Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Administrative and municipal law
Reference:

Theoretical Foundations of Bringing MFC Employees to Administrative Responsibility: Problems and Solutions

Yurkova Ol'ga Aleksandrovna

Postgraduate, Department of Administrative Law, Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia named after V.Ya. Kikotya

117437, Russia, Moscow, Akademika Volgina str., 12

79688786169@ya.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0595.2022.4.38884

EDN:

CLRJSM

Received:

05-10-2022


Published:

12-10-2022


Abstract: The object of the study is public relations regulating the issues of bringing to administrative responsibility employees of multifunctional centers for the provision of state and municipal services (MFC) on the territory of the Russian Federation. The subject of the study is the regulatory legal regulation of the administrative responsibility of MFC employees. The purpose of the study is to identify the problems of administrative responsibility of MFC employees and to find ways to resolve them legally. The research used scientific-theoretical, scientific-practical, comparative-legal research method, method of comparative-legal analysis, method of legal interpretation, logical and formal-logical research method, objective methods of analysis, etc.   The relevance of the topic under consideration lies in the fact that given the huge demand for MFC services in the country (up to 96% of the population coverage), the need for legal regulation of personal data protection, as well as other violations of the procedure for providing state and municipal services, sharply increases. The uncertainty of the legal status of MFC employees is a factor that prevents the legal determination of their responsibility within the framework of the law. The novelty of the study lies in the fact that current scientific research on similar topics has been analyzed, as well as in a new approach to the issue of administrative responsibility from the point of view of the special legal personality of an MFC employee. According to the results of the study, it was found that the legislation on administrative responsibility of MFC employees contains legal conflicts that prevent the appointment of a fair punishment to the subject due to the fact that within the same norm, the same punishment is imposed on subjects who take far from equal participation in the provision of state or municipal services.


Keywords:

multifunctional center, MFC, legal personality, employee, administrative responsibility, legal status, public service, personal data, offense, official

This article is automatically translated.

Administrative liability is one of the types of legal liability provided for by law. Such responsibility provides for categorical imperative methods of coercion and puts the subject responsible in a subordinate-coercive position. This type of responsibility is, in fact, state coercion for violating the permissible limits of lawful behavior. This type of legal liability is public law and is universal in nature, since it applies to a very wide range of persons.

As Professor S.M. Zyryanov notes in his work: "The subjects of administrative responsibility are not only individuals and legal entities, but also individual entrepreneurs, as well as officials." The author notes a reduction in the requirements for proceedings in cases of administrative offenses, the introduction of duplicate compositions into the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, as well as compositions that do not occur at all, or occur in isolated cases, the "gross" nature of production, when only the number of compiled materials and the frankly repressive nature of administrative prosecution in some cases are taken into account cases [5, pp.15-16].

One of the most important problems of administrative responsibility, universally noted in legal science, is a significant blurring and uncertainty of the boundaries of administrative responsibility. This issue has been repeatedly investigated by such scientists as D.N. Bakhrah, S.N. Bratus, I.A. Galagan, N.D. Durmanov, Yu.X Kalmykov, etc. Differentiating administrative responsibility from criminal, administrative scientists agreed that the most important criterion for distinguishing crimes and administrative offenses is the public danger of the act [9, p.212]. As F. List noted: "A crime is a generally dangerous act, and an administrative offense is only disobedience" [7, p.101].

For our research, the concept of administrative legal personality is extremely important, that is, the legal consolidation of the subject of administrative responsibility, since the MFC employee must be identified for the interests of administrative law as an individual, as an official, or as a representative of a legal entity. That is, the issue of bringing an MFC employee to administrative responsibility is nothing more than a question of his legal status, since the legal personality of a legal subject is the ability to exercise his rights and bear the corresponding duties.

At the same time, it is necessary to note a significant difference between the concept of administrative legal capacity and administrative capacity from similar concepts of a civil nature.

If we examine the concept of civil legal capacity, we will find that it is enshrined in law. According to Article 17 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the ability to have civil rights and bear duties (civil legal capacity) is recognized equally for all citizens. Civil legal capacity arises at the moment of birth of a citizen and ends with his death [1].

