Abstract. The article is based on legal comparative and historical methods; it examines the thesis of non-state nature of the lower level of public authority, or so-called “social principles” in the nature of local self-government. At the same time, it is shown that opposition of “social principles” to the state nature of local authorities directly contradicts the notion of local self-government as a form of democracy, and as a way of exercising the power belonging to people. Further, the author proves that public nature of municipal authorities predetermines imperative character of any prescriptions coming from them.
In addition, the article raises issues of interaction between local government and public authorities. Based on the analysis of legal constructions, practice, forms of relations between state and local authorities, the author shows that today the local self-government in fact is the lowest level of a unified state-municipal system of public authorities. Any differences between municipal bodies and bodies of state power due to “specific nature” of the latter cannot be revealed. Consequently, general conclusion concerning the absence of so-called “non-state nature of local self-government bodies” is drawn. Equally, groundlessness of the provision that current federal legislation presupposes any “special institutionalization of municipal power” is shown. The conclusions of theoreticians regarding state and non-state nature of local self-government are studied separately. Basing on these conclusions, the article further examines such terms as “interest”, and “public interest”. It is well-known that classic application of the first term in Russian law is connected either with the interests of the state or with the interests of society (or its individual representatives – for example, civil law often refers to such a term as “legitimate interests of citizens”). The introduction of “public interest” is the attempt to unite two types of interests – private and public, which are different in content.
“Public interest” is not just an interest of society, but also the interest sanctioned (recognized and publicly expressed) by the public authorities. Different levels of public authority transform it into different, even alternative needs. Moreover, a state goal is to find and legally fix mechanisms that would allow building a balance of such interests, subjecting them to the common weal. In this regard, the author concludes that as soon as law objectifies any public interest, it becomes common to the entire system of public authorities, and the balance of these interests is based on the principle of internal noncontradiction. A vivid example proving this thesis is the observance of the principle of permitted use of municipal property including the existence of an exhaustive on-object list of property intended for decision on matters of local significance. However, as soon as this public interest is changed, the rules related to it are subject of simultaneous change; in the above-mentioned case, the corresponding lists were excluded from the federal law. Given arguments, as well as experts' views on correlation of concepts, indicate that the concepts of “public interest” and “state interest” correlate in a whole, as well as in parts; namely, state interest is an integral part of a wider (whole) public interest.
Keywords: state authority; local self-government; public authority; autonomy of local self-government; municipal authority; population of the municipality; non-state essence of local self-government bodies; nature of municipal authority.