On the issue of responsibility of officials for violation of the rights of entrepreneurs

2020

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.31489/2020l1/76-84
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

The article is devoted to analysis of the effectiveness of the response of officials of state bodies and organizations to violations of the rights of entrepreneurs, ensuring their protection. One of the key indicators for assessing the performance of officials is the appeal of business entities. The work focuses on the characteristic violations of the rights of entrepreneurs encountered in law enforcement practice, as well as on the problems of legislative regulation of the responsibility of perpetrators. Along with officials of various bodies and organizations, violations of the rights of entrepreneurs are allowed by the law enforcement officials. The provision of Article 32 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan On Administrative Infractions, according to which the law enforcement officials for administrative offenses, committed in the performance of official duties, are liable in accordance with regulatory legal acts regulating the procedure for serving in the relevant authorities, requires appropriate attention. The work also concludes that at present there is a need to distinguish between the limits of administrative and criminal liability, to specify at the legislative level the categories as «Illegal interference in entrepreneurial activity», «Interfering with legal entrepreneurial activity», and «Corporate raiding».