Issues of Unification of Civil Proceedings: Paragraph 9 of Article 130 of Commercial Procedural Code of the Russian Federation

2015 ◽  
Vol 116 (12) ◽  
pp. 32-40
Author(s):  
A Skutin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
The Russian Federation

scholarly journals LEGAL REGULATION ISSUES OF SUMMARY PROCEDURE IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Д. Попова ◽  
D. Popova ◽  
Т. Этина ◽  
T. Etina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
Written Form ◽  
Positive Assessment ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Simplified Procedure

<p>The paper investigates the legislative innovation of a simplified procedure in civil proceedings. The authors analyze the norms of Chapter 21.1 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, which regulate the civil investigation process in a simplified procedure. The article also shows the shortcomings and contradictions in the legal regulation of this institution; the authors draw attention to some problems that may arise during the practical implementation of the procedural norms. In particular, the attention is drawn to the fairly complex system of simplified procedure cases differentiation, with the requirements for which the writ is granted. The legislator has left important practical issues beyond the scope of legal regulation, i.e. the terms of the case in the simplified procedure, confirmation method of sending the documents and objections by parties to each other before the court, as well as the duties and the way of approval of sending documents and objections of one party to the other party before the Court, which casts doubt on the possibility of consideration of civil cases in simplified procedure. According to the authors, the model of appellate review of a judgment in the simplified procedure proposed by legislator needs to be adjusted. The role of a judicial member in a simplified procedure is investigated in the article. The transition to the process in written form not only fails to exclude the involvement of the legal representative in cases of simplified procedure, but also suggests expanding his power, that requires an appropriate legislative solution. Giving an overall positive assessment to the implemented legislative innovations, the authors recognize that the disputed provisions identified in the analysis of norms of Chapter 21.1 of the Civil Practice Act of the Russian Federation do not make it possible to carry out to the full the potential embedded in this institution.</p>

scholarly journals Problems and Prospects of Legal Regulation of the Status of Persons Contributing to the Administration of Justice in Civil Proceedings

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-115
Author(s):  
O. N. Gorodnova ◽  
A. A. Makarushkova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
The Russian Federation

Based on a comparative analysis of the norms of the procedural legislation of the Russian Federation, the paper discusses certain problems and prospects of legal regulation of the status of persons contributing to the administration of justice: expert, specialist, witness, interpreter, assistant judge, court clerk, as applied to civil proceedings.The authors analyze modern approaches to the persons contributing to the administration of justice, considering, along with traditional subjects, such a procedural figure as judicial representative in a civil procedure, taking into account the latest changes and additions to the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, entering into force on September 1, 2019.Based on a comparative analysis of the provisions of the arbitration and civil procedural laws, the authors of the paper point that the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation lacks a separate chapter on legal regulation of the status of participants in civil proceedings, including those assisting in the administration of justice. This makes it difficult to establish the circle of such entities in practice. In this regard, they propose, by analogy with the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, to fix the circle of participants in the civil procedure in a separate chapter, revealing in detail and specifying the legal status in other articles of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation of other participants in the civil proceedings.In the paper, the authors conclude that the judicial representative must be considered as an independent subject of the civil proceedings. Finally, this problematic issue can only be resolved by making appropriate changes and additions to the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.It is noted that, despite the absence of special instructions in the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation to other participants in the process, their list is not exhaustive and in fact, the circle of persons involved in the case is much wider. Such persons include court bailiffs and witnesses, whose legal status is currently debatable.

AUTONOMY OF FAMILY RELATIONS AND CIVIL PROCEDURE

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 277-293
Author(s):  
P.A. YAKUSHEV
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Family Law ◽  
Family Relations ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Family Courts ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
Separate System ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes

The article examines the ontology of the autonomy of family relations and its impact on the independence of family law as a branch of law. It is proved that the independence of family law as a branch of law, due by the nature of family relations and their autonomy, determines the need to regulate family relations by an independent codified normative legal act containing material norms of law. Thus, it is concluded that the branch autonomy does not determine the existence of a separate system of courts for the settlement of disputes connected with application of norms of law and an independent justice. Since all family disputes can be considered by courts of General jurisdiction within the existing types of legal proceedings (claim proceedings, special proceedings, writ proceedings), the creation of specialized family courts in the Russian Federation is impractical. However, for the proper consideration and resolution of family disputes, based on the specifics of their subject composition, the subject of dispute, the nature of relationships, degree of procedural activity of the court, it is necessary to supplement Civil procedural code of the Russian Federation separate chapters containing the rules governing the procedural peculiarities of consideration of some categories of family disputes.

