Status of letters from the Federal Tax Service: normative act or just clarification? (Danchenko S.P.). Regulatory legal acts Is a letter from the ministry a regulatory legal act?

In accordance with clause 2 of the “Rules for the preparation of normative legal acts of federal executive authorities and their state registration"(approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 13, 1997 N 1009) regulatory legal acts are issued by federal executive authorities in the form of resolutions, orders, instructions, rules, instructions and regulations. And the creation of normative legal acts in the form of letters and telegrams is not allowed.

So the letter can't contain new legal norms regulating the activities educational organizations, or change/cancel the content of other norms.

Article 37 of the federal law of March 30, 1999 N 52-FZ "On the sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population" provides that the state sanitary and epidemiological rationing includes:

Development of uniform requirements for conducting research work to substantiate sanitary rules;

Control over the conduct of research work on state sanitary and epidemiological regulation;

- development (revision), examination, approval and publication of sanitary rules;

Monitoring the implementation of sanitary rules, studying and summarizing the practice of their application;

Registration and systematization of sanitary rules, formation and maintenance of a unified federal database in the field of state sanitary and epidemiological regulation.

In accordance with Article 39 of this law, in the territory Russian Federation federal sanitary rules , approved and put into effect by the federal executive body authorized to carry out state sanitary and epidemiological supervision in the manner established by the Government of the Russian Federation. Sanitary rules subject to registration and official publication in the manner established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with clause 2 of the Regulations on state sanitary and epidemiological regulation (approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 24, 2000 N 554), the regulatory legal acts establishing sanitary and epidemiological requirements are state sanitary and epidemiological rules (sanitary rules, sanitary rules and norms, sanitary standards, hygienic standards) containing:

Hygienic and anti-epidemic requirements to ensure the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population, the prevention of human diseases, favorable conditions for their living, work, life, recreation, education and nutrition, as well as the preservation and strengthening of their health;

Optimal and maximum permissible levels of influence of environmental factors on the human body;

The maximum or minimum acceptable quantitative and (or) qualitative value of an indicator that characterizes one or another factor of its habitat from the standpoint of safety and (or) harmlessness to human health.

Thus, sanitary norms and rules are mandatory regulatory legal acts. Letters from educational authorities should not contradict them.

LETTERS OF EXECUTIVE BODIES: PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION, LEGAL NATURE AND RELATIONSHIP WITH REGULATIONS

L.A. ALIYEVA

Regulatory legal act (hereinafter referred to as NLA) in modern Russia is the main source legal regulation public relations. There is no legislative definition of legal acts, but within the framework of this article it seems quite appropriate to use the definition given in Order of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation dated May 4, 2007 N 88 “On approval of Explanations on the application of the Rules for the preparation of normative legal acts of federal executive bodies and their state registration.” In accordance with this act, “a normative legal act is a written official document adopted (issued) in a certain form by a law-making body within its competence and aimed at establishing, amending or repealing legal norms. In turn, a legal norm is usually understood as a generally binding state a permanent or temporary prescription intended for repeated use."

It would also not be superfluous to note that the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 13, 1997 N 1009 “On approval of the Rules for the preparation of normative legal acts of federal executive bodies and their state registration” (hereinafter referred to as Government Decree N 1009) states that “regulatory legal acts of federal executive authorities are issued only in the form of resolutions, orders, instructions, rules, instructions and regulations.” It is also noted that “the publication of normative legal acts in the form of letters and telegrams is not allowed.”

Before moving on to a more detailed consideration of the problem, it is worth listing the main features of legal acts. So, M.N. Marchenko in his textbook according to the theory of state and law gives the following list of features of legal acts:

"1. Without exception, all regulatory legal acts are state in nature.

2. They are published or sanctioned only by state bodies and are of a volitional nature.

3. They contain and through them the will of the state is refracted.

4. Violation of the orders contained in regulatory legal acts is associated with the onset of criminal, civil and other legal consequences."

Also, to these characteristics we can add the non-personalized nature of legal acts (their address to an indefinite number of persons); the fact that they are created for repeated use and are aimed at regulating social relations; have a certain procedure for adoption, publication and entry into force.

