THE PROBLEMS OF LEGAL REGULATION OF THE USE OF METAL DETECTORS FOR PURPOSES NOT RELATED TO THE SEARCH FOR AND REMOVAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTS FROM PLACES OF OCCURRENCE

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 92-109
Author(s):  
Anatoly N. PANFILOV
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Illegal Activities ◽  
Metal Detectors ◽  
Archaeological Objects

The scale of illegal archaeological activity in modern Russia is a cause for alarm among scientists, interested specialists and citizens. This problem is exacerbated by the mass enthusiasm of the population of the country by searching for antique metal objects using metal detectors and other special technical search tools. The Federal Law of July 23, 2013 No. 245-ФЗ On Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Regarding the Suppression of Illegal Activities in the Field of Archeology was sent to solve the problem. However, these steps did not produce any tangible results. The evolving judicial practice in administrative and criminal cases (Article 7.15.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, Article 243.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) raises many questions among specialists in the field of law. The article examines the problems of legal regulation of the use in the Russian Federation of special technical means of search for purposes not related to the search and seizure of archaeological objects. The author, relying on wide empirical material, identifies circumstances that impede metalworking, justifies the need for further streamlining of these social relations by adjusting national legislation. The study is interdisciplinary in nature, as the studied problem is at the junction of several branches of law: civil, administrative and criminal. The research methodology is determined by the specifics of the problem being studied and includes a set of methods of scientific knowledge. General scientific (analysis, synthesis, generalization, historical) and private scientific (historical-legal, comparative-legal, formal-legal) research methods are applied.

scholarly journals On violation of the logic of the legal mechanism of bringing to justice for beatings and additional measures for their prevention

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (3) ◽  
pp. 178-185
Author(s):  
Aleksey Drozd ◽  
Aleksandr Ravnyushkin
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Public Prosecution ◽  
Protective Orders ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Mechanism

The relevance of the research is determined by a legal gap in the current legislation, which lies in the fact that when bringing a person who has committed a crime under Article 116.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation repeatedly in relation to the same person to responsibility, the state of the criminal record of this criminal is not taken into account. In this case, a person who has unexpunged or outstanding convictions, when committing battery for the third time, according to common sense, should be brought to criminal responsibility, and not to administrative responsibility, as is currently the case. In order to eliminate this conflict, the authors propose to include part 2 of Art. 1161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for the liability of a person who has an unexpunged or outstanding conviction in relation to the same person. At the same time, the authors consider it necessary to include a group of criminal cases considered as cases of public prosecution to part 2 of Art. 1161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The authors also see an urgent problem of the need to improve the effectiveness of the prevention of domestic violence through the inclusion of new legal means in legislation and law enforcement practice. Attempts to implement the norms of international acts providing for legal means of preventing domestic violence in the Russian Federation, as well as the study of foreign experience on this issue, according to the authors, looks ambiguous and is debatable. In particular, the issue of introducing protective orders and orders as administrative and legal means of preventing administrative offenses through the adoption of the federal law «On the Prevention of Domestic Violence in the Russian Federation» is being considered. According to the authors, taking into account the foreign practice, there are sufficient grounds to believe that protective prescriptions and some other means will not be able to confirm their effectiveness in Russia.

scholarly journals Reforming legislation in prevention of neglect and juvenile delinquency

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 03005
Author(s):  
Elena Nikolayevna Ryabova ◽  
Leonid Ivanovich Savinov ◽  
Dmitrii Vladimirovich Bondarenko ◽  
Tatyana Vladimirovna Cherkasova
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Delinquency ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Scientific Cognition ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article represents the results of the analysis of modern legal regulation of the system for prevention of neglect and juvenile delinquency in the Russian Federation and activity of commissions for juvenile affairs and juvenile rights protection as the main authority of that system. Relevance and immediacy of changes and reforming of legislation in the prevention of neglect and juvenile delinquency and areas of such activity are associated with the needs of the modern informational society. The authors analyze regulatory legal acts governing the activity of commissions for juvenile affairs and juvenile rights protection, proposals of executive authorities of constituents of the Russian Federation in the practicability of developing a concept of federal law on prevention of neglect and juvenile delinquency and rights’ protection and they characterize primary trends in the activity of this authority in order to define further perspectives of activity within the system of prevention of neglect and juvenile delinquency in Russia. Methodological support of the research are such methods of scientific cognition as analysis and synthesis, comparative-legal, formally legal, analysis of documents, legal modeling, survey, which allowed for a comprehensive approach to the research of this problem. The result of the research was reasoned conclusions on the practicability of reforming authorities and legal relations in the system of prevention of neglect and juvenile delinquency. Models are given for the modernization of commissions for juvenile affairs and juvenile rights protection. The results ensure conceptual basis and trends in the development of proposals for improvement of legal regulatory regulation of social relations in the prevention of asocial behavior and juvenile delinquency.

