scholarly journals Reus vel suspectus? O pozycji oskarżonego i podejrzanego w rzymskim procesie karnym

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 63
Author(s):  
Andrzej Chmiel
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Status ◽  
A Charge ◽  
Procedural Rights

<p>This article aims to answer the question whether such a participant who can be described as the suspect was known in the Roman criminal procedure. The analysed procedure, especially of bringing a charge in the proceedings before <em>quaestiones</em>, as well as the examples of criminal cases settled within the framework of <em>cognitio</em>, quoted in this paper,<em> </em>confirm that<em> </em>the Romans distinguished between the accused and the suspect, even though they did not develop separate terms and definitions to identify these two different procedural roles. An important moment that distinguished the status of the accused person in the Roman criminal procedure was entering his name in the register of the accused (<em>inscriptio inter reos</em>), which took place when the indictment was brought against him. From then on, the accused became <em>reus</em>, that is a rightful party to the proceedings who was able to use his procedural rights fully.</p>

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.

scholarly journals Tactics of presenting evidence by a prosecutor in a judicial investigation

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-185
Author(s):  
Elena V. Pavlova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Considerable Difficulty ◽  
The Public ◽  
Complete Independence ◽  
Judicial Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
A Charge

The article deals with individual issues of the tactics of participation of the prosecutor the public prosecutor in the basis of the part of the judicial investigation in criminal cases, which is connected with the presentation of evidence of the prosecution. It is noted that at present in the matter of determining the order of examining evidence by the parties, a unified position has been formed of both theorists and practitioners. They recognize the complete independence of the parties to determine this procedure in accordance with the tactics chosen by them. At the same time, the author draws attention to the fact that theoretical and methodical works still do not pay enough attention to the content and essence of this activity of the prosecutor in court, despite their obvious importance. His activity in the judicial investigation largely depends on the importance of tactical methods of presenting evidence and the ability to apply them. If he does not have the appropriate professional baggage, he will have considerable difficulty in the adversary process. The author sets out his own position regarding the content of evidence presented by the prosecutor the public prosecutor, proposes to include a definition of the relevant concept in the terminological apparatus of science of criminal procedure law and to fix it in the criminal procedure law. A derivative of it is the definition of the notion of tactics for the presentation of evidence by the prosecutor the public prosecutor. Conclusions are formulated on the need to intensify the development of up-to-date recommendations on the tactics of presenting evidence of a charge in a judicial investigation in criminal cases on crimes certain types

scholarly journals Initiation of Criminal Proceedings against a Particular Person as the Ground for Recognizing him as a Suspect (para 1, part 1, art. 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation)

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 71-78
Author(s):  
I. V. Smolkova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Status ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Russian Federation

The paper is devoted to the analysis of a new ground for recognition of a person as a suspect, introduced under the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, namely, the initiation of a criminal case against the person. The ground under consideration has caused controversial debates among criminal process scholars. The author has carried out a retrospective analysis of the legislative regulation of this ground for giving a person the status of the suspect. The paper evaluates various doctrinal approaches to its merits and disadvantages. The author also demonstartes the need for the new ground for recognition of a person as the suspect in law enforcement on the basis of statistical data, according to which more than half of criminal cases in Russia are initiated against a particular person. The study at question reveals an interconnection between initiation of proceedings upon commission of a crime and a particular person. The conclusion is substantiated that the recognition of a person as a suspect in case of initiation of criminal proceedings against him is aimed at ensuring his right to protection from criminal prosecution. However, the issuance of the order to initiate criminal proceedings against a particular person entails the possibility of implementation of coercive criminal procedural measures against him. It is shown that suspicion forms the substantive basis of recognition of a person as the suspect. The author criticises the approach according to which the issuance of the order to initiate criminal proceedings against a particular person forms an allegation that he has committed an act prohibited under the criminal law. Under this approach the assumption is made that can later be either proven or refuted in the course of further investigation. The author criticises the practice of dividing criminal cases into a judicial perspective and lacking such a perspective, which entails violations of the rights and legitimate interests of individuals suspected in committing crimes.

scholarly journals A gyermek jogainak érvényesülése a magyar polgári eljárásban

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-110
Author(s):  
Katalin Visontai-Szabó
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Rights Of The Child ◽  
Adverse Experiences ◽  
Past Half Century ◽  
The Status ◽  
Child Friendly ◽  
New York Convention ◽  
Procedural Rights

