CONCLUSIONS OF THE EXPERIENCED PERSONS

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 295-306
Author(s):  
L.A. TEREKHOVA
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Classification Criterion ◽  
Scientific Issue ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Status ◽  
Case Consultation ◽  
Arbitration Procedure ◽  
Special Knowledge ◽  
The Russian Federation

The category of “knowledgeable (experienced) persons” is not limited to experts only. Arbitration assessors and specialists are also referred to as knowledgeable persons; some scholars believe that a witness and even a judge can perform the functions of a knowledgeable person. The article focuses on the figure of a specialist, his consultations and responses to court inquiries. There is a lack of unification of the norms on the participation of a specialist in the Civil Procedure Code and the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The effectiveness of seeking advice from a specialist is substantiated – this is a faster and less costly way of obtaining special knowledge necessary for considering a case. Consultation and examination are mutually complementary, the consultation may precede the examination, or, on the contrary, follow after the completion of the examination of the expert opinion, when questions have arisen to such a conclusion and the problem is solved with the appointment of additional or repeated examinations. The consultations are varied and subject to classification. It is substantiated, based on the differences in the nature of the consultations, that the consultation of a specialist on the use of technical means in the study of evidence cannot be compared with the consultation of a specialist on a complex scientific issue. As a classification criterion, the author proposes to consider the need for research and assessment of consultation, or the lack thereof. In the latter case, there is technical assistance and it would be legitimate not to classify it as evidence. However, research and assessment of the information presented is an attribute of working with evidence, therefore, in such cases, the status of evidence should be recognized for consultation.

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.

scholarly journals Search in Criminal Procedure of Russia and Germany: Comparative Legal Characteristics

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 01159
Author(s):  
Anton Shamne
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Federal Republic ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Similarities And Differences

The article compares the Criminal Procedural Codes provisions of the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Germany that regulate conducting a search as an investigative act. It also provides and compares the definitions of the concept “search” and “dwelling” given in Russian and German criminal procedural legislation. The reasons for conducting the search in general and the search of dwelling are considered, similarities and differences are revealed in relation to the status of the subject who is under the search. The author characterizes the search of dwelling and gives a comparative analysis of this investigative action as well as the notion of “urgent cases” in both countries. The authors also proposed some brief recommendations for improving the norms of the Russian Federation Criminal Procedure Code.

SECURING EVIDENCE IN CIVIL PROCEDURE: DEVELOPMENT OF THEORY, LEGISLATIVE AND PRACTICE

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 159-190
Author(s):  
E.I. NOSYREVA ◽  
D.G. FILCHENKO
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Theoretical Concepts ◽  
Civil Process ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Arbitration Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Assessment Of Evidence

The article presents an analysis of the institution of securing evidence in the civil process from the point of view of the development of its legal regulation, doctrine and practice. The teaching of professor M.K. Treushnikov on the evidence is taken as a basis. Through the prism of his ideas, theoretical concepts of securing evidence are revealed, from prerevolutionary works to modern research; the sequence of the formation of norms on the securing evidence on the example of procedural codes of various periods; trends in the law practice of securing evidence. The correlation of the securing evidence with the elements of the judicial proof is revealed. It is substantiated that the securing evidence includes such elements of the structure of judicial proof as: indication of facts, indication of evidence and preliminary assessment. The end result of the procedural action to secure evidence is the possibility of implementing all subsequent elements – presentation, disclosure, investigation and final assessment of evidence. Conclusions are formulated on the results of the development of the institution of securing evidence, which from rather brief and obvious provisions of procedural legislation, a few practice has turned into an actual procedural activity. Its demand is predicted to grow in the context of digitalization of information, as well as due to the possibility of using it in the framework of arbitration. At the same time, an increase in the number of cases of unfounded appeal of interested parties to actions to secure evidence is noted. The authors support a critical assessment of the rule of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation that the securing evidence is carried out by the arbitration court according to the rules for securing a claim, and a proposal for a unified regulation of this institution in accordance with the rules of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Improvement of criminal-procedural legislation, regulating the activities of employees, establishments and bodies of the penal system

2019 ◽  
pp. 111-118
Author(s):  
Александр Борисович Диваев
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Investigation ◽  
Penal System ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation

В представленной статье рассмотрен ряд вопросов совершенствования регламентации процессуальных полномочий органов и учреждений уголовно-исполнительной системы Российской Федерации. Высказаны предложения по модернизации ряда норм, устанавливающих статус органов и учреждений уголовно-исполнительной системы и их должностных лиц как органов дознания. Рассмотрен круг проблем, связанных с более четким процессуальным регулированием механизма исполнения меры пресечения в виде домашнего ареста. Даны предложения по внесению изменения в уголовно-процессуальное законодательство, которые должны содействовать более эффективной реализации полномочий по контролю за арестованными со стороны уголовно-исполнительных инспекций. Сформулировано предложение по устранению терминологической неточности, допущенной в ст. 397 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса Российской Федерации. The article deals with a number of issues of improving the regulation of procedural powers of bodies and institutions of the penal system of the Russian Federation. In particular the proposals for the modernization of a number of rules establishing the status of the bodies and institutions of penal system, and their officials, as criminal investigation bodies. In addition, the range of problems associated with a more precise procedural regulation of the mechanism of execution of preventive measures in the form of house arrest. In this regard, proposals were made to amend the criminal procedure legislation, which should contribute to a more effective implementation of the powers to control arrested persons by the penal inspections. In conclusion, a proposal to eliminate the terminological inaccuracy in article 397 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation is formulated.

scholarly journals Jurisdiction over claims made against public-legal institutions

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Nikolay Basmanov ◽  
Andrei Vladimirovich Ilin
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Legal Institutions ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Arbitration Procedure ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

This article discusses the question of territorial jurisdiction over claims made against public-legal institutions (Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Russian Federation, municipal formations). The subject of this research is the current procedural norms regulating the questions of jurisdiction, and the established law enforcement practice. Attention is turned to the existence of gaps in legal regulation of the question of jurisdiction over claims made against public-legal institutions in the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The authors analyze the established approaches in law enforcement practice towards solution of the aforementioned problem. Methodological framework includes the comparative-legal method and such formal-logical methods, as analysis, synthesis and induction. The relevance and practical importance are substantiated by the subject of research – the law enforcement practice formed by the Russian judicial authorities over the recent years. The conclusion is made on the need for elimination of the existing gap in the normative-legal regulation by amending the current procedural legislation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document