scholarly journals Practical issues of implementation of the institution of regulatory sandboxes into the Russian legislation in the context of enactment of the Federal Law of 07.31.2020 No.258-FZ “On Experimental Legal Regimes in the Sphere of Digital Innovations in the Russian Federation”

2020 ◽  
pp. 18-25
Author(s):  
Vladislav Olegovich Makarov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
The Social ◽  
Legal Regimes ◽  
The Russian Federation

This article reviews the topical practical issues of implementation of the institution of experimental legal regimes into the Russian legal system due to adoption of the new Federal Law of 07.31.2020 No.258-FZ “On Experimental Legal Regimes in the Sphere of Digital Innovations in the Russian Federation”. The author analyzes the social context that changed in the course of discussion and revision of the draft law, as well as examines the problems of harmonization of the current legislation with the new legislation. The question is raised on the adequacy of exceptions with regards to processing of personal data for the participants of experimental legal regimes; the presence of parallel regulation of the sphere of digital innovations is indicated. Analysis is conducted on the legislative novels in the area of establishment and regulation of experimental legal regimes in the Russian Federation. The conclusion is made on the timeliness of adoption of the Federal Law “On Experimental Legal Regimes in the Sphere of Digital Innovations” and feasibility of usage of its legal mechanisms in the changing conditions caused by the spread of coronavirus infection COVID-19. The need is underlined for determination of the hierarchy of sources and model of legal regulation for the experimental legal regimes to exclude parallel regulation of the uniform social relations by various federal laws, as well for further elaboration of special legislative norms on personal data protection applicable to experimental legal regimes that involve big data analysis.

scholarly journals Criminal Procedure Code of Russia: Twenty Years Later (2001–2021)

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-188
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viktor I. Kachalov
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Impact

