scholarly journals Imperative Recommendations: Legal Views of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on Evidence Evaluation

Russian judge ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 59-64
Author(s):  
Svyatoslav O. Makhtyuk ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Law System ◽  
Evidence Evaluation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Assessment Of Evidence ◽  
Practical Recommendations

The author proposes for consideration an analysis of the current decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, concerning the assessment of evidence in criminal proceedings. The work defines the place and role of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and its decisions in the criminal law system. Analyzed the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the assessment of evidence. On the basis of the considered decisions, the author offers specific practical recommendations for resolving legal issues in judicial and investigative practice.

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 Legal Mechanisms for Protection of Migrants' Rights by the Public Authorities of the Russian Federation

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ksenia Minakova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Special Role ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Normative Documents ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Migrants Rights

The article analyzes methods of ensuring the migrants rights by the public authorities of the Russian Federation, the individual elements of the migration policy of the Russian Federation relating to the activities of public authorities. It considers the activities in the field of protection of the migrants rights by such authorities as the Russian President's Office for Constitutional Rights of Citizens, the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights, the Council for Interethnic Relations, General Directorate for Migration, Chief Directorate for Migration Issues of Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, their normative documents, that regulate their activities. It examines separately the activities of the RF Government in the field of protection of the migrants rights, as well as judicial authorities; it identifies the special role of the RF Constitutional Court in the field of ensuring the rights of migrants, refugees, the internally displaced and stateless persons. It underlines the role of authority bodies of the RF entities in ensuring the migrants rights in terms of Irkursk Oblast. The article offers to differentiate strictly the role of each authority body in the field of migrants rights protection, as well as to pay specific attention to regulation of activities of the FR entities authority bodies in this direction.

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 Prosecutor at the initial stage of criminal proceedings: finding ways to optimize activities in the light of digital technologies

2020 ◽  
pp. 89-96
Author(s):  
K. A. Tabolina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Digital Transformation ◽  
High Tech ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Online Platform ◽  
Digital Infrastructure ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Changes

This article is devoted to the problems of participation of the Prosecutor at the initial stage of criminal proceedings and the search for ways to optimize its activities in the light of the digital transformation of the Prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation, carried out in three main areas, namely high-tech supervision, digital infrastructure, and the environment of trust. The transition to high-tech supervision and the development of digital infrastructure should lead to work with a single electronic case on the basis of a single interdepartmental digital online platform. At the same time, a single interdepartmental digital online platform will ensure interaction both within the prosecutor’s office and the interaction of the prosecutor’s office with the investigation, inquiry, public, and court bodies. The conclusion is drawn that the digital transformation of the Russian prosecutor’s office optimizes the activities of prosecutors at the initial stage of criminal proceedings, but this should be preceded by legislative changes aimed at strengthening the role of the prosecutor in pre-trial proceedings. It also states the need to increase the availability of information to citizens about the activities of prosecutors and the state of legality in pre-trial criminal proceedings and expand the list of statistical data posted on the official website of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals An Expanding Meaning of Presidential Amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 43-52
Author(s):  
A. A. Uvarov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Local Population ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Constitutional Amendments ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Fundamental Rights And Freedoms

The paper deals with the issues of interconnectedness and the role of constitutional amendments introduced by the President of the Russian Federation to the current Constitution of the Russian Federation on January 20, 2020. In assessing the meaning and content of a great deal of amendments to Chapter 3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the author concludes that they have additional, however, sometimes more important value in the context of the hierarchy of constitutional norms, which is directly related to the chapters of the Constitution that are not subject to any revision. Despite the formal inalterability, the foundations of the constitutional order have in fact as a result of the amendments gained such new provisions as: “the stateconstituing people that is a part of the multinational union of equal peoples of the Russian Federation”; “ban on alienation of a part of the territory of the Russian Federation and calls for such actions”; “non-enforcement of decisions of interstate bodies adopted on the basis of the provisions of international agreements of the Russian Federation in their interpretation contrary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation”; “the state guarantee of minimum wage not less than the minimum living wage of the working population.” The rules governing certain fundamental rights and freedoms of man and citizen (art. 37–39, 44 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) have been supplemented with new content without being formally altered. Ambivalence of local self-government leading to opposition between local and state authorities, partly resulting from the provision of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation concerning the autonomy of local self-government bodies. Their failure to enter the system of public authorities is partially minimized by the provision on their unity in the system of public power. However, many, and at first glance minor, amendments to Chapter 8 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation significantly reduce the potential of power for the local population, turn the constituent rules concerning its powers to the reference rule. The conclusion draws attention to some issues in the activity of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the implementation of these constitutional amendments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document