Determination No. 51-G06-21 of September 12, 2006: Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

2008 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-77
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 38-40
Author(s):  
Sergey A. Khalatov ◽  

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.


Author(s):  
Ekaterina Manohina

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 100-118
Author(s):  
A. S. German ◽  

Introduction. Currently, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, like many state bodies, is faced with a global challenge – the coronavirus pandemic, which has affected all public processes. The need for social distancing has contributed to the more active use of modern technologies that facilitate remote court hearings. Theoretical basis. Methods. The theoretical basis of the study were the Russian and foreign scientific works devoted to the problems of introducing information technologies into judicial activity. The methodological basis of the study was a systematic approach that made it possible to consider the possibilities of remote justice in its relationship to significant factors of a legal and organisational nature. The study used the methods of logical generalisations, analysis and synthesis, together with a systematic approach and the method of comparative jurisprudence. Results. The article briefly presents the results of a systematic analysis of measures carried out by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation aimed at ensuring the widespread use of remote technologies in the administration of justice. Discussion and Conclusion. Given the current pandemic situation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has introduced integrated related web conferencing and video conferencing technologies for remote court hearings. These technologies began to be actively used by courts during the pandemic period. Their application ensures a reasonable time frame for legal proceedings and makes it possible to ensure the availability of justice even in conditions of social distancing. The undoubted advantage of remote technologies is their potential to reduce procedural costs in the course of legal proceedings. However, the issues under consideration require further research, as well as preparation of conceptual suggestions to the legislator aimed at optimising procedural legislation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 66-79
Author(s):  
S. L. Morozov ◽  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document