relations; about ways out of the "legal impasse" if it is impossible to resolve a conflict of interest, in particular, a separate basis for termination of an employment contract due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties, or permission to act in a conflict of interest with little benefit.

Differentiation of grounds for disciplinary liability of judges

The article focuses on the distinction between the grounds for disciplinary liability of judges. It is noted that the main reason for different qualification of similar violations of judges is a large number of evaluative concepts among the grounds for disciplinary liability. The corpus delicti of judicial misconduct have a large number of similar features in terms of content, and therefore the practice of their application is complex and controversial. The issue of distinguishing between the elements of disciplinary misconduct requires special attention, since the severity of the type of penalty chosen by a judge depends on the accuracy of the disciplinary and legal qualification. The author emphasizes that the reasons for the problem of distinguishing the grounds for disciplinary liability of judges are their broad formulations at the legislative level, a large number of evaluative concepts and an increase in the number of related corpus delicti over the past decades. Examples from disciplinary practice show that there are no uniform approaches to the qualification of disciplinary offenses related to procedural violations of judges in the administration of justice. In some cases, similar procedural violations are qualified only on one ground, in some cases – on another ground, and in others – on several grounds. Different disciplinary and legal qualifications of similar judicial misconduct lead to different disciplinary sanctions. The author emphasizes that it is important not only to identify consistent legal positions on the disciplinary and legal qualification of judicial misconduct, but also to offer future disciplinary inspectors a certain standard algorithm of actions and methodology for qualifying judicial misconduct during an inspection. In order to avoid criticism and accusations of double standards, it is important to develop and put them into practice. Key words: disciplinary liability of judges, grounds for disciplinary liability, disciplinary offenses, disciplinary sanctions, qualification of violations..

Problems of Differentiation of Disciplinary Responsibility of Judges in Legislation and Law Enforcement Practice

The special constitutional and legal status of judges, which guarantees their independence, requires that the rules on their disciplinary responsibility are sufficiently defined and predictable, and their application is based on the principles of fairness, proportionality of disciplinary punishment to the severity of the committed disciplinary offense, individualization of disciplinary responsibility. Among the legislative problems that complicate the implementation of these principles, the author notes the absence of the concept of minor disciplinary misconduct or legally established criteria of insignificance; the gap in legislation regarding the definition of repeated or systematic violations as a basis for the application of disciplinary penalties not related to the early termination of powers; the legislative restriction of the grounds for the use of demotion in the qualification class as a measure of disciplinary responsibility, and a number of other problems. The purpose of the study is to substantiate the need for legislative establishment of clearer criteria for the application of different types of disciplinary penalties, differentiation of disciplinary offenses of a judge by severity. Research objectives: to identify problems of legislative regulation of differentiation of disciplinary responsibility of judges; based on the practice of qualification boards of judges to demonstrate the problems of application of Article 12.1 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation”; to formulate proposals aimed at solving these problems. The main method of research was the general scientific dialectical method of cognition, within which universal scientific methods were used: analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, formal-logical and systematic. Comparative-legal, formal-legal methods, the method of legal modeling, etc. were used as private-scientific methods. The result of the study is the proposals made by the author, the implementation of which will improve the effectiveness of the mechanism for bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility, ensure fairness and predictability of decisions made against judges and, ultimately, will guarantee judicial independence.

Disciplinary misconduct as a basis for bringing an employee to disciplinary responsibility

The article deals with the problem on legal regulation of disciplinary responsibility and it’s cause in particular — disciplinary malefaction. Disciplinary malefaction as a basis for bringing an employee to disciplinary responsibility is one of the type of offenses so it has the most common features of offenses. But at the same time, it contains some distinctions. For instance, wrongfulness of an employee is determined along with the law and by local regulations. At the same time failure to comply with the employer's requirement is not always an offense. It is necessary to evaluate the order of the employer for compliance with the norms of the law. A subjective side of the offense should be considered. In addition to guilt, the motive for non-performance or improper performance of labor duties is of particular importance. Thereupon respectful reasons for non-performance are of particular importance. In conclusion, attention is drawn to the absence of the category of “insignificance” in the labor legislation and the need to enshrine it in the labour code.