Introduction. 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, adopted by the State Duma on November 22, 2001 by Federal Law No. 174-FZ. The development of criminal procedure legislation in these years was not always consistent, often characterized by chaotic and hasty measures. Nevertheless, the main factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, as well as the key trends in the legal regulation of criminal procedure legal relations, have remained fairly stable for twenty years. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The object of the study is the norms of criminal procedure law that have emerged and developed during the period of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation since 2001. The methodological basis of the study is the general dialectical method of scientific knowledge, which allowed us to study the subject of the study in relation to other legal phenomena, as well as general scientific methods of knowledge (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, and modelling) and private scientific methods of knowledge (formal legal, historical-legal, and comparative-legal). Results. Among the variety of various factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, there are several main ones: 1. The impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal proceedings. Having ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms in 1998, Russia voluntarily assumed obligations in the field of ensuring citizens rights and freedoms, as well as creating the necessary conditions for their implementation. Among the most important criminal procedure norms and institutions that have emerged in the system of criminal procedure regulation under the influence of the positions of the ECHR, the following are notable: a reasonable period of criminal proceedings, the rights of participants in the verification of a crime report, the disclosure of the testimony of an absent witness at a court session, and alternative preventive measures to detention. 2. Optimisation of procedural resources and improvement of the efficiency of criminal proceedings. From the very beginning of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, there was a special procedure for judicial proceedings, which is a simplified form of consideration of criminal cases, provided for in Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. In 2009, this procedure was extended to cases with concluded pre-trial cooperation agreements (Chapter 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), and in 2013, the institute of abbreviated inquiry appeared in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Chapter 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). 3. Social demand for increasing the independence of the court, and the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings. Society’s needs to improve the independence of judges, increase public confidence in the court, transparency and quality of justice led to the reform of the jury court in 2016 (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 190-FZ). As a result of the reform, the court with the participation of jurors began to function at the level of district courts, the jurisdiction of criminal cases for jurors was expanded, the number of jurors was reduced from 12 to 8 in regional courts and 6 in district courts. However, practice has shown that sentences handed down by a court on the basis of a verdict rendered by a jury are overturned by higher courts much more often than others due to committed violations, which are associated, among other things, with the inability to ensure the objectivity of jurors. In the context of a request for an independent court, Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the independence of judges (Federal Law of 2 July 2013 N 166-FZ) was adopted. 4. Reducing the degree of criminal repression. In the context of this trend, institutions have emerged in the criminal and criminal procedure laws that regulate new types of exemption from criminal liability. In 2011, Article 281 “Termination of criminal prosecution in connection with compensation for damage” was adopted, concerning a number of criminal cases on tax and other economic crimes (Federal Law of 7 December 2011 N 420). In 2016, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation introduced rules on the termination of a criminal case or criminal prosecution in connection with the appointment of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine (Federal Law of 3 July 2016 N 323-FZ). 5. Digitalisation of modern society. The rapid development of information technologies and their implementation in all spheres of public life has put on the agenda the question of adapting a rather archaic “paper” criminal process to the needs of today, and the possibilities of using modern information technologies in the process of criminal proceedings. Among the innovations in this area, it should be noted the appearance in the criminal procedure law of Article 1861 “Obtaining information about connections between subscribers and (or) subscriber devices” (Federal Law of 1 July 2010 N 143-FZ), Article 4741 “The procedure for using electronic documents in criminal proceedings” (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 220-FZ), the legal regulation of video-conferencing in criminal proceedings (Federal Law of 20 March 2011 N 39-FZ), and the introduction of audio recording of court sessions (Federal Law of 29 July 2018-FZ N 228-FZ), etс. Currently, the possibilities of further digitalisation of criminal proceedings, and the use of programs based on artificial intelligence in criminal proceedings, ets. are being actively discussed. Discussion and Conclusion. The main factors determining the vector of development of modern criminal justice should, in our opinion, include the impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal justice; optimisation of procedural resources and the need to improve the efficiency of criminal justice, social demands for strengthening the independence of the court, adversarial criminal proceedings; the needs of society to reduce the degree of criminal repression, and digitalisation of modern society.

scholarly journals Protection of consumer rights from unfair online advertising: certain theoretical and practical aspects

2021 ◽  
pp. 29-47
Author(s):  
Irina Viktorovna Ermakova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Online Advertising ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Telecommunication Networks ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
Written Form ◽  
The Russian Federation

The subject of this research is the legal norms aimed at regulation of relations in the sphere of protection of consumer rights with regards to online advertising, including contextual and targeted advertising, as well as other type advertising distributed over telecommunication networks. The object of this research is the social relations arising in the process of creation, placement, and consumer perception of the aforementioned types of advertising. Special attention is given to the theoretical and practical aspects of protecting the basic consumer rights in the context of distribution of the indicated types of advertising, as well as compliance to the corresponding legislative prescriptions by the advertisers, including prohibition to mislead consumers, requirement to distribute advertising over telecommunication networks after receiving advance consent of the consumer, etc. The article provides the examples of court decisions and decisions of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation on consideration of the this category of cases. The novelty of this research consists in outlining the effective approaches of the courts and the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation applicable to the essence, concept and relevant issues of legal regulation of online advertising in the context of protection of consumer rights, including controversial aspects of qualification of online advertising in accordance with the criteria of misleading or deception, as well as questions on due processing of consumer consent to distribution of advertising over telecommunication networks. The author makes recommendations for the improvement of corresponding norms of the Federal Law “On Advertising” and the Federal Law “On The Protection of Competition”, namely to stipulate on the legislative level the provisions that qualify advertising as inappropriate if contains potentially misleading or deceptive content, as well as that consent to receive advertising through telecommunication networks should be in a written form and contain the signature of the consumer.