The question of signs in this article is of great importance, since the definition of writing and its characteristic features is absent in modern legal science. And given the fact that these documents are issued by executive authorities and de facto have some characteristics of legal acts, it is worthwhile to figure out whether they are such or not.

In theory, judicial practice related to challenging letters issued by various executive authorities should help resolve the issue. But she is very contradictory. This can be illustrated with the following examples.

In one of the cases considered in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Supreme Court) in 2014, citizen D.N. Irkhin (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) was deprived of the position of cadastral engineer by the certification commission due to a gross violation of the requirements for completing the documents necessary to obtain a qualification certificate for the right to carry out cadastral activities. Moreover, the basis for such a decision of the commission for certification of cadastral engineers was not those gross violations that are listed in the Federal Law “On the State Real Estate Cadastre” (hereinafter referred to as the Cadastre Law), but those contained in the letter of the Ministry economic development Russian Federation dated July 27, 2010 "On the grounds for revocation of the qualification certificate of a cadastral engineer." The Supreme Court, having analyzed this act, came to the conclusion that “the letter is a normative legal act, since it contains legal norms(rules of conduct), mandatory for an indefinite number of persons, designed for repeated use, aimed at regulating social relations arising in connection with the maintenance of the state real estate cadastre, the implementation of state cadastral registration of real estate and cadastral activities."

After establishing this letter as a legal act, the Supreme Court indicated that this letter was not submitted for state registration to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Ministry of Justice of Russia) and was not published in the manner prescribed by law, violated paragraph 2 of Government Resolution No. 1009, stating that “the publication of normative legal acts in the form of letters and telegrams is not allowed.” And, as a result, it satisfied the applicant’s demands and declared the aforementioned letter from the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia invalid, thereby prohibiting its use in practice.

The second example, although it relates to the field of tax law, still events there developed completely differently than in the first case. We will talk about taxation on the extraction of minerals in terms of their regulatory losses.

By general rule, established by the current tax legislation, the tax rate in this case is 0% (rubles). Paragraph 3 p. 1 h. 1 tbsp. 342 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation establishes that if for the first period of the next calendar year taxpayers do not have approved loss standards for this year, then those standards that were approved earlier are applied (and for newly developed fields - loss standards established by the technical design).

08/21/2013 The Federal Tax Service (hereinafter referred to as the Federal Tax Service) published letter No. AS-4-3/15165 “On the mineral extraction tax” (hereinafter referred to as the Federal Tax Service letter “On Mineral Extraction Tax”). In it, in addition to what was written in the paragraph above, the Federal Tax Service establishes a rule for recalculating the amounts of mineral extraction tax in the event that loss standards are approved for the next calendar year during this or the next calendar year. Moreover, it does not matter whether these standards increase or decrease. By the way, in the second case, the taxpayer will not be able to determine in advance the amount of his expenses, which will not have the best effect on his activities.

All this served as the reason for the filing of an application by Gazprom Neft OJSC (hereinafter referred to as Gazprom Neft) to the Supreme Court. By a ruling dated December 17, 2013, the Supreme Court refused to accept Gazprom Neft’s application to invalidate the Federal Tax Service’s letter “On Mineral Extraction Tax.” At the same time, the Supreme Court indicated in its Ruling that consideration of issues of challenging the NLA of the Federal tax service subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration court.

Now, remembering the previous example (about the cadastral engineer), where the letter was recognized as legal acts, one can only wonder about the unity judicial practice, which, it turns out, doesn’t exist at all. Moreover, all this took place within the same court, which is even more surprising. Now you can continue the story.

After the second refusal to consider the case by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, Gazprom Neft appealed to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Constitutional Court) challenging the norms of the Federal Constitutional Law of 02/05/2014 “On the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation” and the above-mentioned paragraph . 3 p. 1 h. 1 tbsp. 342 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. But given the subject of this article, the focus will be on the reasoning and decisions Constitutional Court, related to the legal validity of the letter mentioned above.

