Laws are written by people, and people tend to make mistakes. From this it is very easy to conclude that the texts of laws, and other regulatory acts, may be incorrect.
How to identify an error in the text of the law - what if the legislator wanted to write exactly that? The number of regulations is enormous, and in order to fully understand the meaning of a specific document, you need to consider it in the context of "nearby" complementary and concretizing acts. However, most often in the "standardization" there are simple logical inconsistencies, case inconsistencies, missing words, and the like. Sometimes these errors are eliminated, but most of the inaccuracies described in the article are contained in the current editions of the regulations. Codes
Most of all goes to the codes, the purpose of which is to collect the norms of the law of a particular industry and present them in a systematic way. Errors of systematization, for example, incorrect cross-references, are added to the “usual” errors arising during the writing of the text.
For example, Article 109 of the Customs Code
states requirements for a temporary storage warehouse. “Temporary storage” is a special customs regime that is characterized by certain rules for the handling of imported goods. In particular, it should be stored in “temporary storage warehouses”. Such a warehouse is included in a special register; for this, it must meet certain requirements.
The third paragraph of the article refers to a civil liability risk insurance contract that the owner of such a warehouse must conclude: “The insured amount, to the extent that the insurer undertakes to compensate for each insured event to persons whose property interests are caused, is calculated on the basis of usable area or useful volume and is determined by the rate of 3,500 rubles per square meter of usable area, if used as a customs warehouse open area,
or at the rate of 1,000 rubles per cubic meter of useful volume, if used as a customs warehouse premises,
but can not be less than two million rubles. "
It would seem, nothing strange, if you do not know that the " customs warehouse
" is not just a phrase, but another special customs regime. In this mode, the goods should be stored in the “bonded warehouse”, to which certain requirements are also made. Among them there is also a requirement to conclude a contract of insurance against the risk of civil liability. And if we compare the relevant paragraphs of articles 109 and 227
, we will understand where this “customs warehouse” came from in that article in which it should not be.
Yes, yes: the text of these points almost coincides. In article 227, however, there are no words “calculated on the basis of the usable area or useful volume and”, they were added in article 109. But the “customs warehouse” was clearly forgotten to be worn out and replaced with “temporary storage warehouse”.
Well, think, warehouse and warehouse. Apparently, they have forgotten that the “warehouse” is not just a building, but a customs regime ... Here is such a legislative copy-paste. But in these cases, the meaning of the regulatory act can still be understood.
But the drafters of clause 1 of Article 110 of the Arbitration Procedure Code
seem to have forgotten to write in it the most important passage. This article speaks about the distribution of court costs among the participants in the case, and its first paragraph states: “Court expenses incurred by persons participating in the case, in whose favor the judicial act was passed, are exacted by the arbitral tribunal.” From which they are charged by the parties - it is not clear . By the general rules - with the loser, but this general rule, as we see, is not reflected in the text of the law.
Returning to the “warehouses”, we also recall the article 908 of the Civil Code
. Its first paragraph reads: " A warehouse is recognized as a public warehouse
, if it follows from a law or other legal acts that it is
obliged to accept goods for storage from any commodity owner." Who is this " she
" is not reported, and the comma after the "law" looks inappropriate: in theory, there should be "or" ...
This is one of those rare cases where the introduction of changes does not eliminate the error, but introduces it: in the original version, after the “legal acts” there were still the words “ or a permit (license) issued to this commercial organization
After the adoption of the law “ On licensing certain types of activities
”, many other regulatory acts had to be brought into conformity with it. The authors of the law
, which were amended, just walked through the texts, cutting out the words about licensing from everywhere
. The fact that some phrases after that lose their meaning, they do not seem to have thought ...The Civil Code
, in general, is lucky for such mistakes: for example, an incorrect ending in Article 790
generally changes the meaning of what is written to the opposite: “In cases when, in accordance with the law or other legal acts, privileges or advantages are established for the carriage of goods, passengers and passengers baggage incurred in connection with this cost reimbursed transport organization
at the expense of the relevant budget. "Of course, in the text typo: instead of" organization "should be" organization ". Otherwise, it would have turned out that the carrier is not only obliged to take less from the beneficiaries, but also to reimburse who knows the costs incurred. Virtually "execute cannot be pardoned" ...Land Code
does not carry on the design of the form "oil". In article 5,
with the definitions of the concepts used in it, the first goes: " land owners
- the persons who are land owners
". Yes, specifically. And try to argue ...
And the law on the introduction of the Land Code
into force ( clause 12 of Article 3
) at its adoption contained the following structure: “The right of permanent (perpetual)
use of land plots granted to land users prior to the enactment of the Land Code of the Russian Federation corresponds to the permanent
right provided by the Land Code of the Russian Federation ( perpetual)
use of land. "And then" oil oil ". True, later this passage was amended: the first passage of the “permanent (perpetual)” was replaced ... you would never guess which one. On the " perpetual (permanent)
." Well, in this case, the parliamentarians even tried to fix something - but the rest of the inaccuracies mentioned above exist to this day.tax code
The tax code is perhaps the record for errors, which is not surprising, given how many changes have been made to it, especially in the second part. So we will devote a separate section of this article to him.
For example, in the second part of the code, Articles
218-221 referred to “determining the size of the tax base in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 210 of this Code
”. In fact, the rules for determining the tax base are established by the third part of Article 210
. The error existed safely for almost seven years
, and was corrected
only in July 2007.
