Chagin Ivan Borisovich Makieva Tamara Gochevna

The paper undertakes a comparative legal analysis of the legal status elements of the Russian Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media and the French National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés; hereinafter – CNIL, Commission). The purpose is to activate the deficient researchers’ attention to the problem of functional decentralization of public administration. The authors propose a definition of functional decentralization of public administration. The paper notes the contradiction between the commodification of services provided by CNIL and its democratic nature. Particular attention is paid to the possibility of vesting independent administrative authorities with legislative powers. It is argued that the peculiarities of CNIL’s human resource capacity should be explained through intentionality of the state. It is emphasised that the sanctions imposed by CNIL do not have the force of res judicata, which entails the authors’ conclusion on untenability of the theory proclaiming jurisdictional immunity of independent authority. The explicable impossibility of absolute independence of the commented de-etatisation phenomenon is substantiated in terms of correlation of autonomy and autarky. It has been revealed that a possibility of hypertrophied conceptualisation of autonomy of independent administrative bodies serves to be a structural drawback of the concept of functional decentralization of public administration. It is asserted that the direct linkage between the subject of governance and the managed object should be considered as a substantive feature of functional decentralization of public administration. It has been established that the introduction of the institute of independent authority in the public administration system should be preceded by consideration of relevant factors. The paper notes the deficit of theoretical studies on functional decentralization in the legal literature of the Russian Federation. The ensuing conclusion is that the development of the discussed concept within the framework of the Russian institutional landscape is possible at present only at the theoretical level.

decentralization; independent administrative bodies; CNIL; Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media, public administration

Chagin Ivan Borisovich – Candidate of Juridical Sciences, Chief Lecturer, Department of Administrative and Financial law, Law Institute, Irkutsk State University (1, Karl Marx st., Irkutsk, 664003, Russian Federation), ORCID: 0000-0002-9055-9654, RSCI AuthorID: 916844, e-mail: vanyachagin@yandex.ru

Makieva Tamara Gochevna – Student, Irkutsk State University (1, Karl Marx st., Irkutsk, 664003, Russian Federation), ORCID: 0009-0003-1470-5677, RSCI Author ID: 1231567, e-mail: toma.makieva@bk.ru

Chagin I. B., Makieva T. G. Functional decentralization of public administration: the relevance of borrowing the experience of foreign countries [Funkcional'naya decentralizaciya gosudarstvennogo upravleniya: relevantnost' zaimstvovaniya opyta zarubezhnyh stran] Sibirskij yuridicheskij vestnik [Siberian Law Herald]. 2024, no 1(104), pp. 51–58. – DOI 10.26516/2071-8136.2024.1.51 (in Russian)

342.5

1. Beshe-Golovko K. Administrativnye kvazisudebnye organy: instrument nezavisimosti pravosudiya ot gosudarstva [Administrative quasi-judicial bodies: a tool for the independence of justice from the State?]. Russkii zakon [Lex Russica], 2019, no. 9 (154), pp. 158-167. 10.17803/1729-5920.2019.154.9.158-167. (in Russian)

2. Ermankulova R.I., Almukhambetova B.Zh., Dandaeva B.M. Formy i metody detsentralizatsii sistemy gosudarstvennogo upravleniya [Forms and methods of decentralization of the public administration system]. Nauchnye vesti [Scientific news], 2020, no. 3 (20), pp. 39-44. (in Russian)

3. Lyubashits V.Ya. Issledovanie gosudarstvennoi (politicheskoi) vlasti: opyt ispol’zovaniya sistem no-strukturnogo metoda [Research of state (political) power: experience of using the no-structural method systems]. Severo-Kavkazskii yuridicheskii vestnik [North Caucasian Legal Bulletin], 2014, no. 1, pp. 7-18. (in Russian)

4. Chagin I.B., Yakovlev V.V. Funktsional’naya detsentralizatsiya gosudarstvennogo upravleniya: opyt Frantsii i otechestvennaya deistvitelnost [Functional decentralization of public administration: French experience and domestic reality]. Akademicheskii yuridicheskii zhurnal [Academic Law Journal], 2022, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 293-301. 10.17150/1819-0928.2022.23(3).293-301 (in Russian)

5. Autin Jean-Louis. Autorités administratives indépendantes, démocratie et État de droit. Droit et société, 2016, no. 2 (93), p. 285-295. 10.3917/drs.093.0285

6. Jacques Chevallier. Les autorités administratives indépendantes : un produit d’importation ? Néolibéralisme et américanisation du droit, 2019, 978-2-84934-412-5.ffhal-02937030f. URL: https://hal.science/hal-02937030 (accessed: 15 September 2023)

7. Thomas Perroud. Essai sur les caractères néolibéraux du droit administratif contemporain. Mélanges en l’honneur de Serge Regourd, 2018, ffhal-01879741f. URL: https://hal.science/hal-01879741 (accessed: 15 September 2023)