Unlike civil legal capacity, administrative legal capacity obviously has a different framework. For example, in relation to a legal entity or an official, it cannot exist from birth and end at the moment of death, since a legal entity arises from the moment of its state registration. An official is recognized as a subject of administrative law from the moment of granting him administrative authority. Thus, for an employee of the MFC, the determining factor will be the nature of his powers, which he is given when carrying out his activities.

The question of the nature of the powers of MFC employees should be investigated from the scientific side, namely from the point of view of the nature of the emergence of administrative authority. If the provision of public services is the implementation of the functions of an executive authority in the exercise of certain delegated state powers [4], then it can be assumed that the MFC employee is an administrative and authoritative entity and has its own administrative and legal powers. However, in this case, he is a civil servant and must be included in the system of state authorities, which is not currently provided for by law. The activities of the MFC in providing state and municipal services are intermediary and are not included in the types of public service.

According to Part 1 of Article 1 of Federal Law No. 58 "On the System of Public Service of the Russian Federation", the public service of the Russian Federation is the professional official activity of citizens of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as citizens) to ensure the execution of the powers of: the Russian Federation; federal state authorities, other federal state bodies; subjects of the Russian Federation; state authorities of subjects of the Russian Federation Of the Russian Federation, other state bodies of the subjects of the Russian Federation [3].

In accordance with Article 2 of Federal Law No. 210, an employee of the MFC does not independently provide a public service, this service is provided directly by the state or municipal body itself.

M.S. Pochetalin understood a civil servant as a person who "permanently or temporarily, by appointment or by choice, holds a position in the state apparatus, performing state official duties for a certain remuneration" [10, p.4].

G.N. Kuleshov and A.V. Maryan supplement the system of signs by the fact that a citizen acquires the status of a state civil servant in accordance with the act of appointment to the position and with the service contract [6, p.29].

Thus, the main features of a civil servant can be considered:

1. Belonging to the citizenship of the Russian Federation;

2. A substitute position is a state position in the apparatus of a state body;

3. The official duties performed are aimed at fulfilling the functions of the state;

4. The presence of an act of appointment to a public position;

5. Remuneration for the performance of official duties is carried out at the expense of state funds.

Thus, there are aspects in the definition of public service that speak in favor of MFC employees as potential civil servants, and aspects that indicate the impossibility of such a status for MFC employees. Thus, the absence of public civil service positions associated with the MFC indicates the impossibility of recognizing MFC employees as civil servants in the service of the state. In addition, the MFC employee as a profession has not yet taken place, and there are no grounds for this, because the activity of the MFC institution is intermediary, and mediation cannot be recognized as a professional activity. In addition, the recognition of intermediary activity as official also looks rather doubtful.

An important question arises as to whether employees of a state or municipal institution, including an autonomous one, can be independent subjects of administrative law with respect to the powers granted to them to provide public services, if such powers are not administrative and authoritative.

The answer to this question will determine the possibility of independently bringing an MFC employee to administrative responsibility as an official with separate powers, and not an individual as an ordinary subject of an administrative offense.

The issue of the legal status of an IFC employee is the most problematic and difficult in the entire doctrine and concept of IFC institutions.

The unsolvability of its unambiguous definition is determined by two aspects: 1) the impossibility of embedding the institutions of the MFC in the "matrix" of the system of public service and public authority, which generates, as a consequence, the lack of direct and independent administrative authority of the employees of the MFC, 2) budget financing of the MFC from the budgets of regions and municipalities and the organizational and legal form of state autonomous or budgetary institutions, which does not allow to apply for full civil status.

In his research devoted to the analysis of the legal status of state and municipal services, Ch.O. Mongush notes that it is necessary to distinguish between state and municipal services with services provided under civil law. State and municipal services are provided on a reimbursable basis, and the author proposes to consider their cost as the cost of the state fee for their commission, while the regulatory legal act establishing the amount of such a state fee may exempt certain categories of citizens from paying it. In addition, an important feature of the provision of public services is the provision of them by the authorities [8, pp.41-43].