The Constitutional Court explained that “... the admissibility of checking in this procedure an act of the Federal Tax Service as a federal executive body must first of all be based on the presence of normative properties in this act (whether it has a general regulatory impact on public relations, does it contain instructions on the rights and obligations of a personally unspecified circle of persons - participants in the relevant legal relations, is it designed for repeated use) ". That is, it is not easy to carry out the procedure for compliance with the formal characteristics of legal acts, which was carried out very controversially by the Supreme Court when considering cases, indicated above, namely the ability of legal acts to influence public relations, to have a non-personalized nature and to be designed for repeated use.

Thus, since 2015, acts of executive authorities, which are not formally legal acts, but have normative properties, are considered in the manner established for challenging normative legal acts. But from March 2016, this “transitional” procedure will undergo changes, since Federal Law No. 18-FZ of February 15, 2016 “On Amendments to the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation was adopted in terms of establishing the procedure for judicial review cases of challenging individual acts." According to this Federal Law, arbitration cases challenging acts of executive authorities that have normative properties and contain clarifications of legislation will be considered if this category of cases is assigned by the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to the competence of the Intellectual Rights Court. Moreover, changes were made to the Code of Administrative Procedure to determine the jurisdiction of cases regarding challenging acts of the above-mentioned bodies that clarify the provisions of the law and have normative properties, as well as the procedure for proceedings administrative matters on challenging these acts.

Returning to the analysis of the decision of the Constitutional Court, the following shortcomings can be identified:

1. Despite the well-founded position of the Constitutional Court, which focused on the normative properties of letters from the Federal Tax Service, it is not entirely correct to ignore formal features. Still, there are requirements and conditions established by the Constitution (Part 3 of Article 15) and a number of other legal acts (the form of the document itself, the proper subject of publication, the procedure for adoption and entry into force, etc.), which allow us to define the document as a normative legal document act.

Very interesting in this case are the Dissenting Opinions of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Yu.M. Danilova and G.A. Zhilin, who equally agreed that these acts are not normative legal and are subject to challenge in an arbitration court in accordance with Chapter 24 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.

2. First of all, letters from the Federal Tax Service were given a special status. On the one hand, they are not legal acts in the literal sense of the term. But they can no longer be called non-normative acts, since they will be considered by the courts on the same basis as cases challenging legal acts. Does this promote consistent law enforcement practices? Does this improve the efficiency of the administration of justice? Unlikely...

In general, questions of the relationship between acts of interpretation and normative acts have now acquired particularly acute importance. This obviously follows from the examples given, where even in the highest courts there is no unanimity of opinion on the issues that have arisen. Of course, the Resolution of the Constitutional Court brought more clarity to the resolution of these issues, but not without shortcomings, which were also described above.

At the same time, it seems that to ignore this problem in no case is it possible, since in acts that were initially issued by executive authorities in order to clarify a specific law (rule of law), norms began to appear that do not provided by law, but creating certain requirements and rules of behavior. And if a citizen (organization) has a situation (for example, as in the case of citizen Irkhin) related to such acts, then the body that issued it demanded that the instructions specified in them be fulfilled (otherwise this often threatened with negative consequences). And if the same citizen (organization) went to court, the executive authorities declared that these acts, by their nature, do not have legal force, but only clarify the provisions of the legislation, thereby “washing their hands.” It turns out to be a very effective scheme in which executive authorities can engage in a kind of “rule-making”, while bypassing judicial mechanisms for influencing such activities. And the logical results of such “lawmaking” are:

1) violation of the rights of citizens and organizations when participating in certain legal relations;

2) a kind of “pulling” of functions for the adoption of generally binding legal norms by the executive branch, which ultimately leads to a distortion of the very essence of the legislative authorities and the principle of separation of powers in general;

3) the inability of the judicial branch of government to effectively influence such activities.

Speaking about ways to overcome the listed violations and summing up the research, it seems possible to note the following. Of course, the changes described above, made by the legislator to the Arbitration Procedural Code and the Code of Administrative Proceedings, are very positive, since now challenging these acts acquires a more strict procedural procedure, which increases the ability of the judiciary to actually influence the “lawmaking” of the executive branch and, most importantly, , the effectiveness of protecting the rights of citizens and organizations from this activity.

