The Constitutional Law Function of Administrative Offense Proceedings in Courts of General Jurisdiction

The paper defines the place of judicial proceedings in cases of administrative offenses in courts of general jurisdiction (administrative offense proceedings in courts of general jurisdiction, or AOP in CGJ) within the administrative process system, based on the function of these proceedings. The author concludes that, contrary to the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (CAO RF), this area, influenced by constitutional legislation, has developed distinctions from the function of non-judicial administrative jurisdiction. The purpose of judicial proceedings extends beyond merely combating offenses and achieving the objectives of administrative liability. It must ensure a fair resolution of public law disputes. AOP in CGJ serves the function of independent external review of the managerial initiatives of public administration, as expressed in the acts of the prosecuting authority or a non-judicial body of administrative jurisdiction, with respect to their compliance with the law in light of general legal principles and values. Consequently, AOP in CGJ is not functionally integrated with non-judicial proceedings as a homogeneous procedural activity and does not represent a «continuation» of nonjudicial administrative jurisdiction. However, AOP in CGJ has become the subject of contradictory legal regulation, as its constitutional law function is not congruent with the CAO RF. This disparity poses challenges in judicial practice. For these reasons, the author suggests, within the framework of the third codification, to extract not the entire procedural section from the CAO RF, but rather the provisions concerning AOP in CGJ, isolating them into a separate law titled «On Judicial Administrative Jurisdiction».