This approach to the concept of state and municipal services in comparison with civil legal services deserves attention, however, in our opinion, it does not allow us to reveal the essence of its legal status.

Taking into account the fact that the MFC provides only those services that are contained in the list to the agreement concluded with the state body in each case, the limits of responsibility of an MFC employee who cannot act within the framework of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation [2] as an independent official are strictly limited, and his administrative responsibility occurs in rare cases. cases.

Thus, in accordance with art.2.4 The Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is subject to administrative responsibility of an official in the event of an administrative offense committed by him in connection with non-performance or improper performance of his official duties. The activities of the employees of the MFC do not have the legal status of a service as such, in fact, it is the implementation and enforcement of the norms of the agreement concluded between the MFC and the state body, and no powers are transferred to the employees of the MFC. Employees of the MFC are not included in the staff of these state bodies.

Moreover, the study and analysis of the norms of Federal Law No. 210 indicates that employees represent the interests of citizens-applicants in state bodies. This is directly provided for by the functions of the MFC (Part 1 of Article 16 of Federal Law No. 210). This norm also describes in detail the limits of responsibility of the employees of the MFC, in connection with which it is of particular interest to us.

Thus, according to Part 5 of Article 16 of Federal Law No. 210, the limits of responsibility of MFC employees are limited to the following set of objects of possible offenses:

- information completeness of requests for the provision of state or municipal services and their compliance with the information transmitted by the applicant to the multifunctional center, other documents received from the applicant;

- completeness and compliance with the complex request of the statements submitted to the body providing the state service, the body providing the municipal service, compiled on the basis of the complex request, other documents, information and (or) information necessary for the provision of state and (or) municipal services;

- timely transmission of requests for the provision of state or municipal services to the body providing the state service, the body providing the municipal service;

- compliance with the rights of personal data subjects, compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, which establishes the specifics of handling information, access to which is restricted by federal law.

- compliance of scanned documents provided by the applicant in electronic form with paper documents.

It is obvious that the set of objects of possible offenses is extremely small and limited by the concepts of "information completeness", "timely transmission" and "compliance with the rights of applicants". The most significant and essential object of the above is, of course, the observance of the rights of personal data subjects and compliance with legislation on the handling of restricted access information. It is these objects that can be the main objects of administrative offenses on the part of MFC employees.

Also an important aspect of the legal status of the employees of the MFC and the center itself is the norm of clause 9 of Article 16 of Federal Law No. 210, according to which losses caused to a person as a result of improper performance by the multifunctional center or its employees of the powers established by law are compensated in accordance with the procedure established by civil legislation.

The legislator, unable to reliably and indisputably establish the legal status of MFC employees as officials, as individuals or as representatives of a legal entity, followed the path of isolating the administrative norm on the responsibility of MFC employees, where he preferred to ignore the legal status of the subject and highlighted in the norms of Article 5.63 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation "Violation of legislation on the organization of the provision of public services and municipal services" of MFC employees as one of the possible subjects of administrative responsibility. The objective side of the offense under Article 5.63 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation consists in violation of the procedure for the provision of public services provided by the federal executive authority or the state extra-budgetary fund of the Russian Federation, which entailed the failure to provide public services to the applicant or the provision of public services to the applicant in violation of the established deadlines. That is, the composition of an administrative offense under Article 5.63 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation forms the failure to provide a public service, or provision in violation of deadlines, if this involves a violation of the procedure for providing a public service.

It is obvious that the issue of bringing to administrative responsibility under the norm of Article 5.63 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation will initially be a conflict of laws and have many controversial aspects. Considering that the subjects of responsibility in the norm of Article 5.63 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation are officials of the federal executive authority or the body of the state extra-budgetary fund of the Russian Federation; employees of the MFC; employees of another organization performing the functions of the MFC; or an employee of a state institution engaged in the provision of public services in the field of state registration of rights to immovable property and transactions with it and the state cadastral registration of real estate.

