scholarly journals TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE CONCEPT «PROCEDURAL COSTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS»

Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-93
Author(s):  
S.M. Darovskikh ◽  
◽  
Z.V Makarova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Procedural Costs ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Article 5

The article is devoted to the issues of formulating the definition of such a criminal procedural concept as «procedural costs». Emphasizing the importance both for science and for law enforcement of clarity and clarity when formulating the definition of criminal procedural concepts, the authors point out that the formulation of this concept present in the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is far from being improved. Having studied the opinions on this issue of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, a number of procedural scholars, the authors propose their own version of the definition of the concept of «criminal procedural costs» with its allocation in a separate paragraph of Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Obtaining Samples for a Comparative Study: Theoretical, Normative and Law Enforcement Problems

2021 ◽  
pp. 17-29
Author(s):  
Elena Zaitseva
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The article analyzes the debatable aspects of the normative regulation of obtaining samples for a comparative study according to the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Attention is paid to the key problems in the regulation of this action, and to the difficulties that law enforcement employees face due to them. The author examines the questions of defining the legal nature of obtaining samples for a comparative study, and the possibility of using the operative search potential instead of the procedural method to obtain comparative samples. While analyzing the problems of setting the limits of compulsion for this action, the author stresses the incorrectness of some wording in the law (Art. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). In the light of ensuring the right of criminally prosecuted persons to defense, the author also presents a critical assessment of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation reflected in the Definition of July 23, 2020 № 1856-0, in the part where obtaining samples for a comparative study is recognized as an action of urgent nature.

Specifics of some anti-corruption measures in Russia within the framework of public and state security

2020 ◽  
pp. 541-547
Author(s):  
Tatyana Plotnikova ◽  
Andrey Paramonov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
State Security ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Illegal Acts ◽  
The Russian Federation

In the current difficult conditions for the economy of our state, corruption crimes represent a higher level of danger. It is necessary to reform anti-corruption activities in order to increase its effectiveness. One of the radical measures in the field of anti-corruption will be the abolition of the presumption of innocence for corrupt illegal acts. The presumption of inno-cence is a fundamental and irremovable principle of criminal law, which is enshrined in article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Violation of this principle is impossible for criminal proceedings, but modern circumstances require timely, prompt, and sometimes radical so-lutions. It is worth not to neglect the measures of “insuring” on the part of law enforcement agencies, since otherwise it will increase the share of cor-ruption crimes in law enforcement agencies. The content of paragraph 4 of article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is man-datory even if the presumption of innocence for corruption crimes is can-celed: “A conviction cannot be based on assumptions”. At the same time, the principle of differentiation of punishment will be implemented by assigning the term of imprisonment from the minimum to the maximum, depending on the severity of the illegal act.

scholarly journals The subject of judicial control in consideration of complaints: controversial issues of legal regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-109
Author(s):  
El'vira Mirgorodskaya
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The purpose of this study was an attempt to theoretically understand the subject of judicial consideration of complaints against decisions, actions (inaction) of officials carrying out criminal prosecution. The research was carried out on the basis of comparative legal, formal logical, empirical, statistical methods. Judicial statistics for the year 2020 have been provided, and legislation has been studied from a historical and contemporary perspective, taking into account the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The problem is that, in practice, for about 20 years the courts have had difficulties in determining the subject of complaints, since neither in theory nor in practice a consensus has been developed on this issue. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation also does not contain a definition of the concept of «subject matter». The situation is aggravated by the presence of evaluative concepts in the text of the law, leading to a varied understanding of the subject of appeal by the courts, which leads to a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens at the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings. In the article, taking into account the analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, legislation and the opinion of scientists, a recommendation was made to amend the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to specify the subject of consideration of complaints in accordance with Art. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in order to eliminate existing contradictions in practice and increase the level of protection of individual rights in pre-trial proceedings.

scholarly journals Grounds for Canceling Seizure in Pre-Trial Criminal Proceedings

