scholarly journals PROBLEMS OF LEGISLATIVE REGULATION OF DETENTION OF PERSONS PERFORMING CERTAIN TYPES OF PUBLIC LEGAL ACTIVITY

2020 ◽  
pp. 41-48
Author(s):  
Владимир Юрьевич Стельмах
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The State ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legislative Regulation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

В статье рассматриваются вопросы нормативного регулирования избрания меры пресечения в виде заключения под стражу в отношении лиц, выполняющих определенные виды публично-правовой деятельности и в силу этого наделенных законодательством иммунитетом от уголовного преследования; порядок рассмотрения компетентными государственными органами ходатайств органов предварительного расследования и прокуратуры о лишении лица иммунитета от уголовного преследования; анализируются положения уголовно-процессуального закона и иных нормативных актов, регламентирующих правовой статус лиц, обладающих данным иммунитетом. Особое внимание уделяется порядку избрания меры пресечения в виде заключения под стражу в отношении членов Совета Федерации, депутатов Государственной Думы и судей. Предлагаются корректировки уголовно-процессуального закона и закрепление положений об обязательности получения согласия компетентного государственного органа на избрание, а не на исполнение меры пресечения в виде заключения под стражу. The article deals with the problems of regulatory regulation of detention of persons performing certain types of public legal activities, for which immunity from criminal prosecution is established. The special features of the detention of these persons are provided for by the Criminal Procedure Act, as well as other normative acts. At present, the law establishes that a court decision on detention against members of the Federation Council, deputies of the State Duma and judges is executed with the consent of the Chamber of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation or the qualification board of judges. Taking into account the principle of the independence of the court and the obligation of court decisions, it is proposed to amend the law and to provide for the consent of these bodies to choose this preventive measure, rather than to implement the court decision.

SHORTENED TIMELINE OF APPEAL AGAINST INTERIM COURT DECISIONS MADE AT A PRE-TRIAL STAGE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
pp. 38-49
Author(s):  
Polina O. Gertsen ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Medical Organization ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article deals with the problem of classifying interim decisions among those that are appealed in a shortened timeline, and determining the list of such decisions, as well as the closely related problem of determining the rules for calculating such a shortened timeline. Currently, the Criminal Procedure law provides for the possibility of appealing a number of interim decisions made at a pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings before the final decision Moreover, for appealing some interim decisions at a pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings, a general period of appeal is provided - 10 days from the date of the court decision, or the same period from the date of serving with a copy of the decision the person who is in custody, while for others a shortened timeline is 3 days from the date of the decision. Meanwhile, it follows from the literal interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation that within a shortened three-day period, court decisions on the election of preventive measures in the form of a ban on certain actions, bail, house arrest, detention, the refusal to apply them or extend their application can be appealed. At the same time, such a conclusion is not confirmed either in the positions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation or in judicial practice. Based on the analysis of the criminal procedure law, the position of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts of the Russian Federation, scientific literature and practice, several problems are highlighted. Thus, the author states the discrepancy between the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation when it comes to establishing the terms for appealing the court decision on a preventive measure in the form of bail. In addition, there is no single criterion for establishing shortened deadlines for appealing interim decisions, and there-fore, the list of such decisions requires analysis. In addition, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a norm that determines the rules for calculating daily terms. The author formulates several proposals for amendments. It is proposed to determine the criteria for a shortened appeal timeline as the restriction of the constitutional right to liberty and immunity of a person that requires the immediate judicial review of the lawfulness of such a decision. It is also necessary to correct the phrasing of Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which defines the procedure for applying a preventive measure in the form of bail, and establish the rule that appeal against such an interim court decision is filed according to the rules of Chapter 45.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code within ten days. The list of court decisions which must be appealed in a shortened timeline must be expanded by a court decision on putting a suspect or an accused into a medical organization providing medical or psychiatric care in hospital settings for forensic examination, as well as the extension of a person’s stay in a medical organization. In addition, the author has analyzed the approaches to the calculation of daily terms and proposes to amend Part 1 of Article 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation by establishing a single procedure for calculating daily terms, which does not take into account the day that served as a starting point of the term.

scholarly journals Suppression of documents and objects prior to initiation of a criminal case in the distorting mirror of legislative regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
pp. 111-115
Author(s):  
T. A. LEVINOVA ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Detailed Procedure ◽  
Legislative Regulation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
And Storage

The article discusses what is provided for in Part 1 of Art. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, suppression of documents and objects as one of the ways to verify a crime report. It is noted that the law does not provide for such an independent investigative action as suppression. Various positions of scientists, judicial practice on this issue are analyzed. The need to develop a detailed procedure for the reclamation, detection, suppression, procedural registration and storage of documents and objects at the stage of initiating a criminal case is substantiated.

