scholarly journals Some Questions Arising in the Trial of Civil Lawsuits in the Criminal Court of First Instance

2021 ◽  
pp. 33-41
Author(s):  
Nataliya Osodoeva
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Material Damage ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Civil Process ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Court Hearing

The article discusses some problems of considering a civil claim during a criminal court hearing. It is argued that settling a civil claim during criminal proceedings has a higher priority than a trial in a civil process. The author justifies the position according to which filing a lawsuit during criminal proceedings is a right and not an obligation of a person in a criminal trial. The author also believes that in filing a civil claim in a criminal process, the civil plaintiff should present proof of the incurred costs with the purpose of further recovery of the material damage; besides, the person who will pay the damage or compensate for the moral harm should be established. Based on the analysis of court practice, it is proven that the settlement of a civil claim during a special procedure of a criminal court trial is possible, however, the accused should agree not only with the accusation, but also with the size of the damage (harm). The cases in which the courts can eliminate violations of criminal procedure legislation during preliminary investigations are examined.

scholarly journals CLOSED COURT HEARING AS AN INDEPENDENT SECURITY MEASURE FOR PARTICIPANTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 286-290
Author(s):  
R.M. Ramazanov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Court Judge ◽  
Independent Form ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Hearing

The publicity of the trial in the Russian criminal trial has been one of the important provisions for several decades and is expressed in the realization of the right of citizens to be present in court when considering and resolving a criminal case. However, an open criminal court may be limited if the grounds listed in Part 2 of Art. 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation are established as an exception to the general condition of the trial. One of these grounds is a closed court hearing, which is considered as an independent form of ensuring the safety of participants in the process and their loved ones. The creation of safe conditions for citizens to participate in the court session allows the court to establish and verify the evidence collected in the case (Article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). At the same time, security applies not only to participants from the defense or prosecution, other participants in the process, but also in relation to the court (judge). A closed hearing is one of several security measures (part 3 of article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). The decision of the matter and the holding of a trial in private can only be determined if there are strictly established procedural grounds. Such a decision should be motivated.

Prospects for the Implementation of Special Conciliation Procedures in the Russian Criminal Process

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 99-104
Author(s):  
E. V. Markovicheva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Traditional System ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Legal Method

In the 21st century, the concept of restorative justice has become widespread in criminal proceedings. The introduction of special compromise procedures into the criminal process allows for the restoration of the rights of the victim and reduces the level of repression in the criminal justice system. The traditional system of punishment is considered ineffective, not conducive to the purpose of compensating for harm caused by the crime. Restorative justice enables the accused to compensate for the harm caused by the crime and is oriented not towards their social isolation, but towards further positive socialization. The introduction of the ideas of restorative justice into the Russian criminal process requires the introduction of special conciliation procedures. The purpose of the article is to reveal promising directions for introducing special conciliation procedures into the Russian criminal process. The use of the formal legal method provided an analysis of the norms of criminal procedure legislation and the practice of its application. Comparative legal analysis revealed common features in the development of models of restorative justice in modern states. Conclusions. The introduction of conciliation procedures into the Russian criminal process is in line with the concept of its humanization and reduction of the level of criminal repression. The consolidation of the mediator»s procedural status and the mediation procedure in the criminal procedure legislation will make it possible to put into practice the elements of restorative justice.

DEFINITIONS OF CATEGORIES PURPOSE AND TASKS OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE MODERN CRIMINAL PROCESS

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Svitlana Patiuк ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The State ◽  
Modern Theory ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
State Changes ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Goals And Objectives ◽  
Functional Purpose

"Definitions of categories, the goal and objectives of criminal proceedings in modern criminal proceedings" analysed the legal norms and provisions of doctrinal concepts to determine the goals and objectives of criminal proceedings. The author formulated conclusions and generalizations that since criminal proceedings are a sphere of state activity, it depends on the direction of the political course of the state, changes in state policy, which always leads to a change in the ideology of the criminal process as a whole, including the transformation of goals and objectives criminal proceedings. The purpose and objectives of criminal proceedings depend on the historical form of the criminal process, a common feature of which is the ratio of freedom (interests) of the individual and the state, expressed in the procedural position of the main participants in the process. Criminal procedure legislation and doctrine define the resolution of a dispute (conflict) between the state and the accused arising as a result of the commission of a crime as the goal of the criminal process in most countries in which the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings prevails. As the goal of criminal proceedings in the modern theory of criminal procedure, it is proposed to consider the protection of the individual, society and the state from criminal offences in the settlement of criminal-legal conflicts arising as a result of these offences. The goal in the criminal process determines the setting of tasks and represents the ultimate conclusion from the sum of all the tasks being implemented. The task of criminal proceedings should be determined taking into account the functional purpose of the subjects of criminal proceedings, and therefore the task is the fulfilment of his duty by a participant in criminal proceedings, which is determined by his functional purpose, based on the principle of competition of the parties.