ПОВЕДІНКА ПОЛІЦЕЙСЬКОГО ЯК ПІДСТАВА ДИСЦИПЛІНАРНОГО СТЯГНЕННЯ: ЕТИЧНИЙ АСПЕКТ

The article is devoted to the study of the concept and composition of disciplinary misconduct of police officers. The author defines what constitutes a disciplinary offense and the object of a disciplinary offense of police officers, who are the subjects of legal relations resulting from a disciplinary offense, and the types of disciplinary offenses themselves. The author establishes that the object of disciplinary misconduct is the established procedure and the legal regime of service activities, the duties of police officers as officials provided for by each position both by the job description and by applicable law. The author outlines various aspects of police service which are affected by disciplinary misconduct, and in this regard, their direct objects are highlighted. For many years, service discipline has remained the key to effective service activity. This concept includes not only a conscious attitude to the performance of duties assigned to a police officer, but also ensuring high quality and efficiency of service activities, as well as rational distribution of service time. One of the determining factors of effective service activity of the Ukrainian police is the degree of compliance with official discipline by police officers. Given the fact that deviant behavior in law enforcement agencies cannot be completely eradicated, another factor that significantly affects the effectiveness of law enforcement practice is the degree of detection of violations of official discipline and the inevitability of bringing perpetrators to disciplinary responsibility. Not so long ago, Ukraine underwent an administrative reform aimed at building and developing a progressive system of public administration and improving the performance of the state apparatus. In the course of the reform, a key role was assigned to optimizing the functioning of executive authorities in the process of combating corruption. Particular attention was paid to the legal regulation of law enforcement agencies and their successful fulfillment of their tasks (which is directly ensured by strict observance of official discipline).

PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE THE LEGAL FOUNDATIONS FOR QUALIFICATION OF JUDGES

Abstract: the article points out the imperfection of the legal regulation of the qualification certification of judges and suggests some changes aimed at optimizing this important component of the formation of a highly qualified judicial corps. The author formulated the purpose and objectives of the qualification certification of judges. A list of additional information submitted to the judge's attestation case is proposed. Taking into account the analysis of foreign experience, the list of parameters by which the judge should be evaluated is highlighted. Evaluation criteria, their content and sources of information for each criterion are defined for each parameter. Qualification certification of judges is classified by type (scheduled, un-scheduled and repeated), their purpose is disclosed. The conclusion is made that the negative result of the qualification certification should be considered as a reason for an appropriate verification of facts and circumstances with the conclusion that there are or are not signs of disciplinary misconduct in the actions (inaction) of the judge, or that the judge does not meet the requirements established by regulatory legal acts or the Code of Judicial Ethics, or insufficient qualifications. Measures to eliminate conflicts of interest in the certification process are proposed.

Violation of official discipline: The principle of nulla poena sine lege and the effectiveness of disciplinary responsibility

The article analyzes the problem of the effectiveness of disciplinary responsibility from the point of view of implementation in the legislation on the public service of the principle of nulla poena sine lege. The author notes that a necessary condition for the social effectiveness of the institution of disciplinary responsibility is the achievement of the goals of its establishment— the prevention of disciplinary offenses. A necessary condition here is the principle of legal certainty, according to which the law establishing legal liability must be predictable to the extent that the subjects can foresee the legal consequences of their actions. From this position, the work analyzes the concept of a disciplinary offense, as well as its transformation in the field of public relations. The issue of duplication of the grounds for termination of the contract is considered as a measure of disciplinary responsibility and not disciplinary dismissal. The author justifies the conclusion that the contract cannot be terminated for a guilty unlawful act outside of disciplinary proceedings, bypassing the rules for applying disciplinary sanctions. Moral and ethical norms included in the wording of a disciplinary offense (for example, violation of the oath of a civil servant) deserve special attention. This is due to the desire of the legislator to outline as wide a range of acts as possible that constitute disciplinary offenses, including moral, ethical and other social offenses. However, such an approach only leads to inflation of disciplinary misconduct and devaluation of disciplinary responsibility in general.

Factors Contributing To University Students’ Integrity

Integrity is an essential value that university students should possess to ensure the advancement of organisations, the country and also the welfare of the community. However, the increase in cases of disciplinary misconduct among university students shows that their integrity is compromised and deteriorating. In addition, the views of a handful of students that accepting bribes is not an offense and expressed their willingness to accept bribes, revealed low level understanding on the concept of integrity. The aim of this study is to identify factors that contribute to instilling integrity in university students to develop a corruption-free generation. This study was conducted qualitatively using semi-structured interview to obtain more information and data. A total of 5 integrity specialists from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP) dan Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP) and 21 students were chosen as informants in this study. All the data and information were analyzed using Atlas.ti software. The study identified 3 main factors, namely religious internalization, the environment and self-identity. Hence, these elements should be included in student development programs, to prevent them from involving in activities that are dishonest and without integrity.