scholarly journals System of offences associated with securities fraud in the Russian Federation (Part 2)

2021 ◽  
pp. 13-21
Author(s):  
Elina Leonidovna Sidorenko ◽  
Ekaterina Aleksandrovna Khalizeva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Securities Fraud ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
System Operator ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
State Registration

This article is a sequence of research conducted by the authors on the topic of offences related to digital securities fraud (Part 2). It completes the design of the system of such offences, determining the “subsystem” that considers the economic nature of the Central Securities Depository. For this purpose, analysis is conducted on the articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that form the system of offences related associated with the fraud of non-digital securities (Articles 185-186) from the perspective of their applicability to digital securities and peculiarities of such application. The research is based on the systemic approach, comparative-legal method, logical techniques of analysis and synthesis of information, as well as the method of deduction. The authors conclude on applicability of the Articles 185, 185.1, 185.2 and 185.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to unlawful acts related to digital securities, taking into account the specificity of their legal regulation, namely the absence of necessity of state registration of stocks in the form of digital financial assets, the registration of rights to central securities depository by the information system operator that issued them, etc. Summarizing the results of this research with the results acquired in the Part I, the authors form the system of offences associated with the digital securities fraud, which includes the aforementioned elements, as well as the elements stipulated in the Article 187.1 “Organization of illegal trafficking of digital Rights” of the Draft Federal Law “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation”. The Russian legal science unfortunately does not give due attention to examination of this problem, and such system is developed for the first time. The authors anchor hopes that the system of offenses they have designed would be effectively used in the law enforcement practice in the context of classification of unlawful action associated with central securities depository.

Legal Models and Experiment in Culture

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (10) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Елена Пуляева ◽  
Elena Pulyaeva ◽  
Андрей Помазанский ◽  
Andrey Pomazanskiy ◽  
Юрий Тихомиров ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Basic Features

The article discusses the draft federal law “On Culture in the Russian Federation”, as the legal base model legislation in the sphere of culture, reveals its basic features in comparison to the current legal regulation, based on the laws of the Russian Federation on culture. There are three basic models of implementation of the bill: conservative, positive and negative, as well as their significant characteristics. It is concluded about the need for legal experiments in making basic laws in a certain area of social relations. Currently the legal regulation of legal experiments in the Russian Federation is absent. It is proposed to conduct two legal experiments to assess the implementation of the draft federal law “On Culture in the Russian Federation”. The article describes the baseline characteristics of these experiments and the legal order of their conduct. In conclusion the study is summarized and conclusions are formulated.

scholarly journals SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE IN CRIMINAL CASES: LEGISLATIVE, DOCTRINAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-166
Author(s):  
O. S. Pashutina ◽  
I. N. Chebotareva
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Forensic Expertise ◽  
Special Knowledge ◽  
The Russian Federation

A counsel at law has broad advocacy authority to use specialized knowledge in criminal proceedings, which is one of the hallmarks of the adversarial process, in which the officials conducting criminal proceedings are confronted by a defense endowed with all legal arrangements to adjudicate the rights and legitimate interests of the suspected offenders and accused. The paper discusses procedural and non-procedural possibilities for a counsel at law to use the special knowledge in criminal proceedings through forensic expertise and the involvement of a specialist in that field. The author explains why activities of the counsel at law and of these two specialists in criminal cases are inextricably linked and mutually refer to each other. A counsel at law realizes his rights to participate in forensic expertise asking a specialist for help when appointing a forensic expertise, analyzing the expert's conclusion, applying for an additional or repeated expertise and summoning an expert to give evidence. Violation of the counsel at law rights in the process of the forensic expertise may be grounds for the recognition of the evidence inadmissible and cancel the procedural decision. The authors analyze a legal regulation of the counsel’s at law procedural possibilities on participating in a forensic expertise and on involving a specialist, taking into account changes in the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by Federal Law No. 73-FZ of April 17, 2017. The authors also summarize the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on problem issues arising in the process of implementation by the counsel’s at law rights granted by law. The article reveals ambiguity of the existing law enforcement practice and contradictory positions worked out by the highest judicial instances.

Public hearings as an institution of deliberative democracy in major Russian and American cities

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
The Russian Federation

Currently, public hearings are one of the most widespread forms of deliberative municipal democracy in Russia. This high level of demand, combined with critique of legal regulations and the practices for bringing this system to reality – justified, in the meantime, by its development (for example, by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and the Public Chambers of the Russian Federation) of proposals for the correction of corresponding elements of the legal code – make both the study of Russian experiences in this sphere and comparative studies of legal regulations and practical usage of public hearings in Russia and abroad extremely relevant. This article is an attempt to make a contribution to this field of scientific study. If the appearance of public hearings in Russia as an institution of Russian municipal law is connected with the passing of the Federal Law of 6 October 2003 No.131-FZ, “On the general organisational principles of local government in the Russian Federation,” then in the United States, this institution has existed since the beginning of the 20th century, with mass adoption beginning in the 1960s. In this time, the United States has accumulated significant practical experience in the use of public hearings and their legal formulation. Both countries are large federal states, with their own regional specifics and diversity, the presence of three levels of public authority and different principles of federalism, which cause differences in the legal regulation of municipal public hearings. For this reason, this article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of Russian and American experiences of legal regulation and practical use of public hearings, on the example of several major municipalities – the cities of Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh and New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. A comparison of laws influencing the public hearing processes in these cities is advisable, given the colossal growth in the role of city centers in the industrial and post-industrial eras. Cities in particular are the primary centers for economic growth, the spread of innovations, progressive public policy and the living environment for the majority of both Russian and American citizens. The cities under research are one of the largest municipalities in the two countries by population, and on such a scale, the problem of involving residents in solving local issues is especially acute. In this context, improving traditional institutions of public participation is a timely challenge for the legislator, and the experiences of these cities are worth describing. The unique Russian context for legal regulations of public hearings involves the combination of overarching federal law and specific municipal decrees that regulate the hearing process. There are usually two municipal acts regulating public hearings on general issues of the city district (charter, budget, etc.) and separately on urban planning. In the United States, the primary regulation of public hearings is assigned to the state and municipality level, with a whole series of corresponding laws and statutes; meanwhile, methodological recommendations play a specific role in the organisation of hearings, which are issued by the state department of a given state. It is proposed that regulating the corresponding relationships at the federal subject level will permit a combination of the best practices of legal administration with local nuances, thereby reinforcing the guarantee of the realization of civil rights to self-government. There are other features in the process of organizing and conducting public hearings in the United States, which, as shown in the article, can be perceived by Russian lawmakers as well in order to create an updated construct of public discussions at the local level.

Experimental legislation: some conceptual approaches to explanation

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 16-23
Author(s):  
MIKHAIL DEGTYAREV ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Species Diversity ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Experimental Approach ◽  
Thought Experiment ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Goals And Objectives ◽  
Law Making

In connection with the adoption of the Federal Law of July 31, 2020 No. 258-FZ “On Experimental Legal Regimes in the Field of Digital Innovations in the Russian Federation” and of the Federal Law of July 31, 2020 No. 247-FZ “On Mandatory Requirements in the Russian Federation” (Article 13 “Experimental legal regime”) the topic of experimental legislation was updated. The article is devoted to the application of the experimental approach in legal regulation. The author reveals the essence of the concept of experimental legislation, explains the goals and objectives of using the appropriate technologies. The author notes that although in a broad sense it can be said that the adoption of any new law is in itself an experiment, there are still significant differences within the experimental law. The author sets out the essential features of a legislative experiment. The article examines the reasons for the need and prerequisites for the rationality of the use of experimental legislation. The author shows the nature of legislative experimentation and the merits of this toolkit. The author shows the areas of relevant application of the method of experimental legislation. The species diversity of methods of experimental regulatory regulation is indicated. The article compares the method of practical experimental legislation and the method of thought experiment in norm-writing and law- making activities. The article compares the method of practical experimental legislation and the method of digital duplicate-models of legislative acts. The author substantiates the existence of limits of applicability of the method of experimental legislation and demonstrates selected technologies of experimental legislation. In conclusion, the author turns to the complex and controversial problems of using the method of experimental legislation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document