CONCERNING THE STRUCTURE OF PUBLIC LEGAL INTEREST IN CRIMINAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
pp. 26-30
Author(s):  
Алексей Викторович Дашин ◽  
Петр Михайлович Малин ◽  
Алексей Васильевич Пивень
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Legitimate Interest ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Constituent Elements

В статье анализируется структура публичного законного интереса в уголовном судопроизводстве, входящих в него элементов на примере института домашнего ареста. Авторская модель публичного законного интереса участников уголовного процесса «привязана» к стадийности и может распространяться не только на вопросы, связанные с мерами пресечения. По мнению авторов, публичный законный интерес в контексте рассматриваемой проблемы воплощается в жизнь на основе нормативно установленного действия, содержащего конкретно сформулированные правила, устанавливающие четко определенные права и обязанности участников правоотношений. Данная деятельность сопряжена с определенными этапами (стадиями), которые в той или иной степени характерны соответствующей мере пресечения, и возможна в той стадии, где осуществляется оценка действий, предпринятых должностным лицом, осуществляющим производство по уголовному делу. Реализация публичного законного интереса, заявленного следователем, дознавателем на избрание домашнего ареста, зависит от того, как соответствующие устремления оценят другие должностные лица - руководитель следственного органа, прокурор (не обладающие правами реализации публичного законного интереса), то есть от их усмотрения. Законодатель не предоставляет следователю, дознавателю возможность «непосредственно» обратиться в суд - участнику процесса, наделенному правом реализовать их устремление на избрание меры пресечения. Подобные «преграды» не предусмотрены в законе для иных участников уголовного процесса, не наделенных публичной властью и стремящихся реализовать свой законный интерес. The article analyzes the structure of public legitimate interest in criminal proceedings, its constituent elements on the example of the institution of house arrest. The author's model of the public legitimate interest of participants in the criminal process is «tied» to the stage and can extend not only to issues related to preventive measures. According to the authors, public legitimate interest in the context of the problem under consideration is brought to life on the basis of a normatively established action containing specifically formulated rules establishing clearly defined rights and obligations of participants in legal relations. This activity is associated with certain phases (stages) that are more or less characteristic of the corresponding measure of restraint, and is possible at the stage where the actions taken by the official conducting the criminal proceedings are evaluated. The realization of the public legitimate interest declared by the investigator, the investigating officer for the election of house arrest depends on how the relevant intentions will be evaluated by other officials - the head of the investigative body, the prosecutor (who do not have the rights to realize the public legitimate interest), i.e. on their discretion. The legislator does not give the investigator, the inquirer the opportunity to turn «directly» to the court - a participant in the process, entitled to realize their intentions for the election of measures of restrain. Such «barriers» are not provided in the law for other participants in the criminal process who are not endowed with public authority and who seek to realize their legitimate interest.

scholarly journals Peculiarities of implementation of the principle of legality in the criminal process of Ukraine

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 253-257
Author(s):  
Oleksiy Skryabin ◽  
Dmytro Sanakoiev
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Limiting Factor ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
Discretionary Powers

The article analyzes the principles of criminal procedure, which are the expression of the prevailing political and legal ideas of the state, relate to the tasks and methods of judicial proceedings in criminal proceedings, are enshrined in law and operate throughout all stages and necessarily in its central stage. Modern theoretical ideas about the system of principles of criminal proceedings are still in the stage of active methodological and ideological rethinking. Discussions continue both on the concept and features of the principles of criminal proceedings, their system, and on the peculiarities of implementation at different stages of the criminal process. Violation of the principles of criminal procedure is a sign of illegality of decisions in the criminal and becomes the basis for the cancellation of these decisions. The principle of legality characterizes the legal regime of strict and mandatory observance of laws in law enforcement practice, which manifests itself in criminal proceedings, limits the discretionary powers of the pre-trial investigation, prosecutor's office and court. The principle of legality becomes an opportunity to transfer criminal proceedings from one procedural stage to another only on the basis of the law and in a strictly defined sequence. Legality is one of the guarantees of establishing the truth in a criminal case, which ensures the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms. The principle of legality is characterized by mandatory observance of laws in criminal proceedings, is a limiting factor in the discretion of the pre-trial investigation, prosecution and court. Due to the implementation of the principle of legality, the shortcomings and gaps in the criminal process that exist in criminal procedural law can be overcome.

scholarly journals FEATURES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF PRIVATE PROSECUTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 875-880
Author(s):  
E.F. Tensina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Procedural Rights

The article reveals the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, which establishes the freedom to dispose of material and procedural rights. The forms of manifestation of dispositive principles in the material and procedural aspects in the course of criminal proceedings are determined. Taking into account the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, various models of proceedings in criminal cases of a private prosecution and the peculiarities of the implementation of the provisions of the criminal procedure principle of the presumption of innocence are considered. The author critically assesses the legal constructions that allow the application of a special procedure for making a court decision in criminal proceedings of a private prosecution if the accused agrees with the charge brought. In particular, taking into account the provisions of the principle of the presumption of innocence, it is concluded that it is inadmissible to apply Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation when considering a criminal case of a private prosecution if it is initiated by filing an application directly with a magistrate in the manner prescribed by Art. 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation or when investigating a criminal case of this category in the form of an abbreviated inquiry, regulated by Ch. 32.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Execution of a Sentence in the Structure of Criminal Proceedings: Procedural Stage or Special Court Proceedings?