But, in addition to procedural regulation, it is also necessary to issue a so-called substantive law, which would establish the types of legal acts, their relationship in legal force to each other, interpretation, etc. In this light, it seems quite reasonable and relevant to accept Federal Law“On normative legal acts”, the draft of which is currently in the Ministry of Justice of Russia and which should significantly help in resolving the problems (both theoretical and practical) highlighted in this article. For example, what is a legal act, what forms it may have, what essential features it should have. Also regulate the issues of adoption, amendment and loss of legal force of legal acts, their official interpretation (clarification), etc. But while this project remains such, the study of issues of the legal nature of various normative and non-normative acts gives rise and will give rise to new questions that will require more thorough and in-depth research.

Bibliography:

1. Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 31, 2015 N 6-P “In the case of verifying the constitutionality of paragraph 1 of part 4 of article 2 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation” and paragraph of the third subparagraph 1 of paragraph 1 of article 342 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation in connection with a complaint from an open joint stock company Gazprom Neft // Russian newspaper. N 6648. April 13, 2015
2. Federal Law of July 31, 1998 N 146-FZ “Tax Code of the Russian Federation” (as amended on October 1, 2015) // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 1998. N 31. Art. 3824.
3. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 13, 1997 N 1009 “On approval of the Rules for the preparation of regulatory legal acts of federal executive bodies and their state registration” (as amended on August 27, 2015) // Russian newspaper. N 161. 08/21/1997.
4. Order of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation dated May 4, 2007 N 88 “On approval of Explanations on the application of the Rules for the preparation of normative legal acts of federal executive authorities and their state registration” // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. N 4371. 05/24/2007.
5. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 10, 2014 N AKPI14-735 “On invalidating the letter of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation dated July 27, 2010 N 13293-IM/D23 “On the grounds for canceling the qualification certificate of a cadastral engineer” // Russian newspaper. N 244. 10/24/2014.
6. Marchenko M.N. Theory of state and law: Textbook. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Prospekt, 2013. 656 p.

References (transliterated):

1. Postanovlenie Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii from 03/31/2015 N 6-P "Po delu o proverke konstitutsionnosti punkta 1 part 4 stat"i 2 Federal"nogo konstitutsionnogo zakona "O Verkhovnom Sude Rossiiskoi Federatsii" i abzatsa tret"ego 1 punkta 1 stat "i 342 Nalogovogo kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii v svyazi s zhaloboi otkrytogo aktsionernogo obshchestva "Gazprom neft"" // Rossiiskaya gazeta. N 6648. April 13, 2015.
2. Federal "nyi zakon ot 07/31/1998 N 146-FZ "Nalogovyi kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii" (v red. ot 10/01/2015) // Sobranie zakonodatel"stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii. 1998. N 31. St. 3824.
3. Postanovlenie Pravitel"stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 13 August 1997 N 1009 "Ob utverzhdenii Pravil podgotovki normativnykh pravovykh aktov federal"nykh organov ispolnitel"noi vlasti i ikh gosudarstvennoi registratsii" (v red. ot 27.08.2 015) // Rossiiskaya gazeta . N 161. 08/21/1997.
4. Prikaz Ministerstva Yustitsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 04.05.2007 N 88 "Ob utverzhdenii Raz" "yasnenii o primenenii Pravil podgotovki normativnykh pravovykh aktov federal"nykh organov ispolnitel"noi vlasti i ikh gosudarstvennoi registratsii" // Rossiiskaya gaze ta. N 4371. 05/24/2007.
5. Reshenie Verkhovnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii from 07/10/2014 N AKPI14-735 "O priznanii nedeistvuyushchim pis"ma Ministerstva economic development RF from July 27, 2010. N 13293-IM/D23 "Ob osnovaniyakh annulirovaniya kvalifikatsionnogo attestata kadastrovogo inzhenera" // Rossiiskaya gazeta. N 244. 10/24/2014.
6. Marchenko M.N. Teoriya gosudarstva i prava: Uchebnik. 2nd izd., pererab. i dop. M.: Prospekt, 2013. 656 s.

Our company provides assistance in writing coursework and theses, as well as master's theses on the subject of Theory of State and Law, we invite you to use our services. All work is guaranteed.