The choice of the subject of attraction seems to be large, and the involved subjects will seek to shift responsibility for the violation to each other in order to avoid it. There are a lot of reasons and reasons for such collisions – the vagueness of the formulation of the objective composition of the offense contributes to all this.

Thus, a violation of the procedure for providing a public service under Article 5.63 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation in conditions when a request for its provision passes through the chain from an intermediary (MFC) to a state body and a direct executor (an official of a state body) can be allowed in several places of this chain at once, and all participating persons will strive to avoid responsibility. In such conditions, when the same subjects of responsibility under Article 5.63 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation are involved for the same offense, it will be almost impossible to accurately and unambiguously determine who exactly from the chain of performers committed the desired violation of the order. Due to the multiplicity of subjects, which are all subjects of Article 5.63 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, it will be practically impossible to bring a specific culprit to justice indisputably and legally accurately.

Moreover, the very subject structure of Article 5.63 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation equates the employees of the MFC to officials of state authorities, which is a mistake in the legal status, since it is legally wrong to give equal responsibility to such subjects who are not equal in authority, for violations in which, in fact, responsibility is assigned. So, if an official performing a public service has direct authority and commits a violation in the performance of the service, bringing him to responsibility as an official is lawful and justified. But if a similar responsibility is assigned to an employee of the MFC who does not have any independent administrative powers, then this is, at least, unfair. The equalization of persons with different legal status within the framework of the administrative law seems to be erroneous and does not correspond to the principles of justice of punishment. To resolve the legal conflict, it is necessary to differentiate the positions of the multifunctional center for the provision of state and municipal services, which will allow separating administrative responsibility for officials from the responsibility of ordinary employees of the institution (for example, hall operators who directly accept and issue documents to applicants).

References
1. Civil Code of the Russian Federation part 1 dated November 30, 1994. Federal Law No. 51 // RG-08.12.1994. – ¹238-239
2. Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses of December 30, 2001 No. 195-FZ // RG-12/31/2001. – ¹256
3. Federal Law of May 27, 2003 No. 58-FZ “On the system of public service of the Russian Federation” // RG-31.05.2003. – ¹104
4. Federal Law No. 27 July 2010 No. 210-FZ "On the organization of the provision of state and municipal services" // RG-30.07.2010. – ¹168
5. Zyryanov S.M. Administrative responsibility in the system of public liability // Journal of Russian Law-2014.-No. 1. – P. 15-16
6. Kuleshov G.N., Maryan A.V. Administrative and legal regulation of information support of the status of a civil servant as a subject of administrative law // Administrative and municipal law,-2010.-No. 7.-P. 29
7. List F. Textbook of criminal law. A common part. –M., –1903. –436p.
8. Mongush Ch.O. Features of the legal status of state and municipal services // Bulletin of the Magistracy-2021.-No. 3-1 (114). –P.41–43
9. Olshevskaya A.V., Popovich O.M. Topical issues of delimitation of related elements of administrative offenses and crimes. Bulletin of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. –2021 (4). -P. 212.
10. Pochitalin M.S. The main issues of the Soviet public service: author. dis. ... cand. legal Sciences.-M.,-1955.-P. 4