The status of children, and their role have both undergone significant changesall over the world in the past half century. The rights and vulnerabilities of the child are now the subject of increased attention in all fields, including in the framework of the judicial process. Today, the notion of child-friendly justice is not unknown in Hungary although it is yet to be decided if the proper term is child-friendly or child-centred. The means of ensuring that the rights of the child are respected are common to all procedures; however, the traumas and adverse experiences they may have found themselves subjected to are widely diverse in civil cases (usually the establishment of parental supervision), criminal cases (usually crimes where the victim is a child), and in procedures specific to the tutelage authority; so, the question deserves examination in view of such specificities. The adoption of the New York Convention was a significant milestone in the domain of the rights of the child; however, laying down the theoretical foundations was only relatively slowly followed by a dynamic of development in practice, and that took place with a wide degree of variability in different fields. In Europe — as in Hungary —, the participation of the child during the procedure meant the same as a hearing when the child is addressed questions. Today we know that Laura Lundy was right when in several of her studies she drew attention to the fact that true participation is more than simply asking the child questions. In my research, I set myself the task to create a type of catalogue for the procedural rights of the child and to answer the question: what more can we do that has not yet been done in order to avoid transforming participation in a procedure into a burden, or even worse, a trauma for the child, but instead making it the reflection of a plenitude of rights, a defining but not uncomfortable experience?

scholarly journals Wyznaczanie składu orzekającego w sprawach karnych

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-90
Author(s):  
Zbigniew Kwiatkowski
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The State ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
Defence Counsel ◽  
The Law ◽  
A Charge ◽  
The Given

The article discusses the problem of the appointment of the adjudicating panel in criminal cases. The currently binding Code of criminal procedure introduced relevant regulations in reference to this question in Art. 351, which stipulates the following: § 1A judge or judges called on to hear the case shall be designated in line with the sequence of the cases submitted, from a roll of judges of the given court or department, known to the parties. Deviation from this rule is only allowed in the event of a judge’s illness or other important obstacle, which should be noted in the order designating the date of hearing. § 2 When an indictment includes a charge for a crime carrying a penalty of 25 years of deprivation of liberty or a life imprisonment, designation of the panel to hear the case shall, on a motion from the defence counsel or state prosecutor, be carried out by drawing lots at which they shall have a right to be present. The state prosecutor may bring the motion not later than within 7 days after the submission of the indictment, and a defence counsel, within 7 days from when the indictment was served on him. § 3 constitutes act-of-law delegation for the minister of justice for the issuing of the regulation in order to determine the detailed principles of designating the panel to hear cases by drawing lots. Such a regulation was issued on 2 June 2003 r. (Dz.U. of 2003, No 107, item no. 1007). The regulation which was quoted was developed with article 1 point 81 of the act of law issued on 11 March 2016 about the change of the act of law – the Code of the criminal procedure and some other acts of law (Dz. U. of 2016, Item no. 437), but in reality it did not come into force at all, for it was derogated with Article 4 point 1 of the act of law issued on 12 July 2017 about the change of the act of law – The law on the system of common courts and some other acts of law (Dz. U. of 2017, Item no. 1452). On the basis of Art. 41 Par. 1 of the act of law issued on 27 July 2001 – The law on the system of common courts in reference to Art. 20 of the aforementioned act of law issued on 12 July 2017 which amended the law on the system of common courts. The Minister of Justice, by issuing a regulation on 28 December 2017, changed the theretofore binding rules and regulations concerning the operation of common courts (Dz. U. of 2017, Item no. 2481) and determined therein the comprehensive rules as to the allocation of cases to the particular judges by drawing lots, the classification of cases into the particular categories and the principles of the establishment of multi-person panels.

scholarly journals DAMAGES RECOVERY CAUSED BY A CRIME AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: PROCEDURAL ASPECTS

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 80-86
Author(s):  
M. A. Soynikov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Improvement ◽  
Procedural Rights

Doctrinal study of procedural aspects of recovery of damage caused by a crime against intellectual property is of great importance both for the resolution of specific criminal cases, and for generalization and uniformity of law enforcement practice, as well as for legislative improvement of existing criminal procedure rules governing the mechanism of compensation for damage caused by crimes. However, the effectiveness of the institution is reduced due to problems of law enforcement and shortcomings of legislation. Proposals to improve the mechanisms of recovery of damage caused by crimes against intellectual property need theoretical justification based on the study of modern law enforcement practice. Courts in civil lawsuits for crimes against intellectual property often allow violations of procedural rights that remain unresolved. the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation contains a number of gaps in this part: specific cases and limits of application of norms of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation to claims in criminal cases are not specified. They could be defined in the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation through references to specific articles (parts, items) of the Civil Procedural Code. The paper is aimed at conceptualization of procedural aspects of recovery of damage caused by a crime in relation to encroachments on intellectual property objects, which implies a doctrinal justification of the need to make additions to the criminal procedure legislation.

The WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and Unilateralism of Special Economic Zones

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherzod Shadikhodjaev
Keyword(s):  
World Trade ◽  
Special Economic Zone ◽  
Special Economic Zones ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Export Subsidies ◽  
The World ◽  
The Status ◽  
Economic Zone ◽  
A Charge ◽  
Economic Zones

ABSTRACT Many governmental incentives unilaterally offered in special economic zones affect competition in international markets and thus fall within the scope of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Until very recently, products made in such zones could face countervailing duty investigations abroad on a charge of improper subsidization. In 2019, the World Trade Organization issued its first ruling focusing on the legality of certain special economic zone subsidies. In particular, the panel in India—Export Related Measures found fiscal preferences under an Indian scheme to be prohibited export subsidies. This article examines the status of special economic zone incentives under the multilateral subsidy regime, discusses the relevant anti-subsidy practice, and identifies ‘risky’ and ‘safe’ types of support measures that constitute unilateralism of zones in promoting economic activities.

Maximum Duration of the Measures of Remand Detention in Custody and House Arrest in Criminal Cases

De Jure ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Salkova ◽  
◽  
Yanko Roychev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Maximum Duration ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Maximum Period

The maximum duration of the detention in custody and house arrest measures in criminal cases is researched. A number of issues have been considered regarding the calculation of the term and its initial and final moments, including the hypotheses related to the returning of the case to the prosecutor by the court, the taking of the measures against an accused party detained on different grounds, as well as in view of a modification of the legal qualification of the indictment, establishing a different maximum duration under Art. 63, para. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code. An emphasis has been placed on the disputable aspect of the duration of the period in regard to underage accused parties. A necessity to introduce a maximum period of detention in custody and house arrest,including also the court phase of the trial, has been acknowledged.

To the Matter of Procedural and Legal Problems of Detaining a Person on Suspicion of Committing a Crime

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.V. Bolshakov ◽  
◽  
I.D. Nazarov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Moment

The subject of the research within the framework of the article is the criminal procedure institute for the detention of a person on suspicion of committing a crime. The legal nature of this institution is analyzed, and comments are given on the normative legal acts and judicial practice regulating the issues of detention. The theoretical basis of the research is based on the publications of the last two decades on this problem, in particular, reflecting the discussion of the process scientists S. A. Shafer, S. B. Rossinsky and A. A. Tarasov, the subject of which was the issue of the legal nature of a suspect detention in a criminal case. In the paper, the authors ask the following questions: What is the detention of a person on suspicion of committing a crime in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation? From what moment does the detained person acquire the status of a suspect? Is it possible to detain a person before initiating a criminal case? The study concludes that a person acquires the actual status of a suspect from the moment of direct detention, that is, before documenting this status and, as a result, before initiating a criminal case. Amendments to the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are proposed, and the authors` versions of the definitions of the concepts «detention of a suspect», «the moment of actual detention» and «pre-trial proceedings» are given.

USING RESULTS OF STING OPERATION IN CRIMINAL CASES PROVING

2021 ◽  
pp. 132-136
Author(s):  
Кирилл Иванович ЛАРИН
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Sting Operation

В статье рассматриваются проблемные вопросы, связанные с использованием в качестве доказательств результатов оперативного эксперимента. Предлагается отказаться от проведения оперативного эксперимента по инициативе оперативных подразделений и допустить его проведение исключительно в рамках рассмотрения сообщения о преступлении, на основании поручения следователя Следственного комитета в порядке статьи 144 УПК РФ. The article deals with problematic issues associated with the use of the results of an operational experiment as evidence. It is proposed to refuse to conduct an operational experiment on the initiative of operational units and allow it to be conducted exclusively within the framework of considering a report on a crime, on the basis of an order from an investigator of the Investigative Committee in accordance with Article 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document