Good afternoon

If a normative legal act is registered with the Russian Ministry of Justice, it has legal force.

Order of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation dated May 4, 2007 N 88 “On approval of Explanations on the application of the Rules for the preparation of normative legal acts of federal executive bodies and their state registration” (Registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation...

II. State registration of normative legal acts

11. Regulatory legal acts are sent for state registration by:

a) federal executive authorities (federal ministries, federal services, federal agencies);

b) other bodies and organizations whose regulatory legal acts, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, are subject to state registration with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation ( Central Bank Russian Federation, Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, Federal Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund, Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation).

12. The following regulatory legal acts are subject to state registration:

Civil, political, socio-economic and other rights, freedoms and obligations of citizens of the Russian Federation, foreign citizens and stateless persons;

Guarantees for their implementation, enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and other legislative acts Russian Federation;

Mechanism for the implementation of rights, freedoms and responsibilities;

b) establishing legal status organizations - standard, exemplary provisions (charters) on bodies (for example, territorial), organizations subordinate to the relevant federal executive authorities, as well as establishing the legal status of organizations performing, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, certain of the most important state functions;

c) having an interdepartmental nature, that is, containing legal norms that are binding on other federal executive bodies and (or) organizations that are not part of the system of the federal executive body that approved (two or more federal executive bodies that jointly approved) the normative legal act .

At the same time, regulatory legal acts that have either one of the above characteristics or several are sent for state registration.

Regulatory legal acts are subject to state registration regardless of their validity period (permanently valid, temporary (adopted for a certain period), including acts containing information constituting a state secret or information of a confidential nature.

12.1. State registration of a normative legal act includes:

legal examination of the compliance of this act with the legislation of the Russian Federation, including checking for the presence of provisions in it that contribute to the creation of conditions for corruption;

making a decision on the need for state registration of this act;

assignment of registration number;

entry into State Register regulatory legal acts of federal executive authorities.

13. Federal executive authorities, other bodies and organizations send the signed (approved) normative legal acts mentioned in paragraph 12 of these Explanations for state registration.

If doubts arise regarding the compliance of these acts with the criteria listed in paragraph 12 of these Explanations, such acts are also subject to being sent for state registration to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. The final decision on the need for state registration is made by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation after conducting a legal examination.

regulatory legal acts affecting the rights, freedoms and responsibilities of man and citizen or having an interdepartmental nature, adopted by federal executive authorities after May 14, 1992.

15. The following are not subject to submission for state registration:

a) individual legal acts;

Of a personal nature (about appointment or dismissal, about promotion or imposition of penalties, etc.);

The effect of which is limited by a single use;

Which have expired;

Operational and administrative nature (one-time orders);

b) acts by which decisions of higher state bodies are brought to the attention of bodies and organizations of the system of the federal executive body;

c) acts aimed at organizing the execution of decisions of higher authorities or own decisions federal executive authorities and do not contain new legal norms;

d) technical acts (GOSTs, SNiPs, tariff and qualification reference books, forms statistical observation etc.), if they do not contain regulatory requirements;

The Russian Ministry of Health expressed the position that higher medical education, a document on completion of residency (internship), a certificate of a specialist in the specialty "health care organization and public health", at least 5 years of work experience is required for 3 positions:

Head of a medical organization,

Deputy head of a medical organization, responsible for medical activities,

Supervisor structural unit another organization responsible for carrying out medical activities.

The Russian Ministry of Health reported that it considers the lack of appropriate education a gross violation of licensing requirements.

We remind you that liability for such a violation for commercial medical organizations ranges from 100 to 200 thousand rubles. or suspension of activities for up to 90 days, for non-profits - from 150 to 250 thousand rubles. or suspension of activities for up to 90 days.

Additionally, the Ministry of Health of Russia informed that it has prepared a draft amendment to the resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation on the licensing of medical activities on the exclusion of the requirement for a certificate in organizational healthcare, as well as the exclusion of activities related to the organization of healthcare and public health from licensed types of activities.

We believe that the requirement that both the manager and the deputy manager must have a medical education is redundant and contradicts the meaning of the resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation. The resolution implied that either the head or the deputy head for medical activities must have a medical education, and if we are talking about an organization where only a separate structural unit is engaged in medical activities, then the head of such a unit must have the education.