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

A REVIEW of an article on the topic "Theoretical foundations of bringing MFC employees to administrative responsibility: problems and solutions". The subject of the study. The article proposed for review is devoted to the problems and ways to solve the theoretical foundations of "... bringing MFC employees to administrative responsibility ...". The author has chosen a special subject of research: the proposed issues are investigated from the point of view of administrative, administrative-tort, civil law and procedure, while the author notes that "An important question arises as to whether employees of a state or municipal institution, including an autonomous one, can be independent subjects of administrative law in relation to the administrative rights granted to them the authority to provide public services, if they have such authority." The legislation of Russia (the Law on Public Services, the Civil Code, the Administrative Code) relevant to the purpose of the study is being studied. A certain amount of scientific literature (but not modern) on the stated issues is also studied and summarized, analysis and discussion with the opposing authors are partially given. At the same time, the author notes that "The activities of the IFC employees do not have the legal status of a service as such, in fact, it is the implementation and enforcement of the norms of the agreement concluded between the IFC and the state body, and no powers are transferred to the IFC employees. IFC employees are not included in the staff of these bodies either." Research methodology. The purpose of the study is determined by the title and content of the work: "For our study, the concept of administrative legal personality is extremely important, that is, the legal consolidation of the subject of administrative responsibility, since an IFC employee must be identified for the interests of administrative law as an individual, as an official, or as a representative of a legal entity." It can be designated as the consideration and resolution of certain problematic aspects related to the above-mentioned issues and the use of certain experience. Based on the set goals and objectives, the author has chosen a certain methodological basis for the study. In particular, the author uses a set of general scientific, special legal methods of cognition. In particular, the methods of analysis and synthesis made it possible to generalize some approaches to the proposed topic and partially influenced the author's conclusions. The most important role was played by special legal methods. In particular, the author used a formal legal method that allowed for the analysis and interpretation of the norms of current Russian legislation. In particular, the following conclusions are drawn: "If the provision of public services is the implementation of the functions of an executive authority in the exercise of certain delegated state powers, then the IFC employee is an administrative authority and has his own administrative and legal powers. However, in this case, he is a civil servant and must be included in the system of public authorities, which is not provided for by law at the moment," etc. Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is not fully adequate to the purpose of the article, it allows you to study certain aspects of the topic. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. This topic is one of the most important in Russia, from a legal point of view, the work proposed by the author can be considered relevant, namely, he notes that "One of the most important problems of administrative responsibility, universally noted in legal science, is the significant blurring and uncertainty of the boundaries of administrative responsibility." And in fact, an analysis of the works of opponents and NPAs should follow here, but it does not follow and the author does not show the ability to master modern scientific material. Thus, scientific research in the proposed field is only to be welcomed. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is questionable. It is not expressed in the specific scientific conclusions of the author. Among them, for example, the following: "The legislator, unable to reliably and indisputably establish the legal status of IFC employees as officials, as individuals or as representatives of a legal entity, took the path of isolating the administrative norm on the responsibility of IFC employees, where he preferred to ignore the legal status of the subject and highlighted in the norms of Art.5.63 of the Administrative Code The Russian Federation "Violation of the legislation on the organization of the provision of state and municipal services" of employees of the MFC as one of the possible subjects of administrative responsibility." As can be seen, these and other "theoretical" conclusions cannot be used in further scientific research. Thus, the materials of the article as presented cannot be of interest to the scientific community. Style, structure, content. The subject of the article does not correspond to the specialization of the journal "Security Issues", rather it corresponds to the specialization of the journal "Administrative Law and Practice of Administration", as it is devoted to the problems and ways to solve the theoretical foundations of "... bringing MFC employees to administrative responsibility ...". The article contains an analysis of the opponents' scientific works (although very limited), so the author notes that a question has already been raised that is relatively close to this topic and the author uses their materials, in some cases discusses with opponents. The content of the article practically does not correspond to the title, since the author considered the stated problems, but did not achieve the purpose of his research. The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as incomplete. The subject, tasks, methodology follow directly from the text of the article, but there are no results of legal research, scientific novelty. The design of the work meets some formal requirements for this kind of work. Significant violations of these requirements are numerous. The words "Differentiating administrative responsibility from criminal, administrative scientists agreed that an administrative offense is formal and qualifies as a violation of the norm of administrative law and in many cases does not require the establishment of the form of guilt and its presence" in terms of guilt show that the author is not fully aware that he contradicts himself and attributes his the opinion of a venerable scientist. Which is not true! The same applies to the expression: "Unlike civil legal capacity, administrative legal capacity obviously has a much narrower scope. For example, in relation to a legal entity or an official, it cannot exist from birth and end at the moment of death, since a legal entity arises from the moment of its state registration." What is this evaluative concept of a "narrower framework"? Further more: "... the activity of an IFC employee is the provision of public services, which is defined as the implementation of the functions of a federal executive authority, respectively...". This is a significant mistake! The author gets carried away and makes mistakes: "In this case, the question of the nature of the powers of the IFC staff should be investigated from the scientific side, from the point of view of the nature of the emergence of administrative authority." How can you be so sure that a public authority is transferring its powers? The author contradicts himself: "... an employee of the MFC does not independently provide a public service, this service is provided directly by the state or municipal body itself"! Bibliography. The quality of the literature presented and used should not be appreciated very highly. The absence of modern scientific literature, the presence of literature by authors with a distorted view of administrative responsibility (work 10), speaks volumes and shows the author's significant mistakes, and not only narrows the validity of the author's conclusions, but also distorts them. The works of the above authors do not correspond to the research topic, do not have a sign of sufficiency (except for work 6), do not contribute to the disclosure of some aspects of the topic.
Appeal to opponents. The author has not conducted a serious analysis of the current state of the problem under study. The author does not describe the opponents' different points of view on the problem, argues for a more correct position in his opinion, without relying on the work of opponents, offers solutions to individual problems. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The conclusions are not logical, specific "In order to resolve a legal conflict, it is necessary to differentiate administrative responsibility separately for officials and employees equated to them with authority and to allocate responsibility directly to employees of the MFC in a separate norm." The article in this form cannot be of interest to the readership in terms of the presence in it of the author's systematic positions in relation to the issues stated in the article, which should be typical for legal research. Based on the above, summing up all the positive and negative sides (errors) of the article, I recommend "rejecting".