scholarly journals On the new standard of court authorization of investigative actions that restrict the constitutional rights of citizens

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (4) ◽  
pp. 48-54
Author(s):  
Sergey Grachev
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Action Taking

The article analyzes the essence and content of the petition of the investigating authorities to the court for permission to conduct an investigative action and the court decision adopted on its basis. It is concluded that the specified procedural documents do not specify the specific constitutional rights of a citizen, which may be restricted during the investigative action. Taking into account this circumstance, the inconsistency of the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and the law enforcement practice developed on its basis with the requirements of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which the restriction of any constitutional right should be carried out on the basis of a court decision or with subsequent notification of the court about the investigative action. It is proposed to adhere to the procedure of judicial authorization in all cases of restriction of the constitutional rights of citizens.

scholarly journals On the Right of the Accused Parties to an Appeal of Interim Court Decisions Made at the Pre-Trial Stage: Protection of Private and Public Interests

2020 ◽  
pp. 47-52
Author(s):  
Polina O. Gertsen ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The article examines the problem of determining the list of participants on the part of the prosecution, endowed with the right to appeal the interim decisions made at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings. Currently, the appeal and revision of interim decisions are carried according to Chapter 45.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. However, Chapter does not take into account the specificity of the preliminary investigation stage, in particular, the subject composition of its participants. As a result, the list of the subjects entitled to appeal of the interim court decisions at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings remains controversial. The article discusses the right of the investigator and the head of the investigative body to file an appeal as well as the right of the victim to initiate proceedings in the court of appeal in defense of private interest. Drawing on the analysis of literature and practices of appealing interim court decisions, the author identifies the problems of theory and practice, including: 1) the prosecutor’s right to appeal is not sufficient to ensure tp protect public interests; 2) the controversial right of the investigator, or the head of the investigative body to file a complaint with the court of appeal; 3) there is no legal obligation of state bodies to notify the victim about the initiation of a petition before the court for a preventive measure or an investigative action, which may prevent the victim from exercising their right to appeal. The author proposes: 1) to supplement the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation with a list of subjects for filing (presenting) a complaint of interim decisions, including the investigator as the main participant in the process at the stage of preliminary investigation; 2) to legislate the investigator’s obligation to notify the victim about the initiation of a petition before the court for the application of a preventive measure, placement of the accused in a hospital for an examination, etc., as well as the obligation of the court to send the victim copies of decisions on these petitions.

scholarly journals International Standards of Preventive Measures and Their Implementations in the Legislation of the Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 623-630
Author(s):  
Dmitrii Ivanov ◽  
Michail Kulikov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Selection Of

The goal of this research is to identify problems arising during the implementation of international standards for the selection of preventive measures into Russian criminal procedure legislation. The authors specify the concept of international standards of criminal court proceedings, present the specific features of their incorporation into constitutional norms as well as rules in different branches of law. The importance of preventive measures in the general mechanism of legal regulation is shown. The authors prove the necessity of systemic changes in the part of Russian legislation that deals with the legal regulation of preventive measures with the purpose of creating an integrated mechanism of criminal prosecution and protection against it. Key findings of research include: 1) Russian criminal proceedings, including its part regulating the selection of preventive measures, should fully correspond to international standards; 2) international standards are implemented in Russian criminal procedure legislation both indirectly, though constitutional clauses, and directly, through the improvements in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; 3) preventive measures should only be selected if there are sufficient grounds for them, and these grounds are not the at the discretion of officials involved in criminal proceedings, they are real evidence in the materials of a criminal case that is necessary and sufficient for selecting a specific measure from the measures included in the law; 4) circumstances that are taken into consideration when selecting a preventive measure, if they potentially provide for a stricter measure from their general list, should be explicitly laid down in the law, and contrary to this, the list of circumstances that could improve the position of a person is not exhaustive; 5) to give a person an opportunity to defend their position, the possibility of selecting the preventive measure of detention is only feasible for the accused, and should be excluded for the suspect; 6) since the proper behavior of a person, from the position of the prosecution, is to give testimony that proves their involvement in a crime, the corresponding indication that this is necessary to ensure such behavior should be removed from the law when selecting the preventive measure of recognizance not to leave; 7) the supervision of the command staff of a military base over military personnel should not be substituted with an actual deprivation or limitation of the freedom of movement within the territory of the base; 8) when there are no grounds for selecting detention, the court should have a possibility to select any other preventive measure from those included in the law. From the methodological standpoint, this research is an analysis of international normative legal acts and generally recognized principles and norms of international law regulating preventive measures as well as the problems of their implementation in Russian criminal proceedings. The following methods were used: comparative legal, historic legal, sociological, interpretation of law norms, a number of logical methods. The obtained data was used to formulate key conclusions, which made it possible to correctly use a number of terms, and determine the necessity of a systemic improvement of Russian legislation through the introduction of mechanisms that ensure the rights, liberties and lawful interests of a person when selecting a preventive measure.