2020 ◽  
pp. 228-233
Author(s):  
Boris B. Bulatov ◽  
◽  
Alexander S. Dezhnev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article examines the normative legal basis of the grounds for canceling property seizure in pre-trial criminal proceedings. The problem of the legislator’s usage of evaluative categories in removing investigator’s, interrogator’s or court’s restrictions is also analyzed. The solution of this problem is made dependent on the implementation of public or private interests. Discussing these issues, the authors come to the conclusion that this sphere is neither presented nor analyzed in academic monographic works. This circumstance indicates the novelty of the study owing to the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the issue. The conclusion about the priority of public principles over private interests concerning matters which are not related to civil lawsuits is made on the grounds of empirical data and the analysis of legislative approaches. The contradictions of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation regulating the basis and procedure for canceling property seizure and the laws on bankruptcy are identified. The directions for improving the legal regulation of these issues are presented. The necessity of a multisectoral regulation of some aspects of law enforcement is inferred. The examination of private principles in canceling property seizure is connected with securing a civil lawsuit in criminal proceedings. The authors substantiate the existence of additional opportunities in making decisions in this field via the legal regime. This regime is also used in some other legal acts and may be put into practice in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. However, the imposed restrictions can be canceled on the basis of the decision by a person considering a criminal case. The authors note the incoherence of some provisions of Part 3 and Part 9 of Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. This incoherence is connected with different approaches to the view on public and private interests in decision making. The authors substantiate the necessity of a legal linking of grounds for canceling property seizure with the decision on imposing this resriction. The conclusion about the comprehensive order of property seizure is made in the final part of the article. It is also stated that this order does not contain distinct criteria of the legality of the decision. Certain parts of the criminal procedure laws should be corrected. Some ways to improve the field of legal regulation concerning the opportunity of canceling seizure are given.

scholarly journals The essence and problems of substantiating certain types of decisions in criminal proceedings

2021 ◽  
Vol 136 (3) ◽  
pp. 98-104
Author(s):  
V.V. Djafarov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Mandatory Requirement ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Procedural Decisions

The article considers problems of substantiating certain types of decisions in the criminal process. The author’s views are based on recent changes in the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the existing experience of the Russian Federation. The article focuses on provisions of the current criminal procedure code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The author refers to Russian proceduralists whose works are devoted to the problems of studying the validity of procedural decisions at the pre-trial stage. The author indicated types of decisions, which are not recognized as criminal procedural, but for which justification should be a mandatory criterion according to the criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The article provisions justify the need to enshrine the definition of «reasonableness» in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan as a mandatory requirement that must be met when taking decisions by the prosecuting authorities.

scholarly journals Problems of Using Special Knowledge in Criminal Proceedings and Ways to Solve Them

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 106-110
Author(s):  
O Yu Antonov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Special Knowledge ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Improvement Of Legislation

In article actual problems of using of the conclusions and evidence of specialist parties and the court, appointment of judicial examination before initiation of criminal case, including problems realization of related innovations of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; the proposals on improvement of legislation, law enforcement practice.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ISSUES OF THE STATUS OF A PRIEST AS A PARTICIPANT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-195
Author(s):  
Sergey V. BOLOTIN ◽  
Natalia V. SIDOROVA
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Terra Incognita ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Government ◽  
Definition Of

The article is devoted to one of the undefined terms used in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation — “priest”. The relevance and novelty of this study is due to the fact that, in practice, this issue is terra incognita not only in the science of criminal procedure, but also in related scientific disciplines. The purpose of the current work is to try to identify approaches to defining the content and essential features of this concept. The article presents historical and factual moments that reveal the essence of the main carriers of religious functions on the example of four confessions operating in Russia. On the basis of comparative, etymological, logical methods of analysis of the powers and appointment of various representatives of the main religions in Russia, the authors make such conclusion that it is impossible to use the term “priest” in an equal sense for all the studied confessions. The authors of this article also propose a definition of the investigated term in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, as well as determine the corresponding body of the Government of Russia, which could be entrusted with the responsibility of officially interpreting the terminology on this issue.

scholarly journals On the improvement of work management in authorities of the prosecutor's office on consideration of complaints of the parties to criminal proceedings against actions (or inaction) and decisions of the investigator and the prosecutor

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Popov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Single Instance ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Work Management