On the classification of the participants of civil process

2019 ◽  
pp. 224-234
Author(s):  
Aleksandr Fedorovich Voronov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Phenomena ◽  
Civil Process ◽  
The Status ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Historical Comparative ◽  
Judicial Procedure

The article is devoted to the classification of participants in civil proceedings, it also touches on some issues of classification of participants in the commercial judicial proceedings and administrative judicial proceedings. Using logical methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, deduction and induction, General scientific and special scientific methods and techniques knowledge of social phenomena and processes: historical, comparative, system-structural and others, the author concludes that the generally accepted classification of civil process participants is imperfect; based on the study of classification criteria, he proposes to identify new categories of participants in the process, to legislate their rights and obligations, to clarify their names. The author reveals the imperfection of some norms of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation and Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of the Russian Federation, justifies the need to change them. The relevance of the research topic is justified by the fact that the new procedural legislation sometimes does not fully take into account the classification of participants in the process, which determines the status of the participant, the scope of his procedural rights and obligations, and this is directly related to the constitutional guarantees of protection of rights, freedoms and interests.

scholarly journals Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation: evaluation of effectiveness and measures for its improvement

2021 ◽  
pp. 868-877
Author(s):  
Boris Gavrilov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Dialectical Logic ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Historical Comparative

Introduction: the article analyzes provisions of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation and its impact on the implementation of key legal institutions designed to ensure respect for the rights and legitimate interests of criminal proceedings participants by law enforcement and judicial authorities. Purpose: having studied effectiveness of the amendments made in the CPC and conducted statistical analysis of the results of criminal cases investigation, the author presents shortcomings in the legislation identified by the scientific community and law enforcement practice and proposes measures to improve both certain legal norms of the CPC RF and its procedural institutions in order to ensure constitutional provisions on the state protection of human and civil rights and freedoms. Methods: the researcher used historical, comparative legal and empirical methods for describing quality and legality issues in the investigation of criminal cases; theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic. Private scientific and legal technical methods, as well as the method for interpreting specific legal norms were applied. Results: the analysis of development of Russian and foreign criminal procedural legislation and law enforcement practice objectively indicates that the absolute majority of the amendments made to the Code contributed to enhancing performance of pre-trial investigation or initial inquiry bodies in implementing the provisions of Article 6 of the CPC. It stipulates protection of the rights and lawful interests of the persons and organizations, who (which) have suffered from the crimes, as well as their protection from unlawful accusations and conviction, and other restrictions of their rights and freedoms. Betterment of the criminal procedural legislation is also aimed at overcoming formalization of its individual provisions and bureaucratization of actions of the inquirer, investigator, prosecutor’s office and judicial community in the investigation and trial of criminal cases. Conclusions: to adapt the modern Russian criminal process to modern realities (new types of crimes and methods of their commission, increased requirements for ensuring legality in activities of pre-trial investigation bodies, their compliance with procedural deadlines in criminal cases and improving investigation quality) it is necessary to make changes in pre-trial proceedings, in particular, to reorganize procedural rules for commencement of criminal proceedings; bringing investigation terms into line with the provisions of Article 61 of the CPC on a reasonable period of criminal proceedings; differentiating investigation forms, etc. All this is focused on improving effectiveness of the fight against crime and its most dangerous types.

scholarly journals Classification of crimes in designing criminal procedure regulations

2019 ◽  
pp. 130-137
Author(s):  
A. G. Kulev ◽  
L. O. Kuleva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Great Influence ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Substantive Law

The rules on categorization of crimes are substantive and legal by their nature. Nevertheless, they have a great influence on the state and development of criminal procedural matter. It is proposed to divide the provisions of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, which reflect the provisions of Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, into two groups. The first group includes the norms of criminal proceedings that are a kind of logical continuation of criminal law regulations related to exemption from criminal liability and punishment. The second group consists of strictly procedural rules that are not directly dependent on the substantive law: the composition of the bench, jurisdiction and competence of criminal cases, bail hearing, negotiations control and recording, the return of a criminal case to the prosecutor. Particular attention is given to the possibility for the court to change the classification of crimes. Based on the studied theoretical sources and court practice, the authors make suggestions aimed at improving the existing criminal procedure legislation and optimizing its application in the framework of the issues raised.

