Protection of Lawful (Legitimate) Expectations as a Key Aspect of the Principle of Maintaining Public Trust in the Law and Government Actions: Foreign and Russian Approaches
- Authors: Khokhlova A.D.1
-
Affiliations:
- Issue: No 4 (2025)
- Pages: 78-92
- Section: ARTICLES
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/2409-7136/article/view/368638
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/IUJKBQ
- ID: 368638
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
The relevance of studying the principle of maintaining citizens' trust in the law and government actions stems from its pivotal role in ensuring the stability of legal systems and the legitimacy of state governance. The contradictions between, on the one hand, the principle of trust in governmental actions – demanding legal certainty and stability – and, on the other hand, the flexibility of state administration highlight the necessity for a systemic analysis of mechanisms implementing this principle. The study aims to identify theoretical and practical aspects of protecting legitimate (lawful) expectations as an element of the principle of trust in governmental actions within the framework of comparative jurisprudence, as well as to determine its place in the Russian legal system through the synthesis of foreign experience and national law enforcement trends. The methodological foundation includes a comparative legal analysis of foreign doctrines and Russian practices, a historical-legal method for reconstructing the evolution of the principle, and a formal-legal analysis of regulatory acts and rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The scientific novelty lies in the systemic examination of the interplay between legitimate expectations and institutions of procedural fairness and legal certainty across jurisdictions, as well as the synthesis of foreign concepts (e.g., the German principle of Vertrauensschutz, French sécurité juridique, and Anglo-American legitimate expectations) with Russian law enforcement approaches. The study proposes a classification of the grounds for legitimate expectations (individual assurances, established practices, regulatory acts). Research results revealed differences in the doctrine’s interpretation across legal systems: procedural protection in the UK, compensatory models in France, constitutional trust principles in Germany, and public interest prioritization in Canada and Australia. The Russian principle of maintaining trust in the law and governmental actions distinguishes between “lawful” and “legitimate” expectations and is implemented through legislative and enforcement dimensions. A critical analysis identified contradictions and challenges in practical implementation, leading to the formulation of development trends: unification of criteria for evaluating expectations, including clear definitions of their legal validity and protection mechanisms.
About the authors
Alina Dmitrievna Khokhlova
Email: khokhlova_ad@pfur.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4669-0978
References
Usher J. The Influence of National Concepts on Decisions of the European Court // European Law Review. 1976. N 28. P. 363. Watson J. Clarity and Ambiguity: A New Approach to the Test of Legitimacy in the Law of Legitimate Expectations // Legal Studies. 2010. N 30 (4). Pp. 633-652. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-121X.2010.00177.x. Ahmed F., Perry A. The Coherence of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations // Cambridge Law Journal. 2014. N 73 (1). Pp. 61-85. doi: 10.1017/S0008197314000026. Барбук А. Защита законных ожиданий и прямое применение международного права // Белорусский журнал международного права и международных отношений. 2002. N 3. URL: https://evolutio.info/ru/journal-menu/2002-3/2002-3-barbuk (дата обращения: 02.04.2025). Craig P. Administrative Law (7th edn) // Sweet and Maxwell. 2012. Pp. 679-680. Tate P. The coherence of "Legitimate Expectations" and the Foundation of Natural Justice // Monash University Law Review. 1988. V. 14. P. 68. Forestini R. Les accords avec l'administration fiscale, in Dossiers du Journal des Tribunaux, num. n°40 // Bruxelles: Larcier Group. 2003. P. 154. Brown C. The Protection of Legitimate Expectations As A 'General Principle of Law': Some Preliminary Thoughts // Transnational Dispute Management. 2009. N 1. URL: www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=1303 (дата обращения: 04.05.2025). Forsyth C.F. The Provenance and Protection of Legitimate Expectations // The Cambridge Law Journal. 1988. V. 47. N 2. Pp. 238-260. doi: 10.1017/S000819730011801X. Groves M. N. Substantive Legitimate Expectations in Australian Administrative Law // Melbourne University Law Review. 2008. V. 32. N 2. Pp. 470-523. Varuhas J. N. In Search of a Doctrine: Mapping the Law of Legitimate Expectations in "Legitimate Expectations in the Common Law World" (1 ed.) by Groves M.; Weeks G. // Oxford UK: Hart Publishing. 2017. P. 368. Информация Конституционного Суда РФ "Методологические аспекты конституционного контроля (к 30-летию Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации)" (одобрено решением Конституционного Суда РФ от 19.10.2021) // СПС "КонсультантПлюс" (дата обращения: 04.05.2025). Андрюшин С. В. Применение принципа поддержания доверия граждан к закону и действиям государства при разрешении налоговых споров // Налоговед. 2019. N 2. URL: https://e.nalogoved.ru/706902 (дата обращения: 01.05.2025). EDN: YWAHWX. Макаренко Д. Г. Принцип доверия как детерминанта эффективного правового регулирования общественных отношений: правовое обеспечение // Мониторинг правоприменения. 2017. N 4(25). С. 15-22. EDN: XRWKTZ. Афанасьев Д. В. Нюансы защиты имущества юридических лиц в Европейском суде по правам человека // Хозяйство и право. 2011. N 6. С. 28-39. EDN: UNYVOR. Черновол К. А. Концепция правомерных ожиданий: европейский и российский опыт // Правоведение. 2019. Т. 63. N 1. С. 181-191. doi: 10.21638/spbu25.2019.110. EDN: OJMDJC. Зорькин В. Д. Конституционно-правовое развитие России // Москва: Норма, ИНФРА-М. 2011. 719 с. ISBN 978-5-91768-221-1 (Норма), 978-5-16-005138-3 (ИНФРА-М). EDN: SDQRMD. Арапов Н. А. Принцип поддержания доверия к закону и действиям государства в российском конституционном праве и правосудии: дис. ... кандидата юридических наук: 12.00.02. Федеральное государственное бюджетное образовательное учреждение высшего профессионального образования "Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет". Санкт-Петербург. 2015. 277 с. EDN: XWTCFN.
Supplementary files
