scholarly journals The Meaning of the Reform of Judicial Supervision in the Civil Procedure in 2018

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 38-40
Author(s):  
Sergey A. Khalatov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Minimal Impact ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Cases

The article examines the issue of the consequences of changes in certain norms of the Code of Civil Procedure, regulating supervisory proceedings. Based on the results of studying the practice of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, it is concluded that the changes have a minimal impact on judicial practice in civil cases.

scholarly journals On the issue of violation of the uniformity of judicial practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 113-117
Author(s):  
N. Sh. Gadzhialieva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Changes

The article is devoted to such grounds for the cancellation or amendment of court decisions in the supervisory procedure, as a violation of the uniformity of judicial practice. The author analyzes the provisions of the current civil procedure legislation, the explanations of the Plenum and the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the application of paragraph 3 of Article 391.9 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The article identifies such problems as the lack of normative consolidation of the terms "judicial practice" "unity of judicial practice", the uncertainty of the legal status of acts of the highest judicial instance, the possibility of bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility for violating the unity of judicial practice. Based on the results of the study, the author comes to the conclusion that comprehensive legislative changes are necessary to achieve the unity of judicial practice

Theft and Fraud Committed Using Electronic Payment Systems (Regional Judicial and Investigative Practice)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 66-79
Author(s):  
S. L. Morozov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Payment Systems ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Electronic Payments ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The advent of the electronic currency and the effecting of electronic payments has caused new forms of thefts and types of acquisitive crimes. The judicial investigative practice of criminal cases of embezzlement committed using bank cards and other types of electronic payments has encountered problems with the qualification of such acts. The author identifies the most common enforcement problemsand their causesby a retrospective study of judicial practice, the changing norms of the criminal law. At the same time, a ten-year period of work of the judicial investigating authorities was studied. On the basis of traditional general scientific methods of cognition, as a result of a system-legal analysis of the considered set of specific situations, the author gives an author's view of the complex of causes that cause a lack of uniformity in judicial investigative practice. Using the hermeneutic approach, the author paid special attention to the application by the courts of the interpretation of the criminal law by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in different years. In conclusion, ways of resolving contentious issues of qualification of thefts and fraud in the field of electronic means of payment are proposed. It has been ascertained that high-quality and uniform law enforcement can provide additional clarification on the delimitation of related and competing theft from the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. It is concluded that in general, the current concept of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation does not contain contradictions with the novels of the criminal law, but can be improved. The rationale and edition of possible additions to the relevant decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are given.

Scientific Commentary on the Review of Judicial Practice on Some Issues of the Application of Legislation on Business Entities

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
V. K. Andreev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
Law Making

The article discusses the forms of clarification on matters of judicial practice by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Presidium of the Supreme Court, as well as in the Review of judicial practice on some issues of the application of legislation on business companies dated December 25, 2019. Clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on issues of judicial practice are characterized as the positions of the courts identified in the course of studying and summarizing the judicial practice of the corresponding category of cases, which are acts of individual regulation of public relations. Focusing on Art. 6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Section 6, Art. 12 of the APC RF shows the validity of dividing wrong into two types of wrong: the «moderate» type of «judicial law-making and the position of the court» and the «radical» type of «judicial law-making», when the court develops the rule of law, which contradicts the constitutional principle of separation of powers. When resolving corporate disputes, it is necessary to investigate whether the charter of a non-public company does not contain the rights and obligations of its participants, which they themselves created by making a unanimous decision and including them in the charter of the company (paragraph 3 of Art. 66.3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 3 of Art. 14 of the Law about LLC).

