5. But with these beginnings. legislation p S.
3. M. 14.599. - ttt tit ped titeteitit by whom: duli 102 body it was not possible to completely separate the justice from the administrator: we think, therefore, that in our administrative system the same features are still visible - an indirect, and sometimes direct connection between the government and the judicial power. In this respect, our administrative system ranks far below the systems of the most important states of Western Europe. We are not talking about England, where the judicial power subordinates the administrative power, nor about the United States, where the Supreme Court of S.S. (Zirgeshe soshg oYe osPcea z6a6ez) the judicial power controls even the legislative power - we will talk about one Franchy, the administrative system of which has so much in common with ours. Despite the wide area of administrative jurisdiction, the Conflicts often raised by the prechets, which developed even during the apstep gbomsha by evokaschy (rag u0e avoosayot) “) - justice in Franchi, sent by the powerless crown magistracy, still stands very high, being more or less independent of the administration. The very organization of the domestic justice system can show us that it has not yet completely separated itself from the administration: looking closely at the structure of our judicial offices, we can say that all of them - from the Senate to the district court - next to the judicial ones, administrative institutions of guardianship send acts, the commission of civil acts is also concentrated in the judicial bodies. We agree with Bluntschli, who leans towards the separation of controversial from arbitrary justice, recommending that the execution of official acts be provided to the institution of brokers and notaries*). tazapse, nor in soigz Charre! The French are not given either guardianship matters or acts of serfdom. The former belong to the subjects of the department]15ez Cherakh, the latter belong exclusively to brokers and notaries. But if, during the 18th century, before the establishment of the province, our legislation failed to separate justice from administrative justice, failed to distinguish between civil and criminal justice and merged arbitrary justice with controversial justice - then in the time we are considering, we managed to develop other features of the rational judicial system - a concept as with the highest judicial power - 0 king, as. o di. Understand this was a matter of fact: from the most impartial account of the Romanovs, some of the courts of Grozny, it is known that the first persons were subject to direct reprisals from the tsar himself - like the commander. archpriest and clergy of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral. Despite the development of the state principle, the Moscow tsars of the 17th century still retained the ancient features of a patrimonial owner, a householder. In the 18th century, this type was modified: in the face of the first imm, monarchical power began to assimilate European features. Standing at the head of the government, the circle of its activities expanded enormously; the Russian sovereigns could no longer bring harm to court. Beginning with Peter V., requests began to be constantly submitted into the sovereign’s own hands. Already in Ulozheshi, Aleksf Mikhailovich was punished for submitting a petition to the sovereign, in addition to the order '). Postakovleshe this was confirmed in 1700 h) and in 17114 °) But despite the petitioners incessantly to his royal greatness of all kinds, not the all-Russian author to issue decrees about not confirming these,, they bothered his honor about their grievances, vezaV, giving peace; and although on their part it can be easily judged that it is reasonable, but besides, everyone has their own bitter offense, and on whom should they judge what is theirs? there is a multitude, there is one person, and that for many military and other labors, the order of 1748 ordered that yata be served... “Giving reasons for this, U 4). But by ordering these constant petitions to the established courts, they were violated, violating them caused new confirmations - and starting from Peter V. until the end of the 18th century, we see decree after decree about the non-submission of petitions to the sovereign himself. It was so difficult for society to break away from the internalized view of the tsar as the most impartial judge, and it was even more difficult for you that the judges of that time) P.S.