This is exactly how this point was understood in practice, including by inspection authorities. Moreover, the introduction of all 3 positions is not only not necessary, but also impossible (if the organization is engaged only in medical activities).

The classification of such a violation as gross is also questionable, because a violation can be considered such only if it poses a threat to the life or health of patients or causes harm.

The letter from the Ministry of Health is not a regulatory legal act and is not mandatory for use. At the same time, there is a risk of difficulties arising during licensing and when passing inspections by Roszdravnadzor.

FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER:

MINISTRY OF HEALTH OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Organization Department medical care and sanatorium and resort affairs, the Ministry of Health of Russia, within the established powers, reviewed the letter and reports the following.
Please note that the clarifications of the authority have legal force state power in the event that this body is endowed, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, with special competence to issue clarifications on the application of the provisions of regulatory legal acts.
Ministry of Health of Russia current legislation is not vested with the competence to clarify the legislation of the Russian Federation. At the same time, we believe it is possible to note the following.
In accordance with paragraph 46 of part 1 of article 12 of the Federal Law of 04.05.2011 N 99-FZ "On Licensing individual species activities" (hereinafter referred to as Federal Law No. 99-FZ), medical activity (with the exception of the specified activities carried out by medical organizations and other organizations included in the private healthcare system on the territory of the Skolkovo innovation center) is a licensed type of activity.
Subparagraphs “c” and “d” of paragraph 4 of the Regulations on licensing of medical activities (with the exception of the specified activities carried out by medical organizations and other organizations included in the private healthcare system on the territory of the Skolkovo innovation center) (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), approved by the resolution The Government of the Russian Federation dated April 16, 2012 N 291, stipulates that the licensing requirements for an applicant for a license to carry out medical activities include, among other things, the presence of the head of a medical organization, deputy heads of a medical organization responsible for the implementation of medical activities, the head of a structural unit of another organization responsible for carrying out medical activities - higher medical education, postgraduate and (or) additional vocational education provided qualification requirements to specialists with higher and postgraduate medical education in the field of healthcare, a specialist certificate, as well as additional professional education and a specialist certificate in the specialty “health care organization and public health”, having at least 5 years of work experience in the specialty.
Thus, in part one of subparagraph “c” of paragraph 4 of the Regulations, three positions are listed for which it is necessary to obtain higher medical education, postgraduate and (or) additional professional education, provided for by the qualification requirements for specialists with higher and postgraduate medical education in the field of healthcare - head medical organization, deputy heads of a medical organization responsible for the implementation of medical activities, the head of a structural unit of another organization responsible for the implementation of medical activities.
In accordance with paragraph 6 of the said Regulations, carrying out medical activities in gross violation of licensing requirements entails liability established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
In this case, a gross violation is understood as the licensee’s failure to comply with the requirements provided for in paragraph 4 and subparagraphs “a”, “b” and “c (1)” of paragraph 5 of the said Regulations, entailing the consequences established by part 11 of article 19 of Federal Law N 99-FZ .
Additionally, we inform you that the draft resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation “On amendments to the Regulations on licensing of medical activities (except for the specified activities carried out by medical organizations and other organizations included in the private healthcare system on the territory of the Skolkovo innovation center" (hereinafter referred to as the draft resolution). This draft resolution excludes from the licensing requirements for heads of medical organizations, deputy heads of medical organizations responsible for carrying out medical activities, if they intend to provide pre-medical care, the requirement to have a certificate in the specialty “health care organization and public health”.
The draft resolution also provides for changes in terms of exclusion from the list of works (services) that constitute medical activities, works (services) on the organization of healthcare and public health.

Deputy Director of the Department
E.V.KARAKULINA

Letters from the Russian Ministry of Health and Orders from the Russian Ministry of Health and Social Development are what? Letters from the Russian Ministry of Health are...? Orders of the Russian Ministry of Health and Social Development are...? Are they mandatory legal acts? Or are they non-normative? Are they equivalent to the legal acts of ministries and departments? Regulatory or other act (non-normative)?

Answer