scholarly journals The use of digital communication technologies in the context of a pandemic as a way to improve the effectiveness of justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-101
Author(s):  
E. V. Smakhtin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article deals with the peculiarities of the activity of courts in making judicial decisions in the context of a pandemic. First of all, we are talking about the wider use of digital and information technologies in criminal proceedings, which have previously been repeatedly recommended by forensic science for implementation in judicial practice. Some recommendations of criminalistics are currently accepted by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its Decision dated April 08, 2020 № 821 and Review on certain issues of judicial practice related to the application of legislation and measures to counteract the spread of a new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) in the territory of the Russian Federation № 2, which provided appropriate explanations for their use in practice. In particular, we are talking about the possibility of using video conferencing systems for certain categories of criminal cases and materials that are considered urgent, although this is not provided for in criminal procedure legislation. It is concluded that it is necessary to change the current criminal procedure legislation, bring it into line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, federal laws and subordinate regulatory legal acts, including orders of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals On the Issues of the Application of Part 6 of Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-84
Author(s):  
N. N. Korotkikh
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article analyzes some of the controversial, in the opinion of the author, recommendations of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10 of 15.05.2018 «On the practice of the courts applying the provisions of paragraph 6 Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation». Lowering the category of crime always requires clear criteria by which the actions of the defendant could be qualified with a change in the gravity of the crime. Based on examples from judicial practice, the thesis is substantiated that “taking into account the factual circumstances of the case” and “the degree of its public danger” are evaluative e criteria and do not always allow to decide the validity of the application of part 6 article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The discrepancy between some of the recommendations contained in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is shown. It is concluded that it is impossible to exempt a person from criminal liability on the grounds specified in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals ISSUES OF THE QUALIFICATION OF A MURDER FOR THE PURPOSES OF USING VICTIM’S ORGANS OR TISSUES (CLAUSE М PART 2 ARTICLE 105 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION)

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 46-51
Author(s):  
Andrey L. Ivanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Human Organs ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article substantiates the solution of some of the issues of qualification of murder discussed in theory and practice in order to use human organs or tissues, the results of a study of judicial practice, in which clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on this topic were applied.

Dissemination of damaging information (defamation) as a type of civil tort: concept definition

2020 ◽  
pp. 378-382
Author(s):  
Valeriya Smorchkova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of

We consider such category as defamation, which is widespread in many foreign countries. Defamation is the dissemination of damaging information, which, however, is true. This concept has become widespread in the last century, many states have adopted special legislation that mediates relations in this area. For example, the United Kingdom has the “Defamation Act 1996” and Singapore has the “Defamation Ordinance 1960”. We emphasize that in the same 1960s in our country “the system of defamation seemed absolutely unacceptable and contrary to the spirit of society”. In the course of study, comparative legal methods are used to analyze the legislation of states with the Anglo-Saxon and Romano-Germanic legal system. Based on the study of the doctrinal points of view of scientists and the positions of higher courts, the definition of this category is formed from the position of civil tort. The following definition is proposed: “Defamation is a violation of civil legislation, which consists in the dissemination of false information damaging the honor, dignity and business reputation of a person and also the dissemination of truthful personal information, the disclosure of which violates the conservation law are listed in the intangible benefits of the citizens”. We analyze the provisions of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 2005 no. 3 “On judicial practice in cases of protecting the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities”. We conclude that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation borrowed advanced provisions from the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

Establishing the Circumstances of Civil Cases: Some Doctrinal and Practical Approaches

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. 53-68
Author(s):  
S. M. Mikhailov ◽  
M. D. Olegov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Fiction ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
Arbitration Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
True Knowledge

The paper analyzes certain provisions of civil procedural legislation in terms of their effectiveness as a means of establishing actual circumstances of civil cases by the court from the standpoint of doctrine and judicial practice. The authors examine the relationship between the presentation and disclosure of evidence, draw a conclusion about their close relationship, and their identification, sometimes admitted by judicial practice, is critically assessed. The question of the period for disclosure of evidence was investigated, in respect of which it was concluded that provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, although not quite specific, but sometimes quite definitely allow this period to be established. Taking into account the stance of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, then authors propose a solution to the problem of the consequences of non-disclosure of evidence in a civil case. The paper analyzes individual norms and institutions that allow the court to establish the circumstances of civil cases without evidence or on the basis of explanations of the other party. It is concluded that the norm of the second sentence of Part 1 of Art. 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation is neither a legal fiction nor an evidentiary presumption. This is one of the manifestations of the action of the general rule for the distribution of the duty of proof. The authors support and justify the position that the norm of Part 31 of Art. 70 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is an evidentiary presumption, and the presumption not of fact, but of evidence. In relation to Part 3 of Art. 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, it is concluded that establishment of the facts by the court by applying this norm does not mean obtaining true knowledge about them. Therefore, this provision of the civil procedure law is applied in judicial practice with extreme care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document