The procedural status of the internal affairs bodies of the Russian Federation and their officials as administrative plaintiffs in the consideration of an administrative case

The article examines the procedural status of the internal affairs bodies of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the IAB) and their officials as administrative plaintiffs in administrative proceedings in the Russian Federation. The relevance of the research topic is determined by the fact that in courts of general jurisdiction, the proportion of administrative cases in which the IAB and their officials act as administrative plaintiffs is quite significant. The legal nature of the administrative plaintiff is analyzed, along with the peculiarities of exercising the procedural capacity of the IAB and their officials in administrative proceedings. Special attention is given to the specifics of administrative cases initiated by the IAB and their officials in defense of the public interests of citizens and organizations. The work examines the criteria for distinguishing administrative legal protection from related procedural institutions. The author concludes that the procedural capacity of the IAB as administrative plaintiffs is derived not from the status of a legal entity, but from public competence and the authoritative powers assigned to them, which are exercised on behalf of the state. The research employs general methods of cognition (analysis and synthesis) as well as comparative legal method, abstraction method, systemic, structural, and functional approaches. It is concluded that despite the trends towards the unification of domestic procedural legislation, the internal affairs bodies of the Russian Federation and their officials have a special status in administrative cases. This status is determined primarily not by possessing the status of a legal entity but by public-legal competence and the nature of the public functions performed. The participation of the internal affairs bodies in proceedings is driven not by personal interest but by the functional necessity of exercising authoritative powers on behalf of the state. Thus, the procedural capacity of these subjects is derived from their public competence, which distinguishes them from other legal entities and emphasizes the specifics of their administrative-procedural status. This approach ensures a balance of public and private interests.