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study. The article "Theoretical foundations of bringing MFC employees to administrative responsibility: problems and solutions" is devoted to the problems of bringing MFC employees to administrative responsibility, which are related to their special legal status in the legal system. Research methodology. During the writing of the article, many modern research methods were used, both general scientific and private. The methodological apparatus consists of the following dialectical methods of scientific cognition: abstraction, induction, deduction, hypothesis, analogy, synthesis, historical, theoretical-prognostic, formal-legal, systemic-structural legal modeling, as well as the application of typology, classification, systematization and generalization. The use of modern methods made it possible to study the established approaches, views on the subject of the article, to develop the author's position and to argue it. The work used a combination of theoretical and empirical information. The relevance of research. The relevance of the topic of the article is beyond doubt, since the complexity (rather duality) of the legal status of the IFC employees causes difficulties in law enforcement practice, in particular on issues of bringing them to administrative responsibility (unlike state and municipal employees). Scientific novelty. Although the topic of the article is not completely new to Russian jurisprudence, the author touches upon a new aspect of the legal status of the IFC employees - their responsibility for non-fulfillment or improper performance of official (official) duties. The author's conclusion deserves attention that "in order to resolve a legal conflict, it is necessary to differentiate the positions of a multifunctional center for the provision of state and municipal services, which will allow separating administrative responsibility for officials from the responsibility of ordinary employees of the institution (for example, hall operators who directly accept and issue documents to applicants)". Style, structure, content. In general, the article "Theoretical foundations of bringing MFC employees to administrative responsibility: problems and solutions" is structured. The material is presented consistently, competently and clearly. The article traces the introductory part, which substantiates the relevance of the subject of research, the substantive part, which includes the main results of the study and the final part, consisting of the main conclusions and suggestions of the author on the problem raised by him in the article. Bibliography. The references to the bibliographic sources are correct. We believe that the author should supplement the bibliography list with publications on his research topic. He has studied very few sources. In particular, you should look at the literature on administrative law and general provisions of administrative responsibility. These scientific disciplines have been sufficiently developed in Russian jurisprudence. Appeal to opponents. The appeal to the opponents is correct, decorated with links to the sources of the publication. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The article "Theoretical foundations of bringing MFC employees to administrative responsibility: problems and solutions", subject to its completion, can be published in the scientific journal "Administrative and Municipal Law", as it has relevance, scientific novelty and practical significance. As a wish to the author: do not use an abbreviation in the title of the article (although the full name of the MFC will overload the title). The article is of interest to scientists, practitioners, teachers and students of law schools, as well as anyone interested in topical issues of modern jurisprudence.