Grounds for Judicial Intervention in Administrative Discretion in Considering Cases of Administrative Offenses

Drawing from judicial practice, the article addresses the theoretical question of the procedural situations under the Code of Administrative Offenses in which courts intervene in the discretion of administrative authorities. The Author reconceptualises the phenomenon of discretion, viewing it not only as the choice among available options for resolving a case but also as the independent development of a solution when the law is ambiguous or internally contradictory. The article suggests characterising discretion as the “determination” or “identification” of a solution, rather than merely a “choice.” The article emphasises that discretion lies at the intersection of legal science and psychology. It is shaped by the internal discretionary orientations of the decisionmaker. Inspectors are guided by orientations that emphasise strengthening central authority and achieving managerial goals, whereas judges emphasise the application of general legal principles and the fundamental values of the state. These orientations influence statutory interpretation, shape the official’s perception of the scope of their powers, and guide the exercise of discretion. Administrative discretion is characterised as the selection or development of a procedural decision based on
the official’s own understanding of legal norms and values reflecting public administration priorities and the internal policy directions of public authority. Judicial discretion, in turn, is guided by the judge’s understanding of widely recognised social norms and general legal principles. Judicial intervention in administrative discretion occurs when judicial discretionary orientations override administrative ones. This must be distinguished from annulment of an illegal act. An act is unlawful when its content clearly contradicts the meaning of the applicable legislation, irrespective of whether this meaning is interpreted through administrative or judicial discretionary lenses. By contrast, judicial correction of administrative discretion occurs where, in light of judicial discretionary orientations, the administrative body cannot be shown to have clearly exceeded its powers. This occurs on three grounds: non-obvious illegality of the administrative act; obvious inexpediency; non-obvious illegality combined with obvious inexpediency.