scholarly journals To the question about the possibility of using the results of the operational search activities in criminal proceedings

2020 ◽  
pp. 180-185
Author(s):  
N. A. Mikhailichenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article analyzes the issue of the lack of proper legal regulation of requirements for the results of operational-search activities used in the field of criminal proceedings. A separate place is given to the problem of assessing the presented results of operational-search activities. On the basis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights, a solution to this problem is proposed. At the same time, the provision is taken as a basis that any, in direct or indirect form, affecting the constitutional rights of citizens in the course of operational-search activities, entails the need to obtain a court decision for such activities. The question of the need to reform the criminal legislation is outlined. 

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 Waiver of rights in Russian criminal procedure: Issues of theory, legislative regulation, and law enforcement

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 651-665
Author(s):  
Irina N. Chebotareva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Freedom Of Choice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right

The article discusses the waiver of procedural rights as a particular legal phenomenon. The rationale for studying the waiver of rights in the Russian criminal procedure doctrine arises from the expansion of the spheres of disposition and adversarial nature in present-day Russian criminal procedure. In order to form an overall picture of the ‘waiver of rights’, the article describes its distinctive features and elements that characterize it. Additionally, the theoretical aspects of the waiver of rights in present-day Russian criminal procedures, as well as the legal regulation of a waiver, are analyzed. A waiver of subjective rights is understood as an expression of a legal person’s will in terms of failure to behave as provided for by objective law, which is characterized by voluntariness, awareness, and freedom of choice. It is asserted that any non-realization of rights by a subject is not considered a waiver. The difference is demonstrated in the understanding of the concept ‘waiver of rights’ in the approaches of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, as well as in the interpretation of the rules of criminal procedural legislation, which regulates a person’s ability to waive the rights granted to them by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The article states that the disposition principle of legal regulation, applied by the legislator to participants in criminal proceedings defending their personal interests, presupposes the legislatively established possibility of a person to refuse to exercise the right unless it violates the more important public interest. Attention is given in the article to the necessity of guarantees that ensure voluntariness, awareness, and freedom of choice in case of a person’s waiver of their rights.

scholarly journals IDENTIFICATION OF DATA EVIDING A NON-FULFILLMENT OF THE PERSONS ''OBLIGATIONS OF AN INSTRUMENT COOPERATION AGREEMENT AS A BASIS FOR CANCELLATION OR CHANGING THE DECISION IN THE COURT OF THE APPEAL INSTANCE

2018 ◽  
pp. 35-37
Author(s):  
R. M. Shageeva ◽  
Z. M. Magadieva
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
European Court ◽  
Usual Manner ◽  
The Russian Federation

Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, after the amendments introduced by the Federal Law of 03.07.2016 No. 322, provides for such an unfavorable consequence for a person who has entered into a pre-trial cooperation agreement in the event that he fails to fulfill its conditions, such as cancellation or amendment of a court decision on appeal. This consequence, along with the possibility of termination of the agreement, trial of the case in the usual manner, review of the court decision regarding the imposed punishment, is considered as the procedural responsibility of the said person. At the same time, the issue of the obligation of the person who entered into the pre-trial cooperation agreement to give truthful testimony regarding the accomplices of the crime, as well as his procedural status during the interrogation of the main case while fulfilling the conditions of the pre-trial cooperation agreement, remains debatable. The position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation expressed in Resolution No. 17-P of 20.07.2016, as well as the position of the European Court of Human Rights of 04.12.2014 in the case of Alexander Valeryevich Kazakov v. Russia, which is discussed in this article.

RESTRICTIONS ON RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF A MAN AND A CITIZEN IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AS A MEANS OF DEFENSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 169-174
Author(s):  
Болотин ◽  
Vladimir Bolotin ◽  
Паньков ◽  
Sergey Pankov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Legal Instrument ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional System

In the article the need of reasonable restriction of human rights and freedoms in modern conditions of increase of various threats for the constitutional system of Russia is shown; the results of modern research in this area, as well as the position of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court of Russia, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are revealed. Defined The system of restrictions, acting legal instrument for the protection of the constitutional order, the conditions and criteria for the limitation of rights and freedoms .

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document