This article raises the questions on the improvement of work management in the prosecutorial branches on consideration of complaints of the parties to criminal proceedings against actions (or inaction) and decisions of the investigator and the prosecutor. Analysis is conducted on the existing in the prosecutor’s office procedure of pretrial dispute, which legislative consolidation is associated with usage of the term “superior prosecutor”. The subject of this research is the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, executive documents of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation and prosecutor's offices of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as scientific literature on the topic at hand. The conclusion is made that the current legislation and the established law enforcement practice assume on the recurrent appeal on the same instance of violation of law within a single prosecutorial branch, and thus do not effectively protect the rights and legitimate interests of the parties involved in the criminal procedure sphere. For this reason, the author makes recommendations on the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation aimed at adjustment of the procedure of consideration of complaints of the parties to criminal proceedings, which would ensure their resolution within the framework of a single prosecutorial branch in a single instance.

scholarly journals THE MANIFESTATION OF THE IDEA OF CONSTITUTIONALISM IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE LEGAL UNCERTAINTY OF ITS DECISIONS

Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-117
Author(s):  
S. M. Darovskikh ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Maximum Period ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Activity ◽  
Legal Uncertainty

The article, along with the positive influence of the legal positions formulated by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in its Decisions and Definitions on law enforcement practice and legislative activity, considers the reasons for the creation of these legal positions, legal uncertainty that negatively affects the activities of participants in criminal proceedings. The author refers to the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of July 16, 2015 No. 23-P «In the case of the verification of the constitutionality of the provisions of parts 3-7 of article 109 and part 3 of article 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the complaint of gr. S.V. Makhina» and the legal positions formulated by this court in other decisions regarding the possibility of increasing the maximum permissible period of detention specified in Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, concludes that with these decisions the possibility of taking into account the maximum period of detention is practically leveled

scholarly journals Goals and Tasks (Purpose) of Criminal Proceedings

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 386-393
Author(s):  
Kirill Naumov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Goal Setting ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The State ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation

The relevance of the problem covered is explained by the essence of goal-setting of any activity, which determines its final result and procedural structure. The direction of actions of state bodies in responding to crimes depends on it, as well as the arsenal of means provided for this to the law enforcement officer. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not have a norm directly formulating the goal and objectives of criminal judicial proceedings. The legislator has applied such a non-standard category as “purpose”, which replaced the customary provisions that existed for more than 40 years on the tasks of criminal proceedings, enshrined in the previously existing code. Since the procedural law does not name the goals and objectives of the criminal process, the analysis of the target settings of modern criminal justice, the essence of the categories “purpose”, “goal”, “task”, their correlation and meaning is of particular importance. The Author analyzes the points of view of the processors of the pre-revolutionary and modern periods. The conclusion about the differentiation of the given concepts is made. Unlike the views of most scholars, the Author believes that purpose and goal are identical concepts, since they determine the final result of procedural activities. The goal is seen as the end result of the activity, and the task is determined by the goal and is considered as the result of its separate stage. Therefore, the Author conditionally correlates these categories as general (goal) and particular (task). There can be many tasks, and they are subject to changes under certain conditions, and the goal is always the same. The goal of any criminal process is determined by the need to streamline the dispute between the parties arising from the crime committed. The absence of clearly formulated elements of goal-setting prevents the assessment of the effectiveness of activities to resolve a criminal-legal conflict. The flaws in the legal structure of teleological norms of the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are noted. On the basis of a comparison of the views of procedural scholars, analysis of regulatory legal acts, the author came to the conclusion that the result of the criminal process should be the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of individuals, organizations, society and the state from criminal encroachments; protection of the individual from illegal and unjustified accusations, convictions, restrictions on his rights and freedoms. The tasks, despite their uncertainty from the point of view of legal regulation, constitute an established formula: quick and complete disclosure of a crime, the appointment of a just punishment to the guilty, education and prevention. The Author believes that the current structure of norms on the appointment of criminal proceedings does not reflect the absolute need to protect the interests of society and the state, and also does not define specific tasks as a guideline for the law enforcement officer to fulfill them in each criminal case in order to achieve this goal. Therefore, we propose our own legal structure of the norm on the tasks of legal proceedings, complementing the current provisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document