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 97-106
Author(s):  
V. V. Nikolyuk ◽  
◽  
L. A. Pupysheva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Self In Relation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Proceedings

The article analyzes the concept of execution of a sentence as an independent stage of the criminal process (the stage of criminal proceedings). Arguments are given that point to its certain illogicality and inconsistency. The authors on the basis of existing legislation and taking into account the positions of Plenum of the Supreme Court additionally reasoned and substantiated the thesis of the existence of the criminal process self in relation to a criminal case of criminal procedure, regulated by Chapter 47 of the Code of criminal procedure.

REVIEW ON THE MONOGRAPH OF OLEKSANDR TORBAS �DISCRETION IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS OF UKRAINE: THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION AND PRACTICE OF IMPLEMENTATION�

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 147-150
Author(s):  
Iryna Hloviuk ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Theoretical Justification ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Current Period ◽  
Legitimate Interests

Current period of development of the legal system of Ukraine is characterized by variability of legislation that regulates, in particular, organization of judicial system and implementation of criminal proceedings. Unfortunately, criminal procedure legislation is no exception, given how many changes and additions have been made to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine since its entry into force in 2020. Undoubtedly, like any other codified legal act, CPC of Ukraine in modern conditions cannot be unchanged, given the dynamics of public relations, the provisions of international law, decisions of ECtHR and number of attempts to solve identified problems of its application. Difficulties of criminal procedural law enforcement are manifested in such an area as the use of discretion of authorities in criminal proceedings, although without it application of legislation is ineffective. At the same time, lawful discretion in criminal proceedings should not turn into its opposite � arbitrariness, which will already violate rights and legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities. In criminal proceedings, given the imperative method of legal regulation and possibility of various coercive measures, including those related to the restriction of constitutional human rights, this issue is of particular importance, given, inter alia, that prosecution�s discretion applies within non-adversarial procedure, and the CPC of Ukraine does not always provide for the possibility of appealing such decisions in court. The peer-reviewed monograph consists of four chapters, which contain 10 sections. Structuring of the monograph is logical; the author analyse problems of discretion from questions of concept, signs and limits of discretion, and then moves to the characteristic of realization of discretion by judge, prosecutor, investigator, detective. In general, without a doubt, the monograph of Torbas O. O. �Discretion in the criminal process of Ukraine: theoretical justification and practice of implementation� is relevant, complete and fundamental scientific work, has scientific and practical value. Monograph of Torbas O.O. significantly enriches criminal procedure doctrine regarding the subjects of criminal proceedings, criminal procedure decisions and other areas.

Legislative Evolution in Romanian Criminal Proceedings: The Special Procedure for Compensation of Material or Moral Damages in Cases of Judicial Error

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-396
Author(s):  
Mircea Damaschin
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Potential Effect ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
Judicial Error

AbstractThis article analyzes the special procedure for compensating material or moral damages where there has been a wrongful conviction—or other wrongful injury to individual liberty—caused by error in Romanian criminal proceedings.This remedy is provided for by the 1969 Romanian Criminal Procedure Code; however (perhaps inevitably), tension has risen between these provisions and those of the 1991 Romanian Constitution resulting in amendments to both the Code and the Constitution. The most significant of these amendments have flowed from decisions of the Romanian Constitutional Court; in turn, the Constitutional Court has been guided in its determinations of constitutionality by interpretations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.In the present article, the author presents the evolution of Romania's legal framework in this field, analyzing key decisions of the Romanian Constitutional Court. Also considered here is the jurisprudence of Romanian ordinary courts dealing with the compensatory remedy for material or moral damages awarded to victims of judicial error in Romanian criminal proceedings. The relevance here of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which has been critical of Romania in this regard, cannot be overestimated.Finally, this article considers the potential effect of changes contained the new Criminal Procedure Code, which has been adopted in mid-2010 by the Romanian Parliament.

Expediting the ICC Criminal Process: Striking the Right Balance between the ICC and States Parties

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-425
Author(s):  
Hirad Abtahi ◽  
Shehzad Charania
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Common Goal ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
State Involvement ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Right

When establishing the ICC, the sole permanent international criminal court, States ensured that they would play a legislative role larger and more direct than the ad hoc and hybrid courts and tribunals. States Parties have, however, acknowledged that, given the time they spend interpreting and applying the ICC legal framework, the judges are uniquely placed to identify and propose measures designed to expedite the criminal process. Accordingly, the ICC has followed a dual track. First, it has pursued an amendment track, which requires States Parties’ direct approval of ICC proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Second, it has implemented practices changes that do not require State involvement. This interactive process between the Court and States Parties reflects their common goal to expedite the criminal proceedings. The future of this process will rely on striking the right equilibrium between the respective roles of States Parties and the Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document