scholarly journals To the admissibility of the civil law exemption of property from arrest, imposed in the criminal proceedings: domestic and foreign experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-200
Author(s):  
Natalia Kashtanova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Judicial Protection

The subject of paper deals with the legal nature of measures of criminal procedural compulsionin the form of seizure of property.Methodological basis of the article is based on general scientific dialectical methods of cognitionof objective reality of the legal processes and phenomena that allowed us to conduct anobjective assessment of the state of legislation and law enforcement practice in the proceduralaspects of the cancellation of the seizure of property in criminal proceedings of Russia.The results and scope of it’s application. It is submitted that the cancellation of the seizureof the property (or the individual limit) is allowed only on the grounds and in the mannerprescribed by the criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation. However, the studyfound serious contradictions in the application of the relevant law. In particular, cases inwhich the question of exemption of property from arrest (exclusion from the inventory),imposed in the criminal case was resolved in a civil procedure that, in the opinion of theauthor of the publication, is extremely unacceptable.On the stated issues topics analyzes opinions of scientists who say that the dispute aboutthe release of impounded property may be allowed in civil proceedings, including pendingresolution of the criminal case on the merits. The author strongly disagrees with this positionand supports those experts who argue that the filing of a claim for exemption of propertyfrom arrest (exclusion from the inventory) the reviewed judicial act of imposing of arrestwithout recognition per se invalid. In this regard, the author cites the legal position ofthe constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, from which clearly follows that of theright of everyone to judicial protection does not imply the possibility of choice of the citizenat its discretion, techniques and procedures of judicial protection, since the features of suchjudicial protection is defined in specific Federal laws.The author analyzes and appreciates Kazakhstan's experience of legal regulation of the permissibilityof filing a civil claim for exemption of property from seizure imposed in criminalproceedings. The author notes that the new civil procedural legislation of the Republic ofKazakhstan, which came into force from 01 January 2016, clearly captures that considerationin the civil proceedings are not subject to claims for exemption of property from seizureby the criminal prosecution body.Conclusions. Necessity of amendment to article 422 of the Civil Procedure Code of Russia:this article should not apply to cases of application of measures of criminal procedural compulsionin the form of seizure of property. Among other things, the author proposed additionsto part 9 of article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia.

scholarly journals Evidence and Establishment of Evidence Norms in CIS Countries Criminal Procedures: A Comparative Legal Analysis

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 148-156
Author(s):  
S. V. Kornakova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Cis Countries ◽  
Procedure Codes ◽  
In Cis

The paper is devoted to a comparative legal analysis of some norms of the criminal procedure laws of the CIS countries concerning evidence and establishment of evidence in criminal procedures. The paper analyzes the legal definitions of the concept of "evidence" in the CIS countries codes. It is noted that the wording used in article 74 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation is less specific than the content of the relevant norms in the legislation of other CIS countries. In particular, the replacement of the phrase "this data is established", which was used in the RSFSR Criminal Procedure Code, with the phrase "evidence is" in part 2 of article 74 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, which led to an illegal identification of the sources of evidence and the evidence itself, is critically evaluated.Some features, advantages and disadvantages of the norms of criminal procedure laws of the CIS countries containing a list of sources of evidence are revealed. The conclusion is made about a clear advantage in this respect of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, part 2 of article 74 of which contains a complete and universal list of sources of evidence. At the same time, the need to include in this list, along with the testimony of the suspect and the accused, such a source of evidence as the testimony of the defendant is argued.The paper analyzes the legislative consolidation of the concept of "evidence" in the criminal procedure codes of the CIS countries, which allowed us to critically evaluate the definition given to this concept by the Russian legislator. According to the author, the absence of the purpose for the establishment of evidence in article 85 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, namely the purpose for establishing the circumstances listed in article 73 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, as a lawful, reasoned and just resolution of the case, is a significant shortcoming of the Russian criminal-procedural law that requires special legal address. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document