Features of the election of such preventive measure as house arrest in relation to minors

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-157
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Manohina
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
A Minor

In the article, the author turns to the study of the peculiarities of choosing such a preventive measure as house arrest for minors. Due to the fact that the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not precisely define cases when a court must elect a house arrest in relation to minors, in practice there are often difficulties in which cases to choose such a preventive measure as detention, and in which house arrest. In the work, the author attempts to determine the essence of such a preventive measure as house arrest and the peculiarities of his election in relation to minors, and also considers the prohibitions and (or) restrictions to which minors cannot be subjected. The positions contained in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court “On the practice of the application by the courts of legislation on preventive measures in the form of detention, house arrest and bail” are analyzed. The author expresses the opinion that it is inadvisable to choose such a preventive measure as house arrest for minors. Based on the study, the author makes recommendations on the possibility, at the discretion of the court, to make adjustments to the prohibitions and (or) restrictions to which a minor suspect or accused will be subjected to whom such a preventive measure as house arrest is chosen.

Human Rights Activities as a Function of the Prosecutor’s Office

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 88-93
Author(s):  
K.N. Golikov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
Main Function ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

The subject of this article is the problems of the nature, essence and purpose of prosecutorial activity. The purpose of the article is to study and justify the role of the human rights function in prosecutorial activities in the concept of a modern legal state. At the heart of prosecutorial activity is the implementation of the main function of the Prosecutor’s office – its rights and freedoms, their protection. This means that any type (branch) of Prosecutor's supervision is permeated with human rights content in relation to a citizen, society, or the state. This is confirmed by the fact that the Federal law “On the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation” establishes an independent type of Prosecutor's supervision-supervision over the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms. It is argued that the legislation enshrines the human rights activities of the Prosecutor's office as its most important function. It is proposed to add this to the Law “On the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation”.

Law enforcement practice of judicial authorities on tax disputes

2021 ◽  
pp. 550-563
Author(s):  
Alexandr V. Izmalkov ◽  
Alexander A. Kuznetsov ◽  
Pavel A. Kuznetsov ◽  
Ella Y. Kuzmenko
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
Effect Relationship ◽  
General Scientific ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Qualitative Characteristics ◽  
State Body

We analyze the law enforcement practice of judicial authorities on taxes and fees, since the Tax Code of the Russian Federation is a rather controversial regulatory legal act. Tax disputes arise both at the initiative of tax authorities and at the initiative of taxpayers. Purpose: to determine the main directions of law enforcement practice of courts in tax disputes. We use general scientific and specially legal methods as research methods. The focus is on the method of analysis. In the course of the research, we analyze the con-sideration of cases by judicial authorities on tax disputes, their quantitative and qualitative characteristics. We conclude that the emergence of disagree-ments between taxpayers and the state body when resolving the issue of the legality of their actions (inaction), as well as the legality of a non-normative legal act is the main reason for the formation of law enforcement practice in tax disputes. During the passage of all stages of the application of the law, it is also necessary to establish the existence of a cause-and-effect relationship between the actions of the taxpayer and the resulting consequences. The main points of this process go through several stages. We define the main directions of the law enforcement practice of courts in tax disputes.

scholarly journals Confiscation of property as a criminal punishment

2021 ◽  
pp. 64-82
Author(s):  
М.Ф. Гареев
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Legislative Regulation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

В статье рассматривается и обосновывается необходимость возобновления в уголовном праве института конфискации имущества в качестве уголовного наказания. Необходимость его возобновления обусловлена наличием ряда преступных деяний, представляющих угрозу обществу, государству, национальной безопасности Российской Федерации. В настоящее время законодательная регламентация конфискации имущества в качестве иной меры уголовноправового характера, вызванная неопределенностью его сущности, целевых установок и механизма назначения, не выполняет предупредительную задачу, установленную уголовным законодательством. The article discusses and substantiates the need to renew the institution of confiscation of property in criminal law as a criminal punishment. The need to resume it is due to the presence of a number of criminal acts that pose a threat to society, the state, and the national security of the Russian Federation. Currently, the legislative regulation of the confiscation of property as another measure of a criminal-legal nature, caused by the uncertainty of its essence, targets and the mechanism of appointment, does not fulfill the preventive task established by the criminal legislation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document