The legal nature of interim measures in administrative proceedings: Russian specificities and challenges to public jurisdiction

This article examines the legal nature of interim measures in administrative proceedings in the Russian Federation as a special institution of procedural protection against unlawful actions by public authorities. The author substantiates the need to distinguish between interim measures in administrative proceedings and similar mechanisms in civil and arbitration proceedings, as the former perform not only a procedural security function but also a public-rights protection function. It is emphasized that, despite the legal codification of this institution, its practical implementation faces a number of challenges: the lack of clear application criteria, the ambiguity of the concept of “risk of rights violation,” a weak mechanism for the enforcement of judicial decisions, and the risk of an imbalance between the presumption of legality of a legal act and the need to protect individual rights. To address the identified issues and develop an adapted model of preliminary protection applicable to the Russian legal environment, a review of international models of preliminary protection (Germany, France, and the United States) was conducted using comparative law. It was found that the German “balance of interests” doctrine provides structured judicial discretion, the French référé model provides for emergency procedures to protect fundamental rights, and the American temporary restraining order allows for immediate court intervention to prevent irreparable harm. These mechanisms are absent from Russian practice, which reduces the effectiveness of interim measures. Based on an analysis of international experience, areas for improving Russian legislation are proposed: introducing emergency interim procedures, codifying standardized criteria for their application (including the likelihood of success and the balance of interests), strengthening government liability for failure to enforce judicial decisions, and introducing a compensatory mechanism to protect the rights of administrative plaintiffs. A conclusion is drawn regarding the need for a comprehensive development of the institution of interim measures as a key element of effective judicial protection in the sphere of public law.