One more error was corrected: the last paragraph of Article 40 contained a reference to the chapter “Corporate Profit ( Income
) Tax”, which is actually called “Corporate Profit Tax”. Changes were made only last year, a mistake, thus, lasted more than ten years
. It looks like a record ...
And in 1999, Article 135.1
was added to the Tax Code
, which established the responsibility of banks for not providing information about their clients to the tax authorities. The first part provided for a fine of ten thousand, and the second - twenty thousand rubles. The trouble is that the text of both parts was absolutely identical
, that is, they said the same offense. It happens. The bug was fixed in 2006.
Against the backdrop of such an enchanting “blooper,” the confusion with copyright terminology in articles 208 and 221 seems just trivial, although there is no trifle in the texts of legislative acts. Clause 3 of Article 208
speaks of "income from the use of copyright or other
related rights outside the Russian Federation." The word "other" is clearly superfluous: copyright is not a kind of contiguous. Moreover, the inaccuracy was introduced when changes were made, and in the previous edition it was said about “intellectual property rights”, and for which it was necessary to correct it was completely incomprehensible.
In clause 3 of Article 221,
the number of “intellectual property”, for which the taxpayer is expected to receive remuneration, for some reason refers to “discoveries” that have never been protected by copyright or patent law. At the same time, “inventions and industrial designs” are mentioned in the text, but there is not a word about utility models that are also protected by patent law.All the rest
Similar inaccuracies were also contained in the previous law “On Enforcement Proceedings” (a new law with the same name is currently in force). His sixty-sixth article
, referring to the extent of withholding from the debtor’s income, also speaks of some kind of " right to discovery
." It also says nothing about utility models, in addition, the authors of the article consider that some “certificates” are issued for an industrial design - they seem to have been confused with Soviet times (this option is also supported by the fact that " rationalization
Another “oil of oil” is contained in the law “On the right of citizens of the Russian Federation to freedom of movement, choice of place of stay and residence within the Russian Federation”. The first sentence of
his second article reads: "For the purposes of this Law, the place of residence and residence
means the place of stay and place of residence
But the inaccuracy in one of the articles of the Law “On the Protection of the Rights of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs in the Implementation of State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control” is not so harmless. Article 9 clause 12
reads: “A legal entity, an individual entrepreneur shall be notified of a scheduled inspection by a state control (supervision) body, a municipal control body no later than within
three working days before it starts ...” In fact, usually In cases, the phrase “no later than ... days” is used, and if we literally read the text, it turns out that the notification can be sent to any of these “three working days” - that is, for example, to send today, and tomorrow to go with checking ...
Some inaccuracies can be interpreted on the contrary, not in favor of the state. For example, the Law “On Advertising” ( clause 10 of Article 19
) states: “In the case of an unauthorized installation of a new
advertising structure, it is subject to dismantling on the basis of an order of the local government of the municipal district or the local government of the city district in whose territories the advertising structure is installed.” The question is: if the construction is not installed " again
", but for the first time, can the local government authority issue an order for dismantling, or does it not have the right to do so? And how then to make the structure installed " again
" - is it illegal to demolish it?
Another source of errors is the substitution of the meaning of the concepts for a “household” instead of the one contained in the law. We have already dealt with the example of a “ customs warehouse
”, which is not just a “ barn,
” but a special customs regime
. Well, and the authors of the 2005 “Postal Service Provisions” that did not work in 2005 wrote the following definition: "" "- persons having a power of attorney
executed in the prescribed manner." But the “legal representatives” always referred to persons who represent someone by virtue of the law, in contrast to “ representatives by proxy
”. That is, in the general case, the “legal representative” doesn’t need a power of attorney - only at the post office ...Article 8 of the
law “On appraisal activity in the Russian Federation” speaks of cases when the valuation of property is mandatory. Here's what it looks like: “ Appraisal of valuation objects
is mandatory in the event that valuation objects belonging to the Russian Federation
, subjects of the Russian Federation or municipalities are involved in the transaction, including: ... when drafting marriage contracts and dividing the property of divorcing spouses upon request one of the parties or both parties in the event of a dispute about the value of this property. " Who needs to marry, so that the dowry of the spouse belonged to the Russian Federation, its subjects or municipalities, the law is silent.
There are cases when the absurdity of a normative act arises not because of an error, but because of too free treatment of the legislation. Often this was found in decrees signed by Yeltsin. For example, at the end of one of his decrees
it says: “This Decree enters into force on February 1, 2005.
” And further, “Moscow, the Kremlin, February 16, 2005.
” That is, it was officially adopted as “retroactively”, two weeks before the actual signing ...
It was even steeper with the decree
“On some changes in taxation and in relations between budgets of various levels,” which, among other things, states the following: “Establish that the laws of the Russian Federation“ On value-added tax ”,“ On excise taxes ”,“ On corporate property tax, “On income tax of enterprises and organizations” and “On the fundamentals of the tax system in the Russian Federation” are not applied to the extent contrary to this Decree
. ”That's it, no more and no less. It was adopted in 1993: the nineties, as we see, are not in vain as an era of rampant crime. An example of disregard for the law gave the first person of the state ...
And sometimes it is not at all clear that this is a mistake or such a sophisticated plan of the legislator. For example, Article 10
“On Civil Defense” states that citizens of the Russian Federation “are trained in civil defense”, “take part in other civil defense activities”, and “provide assistance to state authorities and organizations in solving problems in civil defense areas. " In this case, the article is entitled “ Rights and obligations of
citizens of the Russian Federation in the field of civil defense”. Naturally, the question arises: which of the above is right, and what is duty? The law does not answer this question, of course, ...
Rulemaking is generally a complicated thing ...