The other day the Municipal Prosecution department sent to the municipalities of the city an inquiry with a request to notify when, where and what for the deputies have left St.Petersburg. Some offices obediently gathered and sent the information. The others thought whether the inquiry of the prosecutor infringes the constitutional right of free movement?
"All the municipalities received inquiries from the Municipal Prosecution officers; - the deputy of one municipality of Kirovskiy region confirmed the information on condition of anonymity. — The municipal officers were asked to inform what they left St.Petersburg for. We have a female worker that lives in Leningradskaya district and she will have to give a report of each day she left the city. If one of us left for abroad it is necessary to specify when, where and what for. That means that their inquiry for the data contradicts the constitutional right of freedom of movement. The necessity to give this information was explained only by the law of public prosecution. But the purpose was not clarified. So that people started to think whether they can go abroad. Moreover is it ethical to ask the officers where they spent holidays?
"Indeed last week we received such a letter by fax”, - commented Roman Morozov, a head of administration of “Krasnenkaya rechka” municipal entity. — The public prosecution inquired these data for the fight against corruption, and there is no infringement of rights here. Municipal officers are free to give or not to give such information, accordingly we sent the respond. As of today the prosecution didn’t ask for any clarifications. The question was whether the officers left Saint Petersburg without specification of the destination. As for the trips abroad it is compulsory to specify the time and destination. I didn’t leave the city because I didn’t have a holiday, and the officers didn’t have business trips".
The situation is commented by Soslan Batmanov, a legal advisor of Tenzor Consulting Group: "Public prosecution as a government institution is primarily a supervising entity. According to the current legislation the public prosecution is obliged to supervise the expenditure of budget funds. In this context the prosecution officers are entitled to know how transparently the funds of the federal budget are used. In this particular situation one can see the excess of powers in actions of prosecution officers. According to the RF constitution the local administration bodies are not included into the system of government authority entities. And the public prosecution can supervise only those funds that are received by municipalities as special subventions and federal budget dotations. The same time the public prosecution has no right to make a free supervision of the activity of a state entity.
Просмотров: 66
Copyright 2010 Tenzor Consulting Group
All rights reserved
Rules Links
The other day the Municipal Prosecution department sent to the municipalities of the city an inquiry with a request to notify when, where and what for the deputies have left St.Petersburg. Some offices obediently gathered and sent the information. The others thought whether the inquiry of the prosecutor infringes the constitutional right of free movement?
"All the municipalities received inquiries from the Municipal Prosecution officers; - the deputy of one municipality of Kirovskiy region confirmed the information on condition of anonymity. — The municipal officers were asked to inform what they left St.Petersburg for. We have a female worker that lives in Leningradskaya district and she will have to give a report of each day she left the city. If one of us left for abroad it is necessary to specify when, where and what for. That means that their inquiry for the data contradicts the constitutional right of freedom of movement. The necessity to give this information was explained only by the law of public prosecution. But the purpose was not clarified. So that people started to think whether they can go abroad. Moreover is it ethical to ask the officers where they spent holidays?
"Indeed last week we received such a letter by fax”, - commented Roman Morozov, a head of administration of “Krasnenkaya rechka” municipal entity. — The public prosecution inquired these data for the fight against corruption, and there is no infringement of rights here. Municipal officers are free to give or not to give such information, accordingly we sent the respond. As of today the prosecution didn’t ask for any clarifications. The question was whether the officers left Saint Petersburg without specification of the destination. As for the trips abroad it is compulsory to specify the time and destination. I didn’t leave the city because I didn’t have a holiday, and the officers didn’t have business trips".
The situation is commented by Soslan Batmanov, a legal advisor of Tenzor Consulting Group: "Public prosecution as a government institution is primarily a supervising entity. According to the current legislation the public prosecution is obliged to supervise the expenditure of budget funds. In this context the prosecution officers are entitled to know how transparently the funds of the federal budget are used. In this particular situation one can see the excess of powers in actions of prosecution officers. According to the RF constitution the local administration bodies are not included into the system of government authority entities. And the public prosecution can supervise only those funds that are received by municipalities as special subventions and federal budget dotations. The same time the public prosecution has no right to make a free supervision of the activity of a state entity.