Grounds of Liability in Labor Law: Theoretical and Legal Analysis

Problem setting. In any society, actions are committed that are illegal and, accordingly, require the use of coercive measures or, in other words, measures of responsibility. The field of labor relations is no exception. After all, responsibility acts as a guarantor of the mandatory performance of the parties to the employment relationship with their obligations and compliance with the norms of the current legislation. Despite thorough research, liability issues in labor law have not lost their relevance. Analysis of recent researches and publications. A significant number of dissertations, monographs and periodicals are devoted to the issue of specifics of responsibility in labor law. Among them, we can highlight the scientific achievements of V. S. Venediktov, O. M. Lukyanchikov, I. V. Lazor, O. I. Protsevskii, S. M. Prilypka, N. M. Khutoryan, G. I. Chanysheva, O. V. Cherkasov, V. I. Shcherbiny, O. M. Yaroshenko and many others. Target of research. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to find out what are the grounds of responsibility in labor law and what is necessary for their practical implementation. Article’s main body. The article clarifies what are the grounds of responsibility in labor law and what is necessary for their practical implementation. Regarding the issue of the basis of disciplinary responsibility, the following is stated: (a) the current labor legislation should be supplemented with provisions on the basis of bringing an employee to disciplinary responsibility and contain a definition of a disciplinary offense; (b) only a disciplinary offense can be the basis of disciplinary responsibility; (c) the legislation must establish without appeal that a disciplinary offense is a culpable act or omission. Regarding the issue of the basis of material responsibility, the following is stated: (a) the basis of material responsibility is a labor offense that manifests itself as illegal actions or inaction within the framework of a single complex labor relationship; (b) such actions are of an illegal nature and are the result of culpable failure to perform or improper performance of labor duties; (c) the subject of material responsibility can be exclusively the employee and the employer; (d) non-performance or improper performance of labor duties has a cause-and-effect relationship with the damage caused. Conclusions and prospects for the development. In general, characterizing the grounds of responsibility in labor law, it is stated that they are divided into normative and actual. Normative grounds are determined by legislation and are necessary for the practical implementation of responsibility in labor law. There are two types of actual grounds for liability in labor law: disciplinary misconduct; labor and property offence. The practical part of the implementation of responsibility consists in imposing responsibility on the violator exclusively in the presence of the composition of a disciplinary offense or the composition of a labor property offense. An employee can be a subject of a disciplinary offense and a labor property offense, and an employer can only be a subject of a labor property offense. By their very nature, labor offenses are non-performance or improper performance of labor duties, which proves their existence exclusively within a single complex labor relationship.

Scientific and Theoretical Characteristics of the Stage of a Disciplinary Case Consideration and Decision-Making

The paper is devoted to the characteristics of legal relations arising at the stage of consideration of a disciplinary case and decision-making within the framework of disciplinary proceedings brought against civil servants. The study explains the content of this stage, mental and practical operations, procedural actions undertaken to establish objective truth in an individual and specific case, the final legal assessment of the established facts and circumstances by the person in charge.The paper substantiates that a disciplinary case consideration and decision making constitutes a stage of proceedings in a disciplinary case or legal proceedings based on materials about a gross disciplinary offense that includes considering the case on the merits in order to establish factual and legal basis of the case and to make a lawful, fair and reasonable decision. The stage of consideration of the disciplinary case and decision-making involves logical and procedural activity of managers (chiefs), commanders, judges of the garrison military court aimed to establish the correspondence between the circumstances of the disciplinary case and the facts that actually took place (i.e. objective truth), to provide legal qualification of the offense by correlating the actual circumstances and elements of an offence and formulation of conclusions and adoption of decisions based on the circumstances of the case.The paper states lack of procedural norms ensuring consideration of disciplinary cases and adoption of decisions concerning application of disciplinary penalties in the public service system (with the exception of the military service system), which determines the exact and unswerving adherence by law enforcement officers to the general principles of legal and disciplinary responsibility and the established rules applied to impose disciplinary penalties. A disciplinary case consideration by an authorized person in chief is practically implemented in the study of the proceedings files, performing an internal audit, examining the protocol on gross disciplinary misconduct of a military man. This circumstance presupposes further processalization of the legal enforcement activity under consideration and its regulation by the norms of administrative procedural legislation.

DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYEE FOR NON-PERFORMANCE OR IMPROPER PERFORMANCE OF HIS/HER JOB DUTIES UNDER THE UKRAINIAN LEGISLATION

At present, the category of job duties of the employees becomes especially relevant. This is due to the transformation of views on the organization of the labour process, relations between the parties of the employment agreement. Job duties are the key element of the enterprise’s internal work schedule, and their proper performance by the employees is an important condition for the successful business of their employers. An unambiguous interpretation of the relevant concepts and categories of the institution of disciplinary liability, legal certainty in the nature of non-performance or improper performance of job duties, in qualifying the reasons for such non-performance as valid, excluding the fault of the employee, are very important. The authors concluded that the employee’s job duties as the object of disciplinary misconduct, which is the ground of disciplinary liability, could be considered as obligations connected with performance of the job function specified in the employment agreement. To certain categories of employees the duties to comply with moral and ethical norms, which is due to the position held or work performed, could also be considered as job duties. To avoid litigation, as well as abuse by both the employee and the employer, the employee’s job duties should be consolidated in his/her job description and other local regulations of the enterprise. In order to apply to the employer the legitimate disciplinary sanction for non-performance or improper performance of his/her job duties, a set of the following conditions should be met: the violation should relate only to those duties which are part of the employee’s job function or follow from the enterprise’s internal work schedule and which the employee should be duly informed about. Non-performance or improper performance of the job duties should be the culprit, committed without good reason intentionally or negligently.

Disciplinary liability of employees in the work field. reflections on the legal nature

This study analyzes in detail the legal nature of the legal institution regarding the disciplinary liability of employees, highlighting the elements of the legal nature. Research into the legal nature of disciplinary liability of employees is a necessity, especially a legal one, because it provides the scientific and practical environment, results and guiding ideas on the correct application of the institution of disciplinary liability of employees in the field of work. In this context, reference was made to the doctrine of labor law in Moldova, Romania, Russia and it was concluded that only the person who is in a legal employment relationship with an employer can be subject to disciplinary misconduct. As a methodology in the elaboration of the article, it constituted the legislative and doctrinal analysis containing norms and interpretations on the institution of disciplinary liability of employees in the field of work. The role of the individual employment contract, the internal regulations of the unit and the collective labor contract, in determining the disciplinary liability of the employee and, as a result, the disciplinary sanction were also not overlooked.

On the issue of the principle of the presumption of innocence in disciplinary proceedings

The article is devoted to a detailed analysis of national practice of disciplinary proceedings against judges, prosecutors and lawyers, as well as the legal positions of higher courts on the fact of the presence or absence of the principle of presumption of innocence in this category of proceedings. Particular attention is paid to the study of international law and thematic case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which highlights the distinction between criminal and disciplinary proceedings on certain characteristics and features of the principle of proof of guilt in each of them. The article formulates a claim conclusion about the need to rethink the essence of disciplinary proceedings in national law and to extend the basic principles of justice (in particular, criminal) to its sphere.The practice of prosecuting lawyers for disciplinary misconduct can serve as an example of a diametrically opposed approach to understanding the nature of disciplinary proceedings. Іn this case such features of justice (criminal and disciplinary proceedings) as competition, equality of the parties before the law and the court, proving the guilt of a person “beyond a reasonable doubt”, objectivity, justice and others are clearly demonstrated. Therefore, establishing the absence of the principle of presumption of innocence against judges and prosecutors as representatives of public authorities can be regarded not only as a manifestation of their discrimination in relevant disciplinary proceedings, but also as a violation of fundamental principles and constitutional rights of the person in the process of bringing them to this type of justice.

Противоправность дисциплинарного проступка на государственной службе и принцип «nulla poena sine lege»

Peculiarities of a disciplinary misconduct as the actual basis for disciplinary responsibility are considered. The author draws attention to the fact that a disciplinary misconduct, unlike an offense, is usually not formalized, therefore, the sign of wrongfulness is not determinative for it. It is proved that in relation to disciplinary misconduct, the application of the principle of “nullum crimen sine lege” (there is no crime without law) is significantly limited.