Tolpegin, P.V. Specifi c features of interpretation of terms “interference” and “pressure” within the procedure of non-judicial review of address of persons and organizations in the sphere of implementation of law.

Abstract: The overly broad interpretation of the terms “interference” and “pressure” in the legal practice prevents the effi cient non-judicial protection of rights of claimants. Practice of state bodies is unclear, and in cases, which are not favorable for the claimant, his claim, which includes the information on violation of legislation and his subjective rights is not transferred to the competent bodies, as it is prescribed by the Law, but it is returned to him with the reference to the prohibition to interfere into the activities of investigators, prosecutors, etc. The article includes precedent-by-precedent analysis, which shows somewhat opposite reactions of government bodies to the requests on the protection of rights, which have similar objects and goals. The article also includes analysis of the legislation in order to fi nd contextual mentions of interference and pressure. The author then provides initiatives for improvement, and he shows how accepted overbroad interpretation of some terms is based on lack of ground, and transferring or readdressing of claims of persons and organizations by any subjects (including non-governmental organizations, political parties, deputies, or other offi cials) to the competent bodies is neither interference or pressure, if it is within the procedure of non-judicial review of claims. This position is supported by the commentary by the Aide to the President of the Russian Federation – the Head of the State Legal Offi ce of the President of the Russian Federation.

Keywords: