scholarly journals Application of Article 90 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure at the Present Stage

Author(s):  
Nikolay Azaryonok

Application of Article 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure «Prejudice» raises a number of diffiulties in practice, which are due to changes introduced by the Federal Law of 29.12.2009. Since that time, the so-called incontrovertible, intersectoral prejudice operates in domestic criminal proceedings. It obliges the law enforcement offiial to recognize the circumstances established by the court’s decision made in the framework of civil, arbitration, administrative or criminal proceedings. This allows unscrupulous participants in criminal proceedings, using differences in proving in criminal and civil cases, to obtain court decisions in the civil litigation procedure and with their help to inflence the proceedings in a criminal case. This problem is discussed by the author. Article 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was the subject of consideration of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In its decision, the Court suggested using a sequence of actions in case a judgment is based on false evidence. At the same time, there are a number of obstacles that make it diffiult to implement the rulings formulated by the Court. The analysis of judicial practice carried out in the article allows the author to conclude that the courts mainly use intra-branch prejudice. This is due to the fact that it corresponds to both the type of modern domestic legal proceedings and to the provisions of evidentiary right.

Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-93
Author(s):  
S.M. Darovskikh ◽  
◽  
Z.V Makarova ◽  

The article is devoted to the issues of formulating the definition of such a criminal procedural concept as «procedural costs». Emphasizing the importance both for science and for law enforcement of clarity and clarity when formulating the definition of criminal procedural concepts, the authors point out that the formulation of this concept present in the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is far from being improved. Having studied the opinions on this issue of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, a number of procedural scholars, the authors propose their own version of the definition of the concept of «criminal procedural costs» with its allocation in a separate paragraph of Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
El'vira Mirgorodskaya

The purpose of this study was an attempt to theoretically understand the subject of judicial consideration of complaints against decisions, actions (inaction) of officials carrying out criminal prosecution. The research was carried out on the basis of comparative legal, formal logical, empirical, statistical methods. Judicial statistics for the year 2020 have been provided, and legislation has been studied from a historical and contemporary perspective, taking into account the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The problem is that, in practice, for about 20 years the courts have had difficulties in determining the subject of complaints, since neither in theory nor in practice a consensus has been developed on this issue. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation also does not contain a definition of the concept of «subject matter». The situation is aggravated by the presence of evaluative concepts in the text of the law, leading to a varied understanding of the subject of appeal by the courts, which leads to a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens at the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings. In the article, taking into account the analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, legislation and the opinion of scientists, a recommendation was made to amend the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to specify the subject of consideration of complaints in accordance with Art. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in order to eliminate existing contradictions in practice and increase the level of protection of individual rights in pre-trial proceedings.


Author(s):  
A.I. Shmarev

The author of the article, based on the analysis of statistical indicators of the Prosecutor's office for 2018-2019 and examples of judicial practice, including the constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, examines the problematic issues of implementing the right to rehabilitation of persons unlawfully and unreasonably subjected to criminal prosecution, and the participation of the Prosecutor in this process. According to the author, the ambiguous judicial practice of considering issues related to the rehabilitation of this category of citizens requires additional generalization and analysis in order to make appropriate changes to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 11 of 29.11.2011 "On the practice of applying the norms of Chapter 18 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation regulating rehabilitation in criminal proceedings". The examples given in the article of cancellation of lower-level court decisions were based on complaints of persons who independently sought to restore their rights, and not on the representations of the prosecutors involved in them, who were called upon to ensure the possibility of protecting human and civil rights and freedoms at the court session. The adoption of organizational measures, including those proposed by the author, in the system of the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation will increase the role of the Prosecutor in protecting the rights of illegally and unreasonably prosecuted persons.


Author(s):  
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Popov

This article raises the questions on the improvement of work management in the prosecutorial branches on consideration of complaints of the parties to criminal proceedings against actions (or inaction) and decisions of the investigator and the prosecutor. Analysis is conducted on the existing in the prosecutor’s office procedure of pretrial dispute, which legislative consolidation is associated with usage of the term “superior prosecutor”. The subject of this research is the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, executive documents of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation and prosecutor's offices of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as scientific literature on the topic at hand. The conclusion is made that the current legislation and the established law enforcement practice assume on the recurrent appeal on the same instance of violation of law within a single prosecutorial branch, and thus do not effectively protect the rights and legitimate interests of the parties involved in the criminal procedure sphere. For this reason, the author makes recommendations on the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation aimed at adjustment of the procedure of consideration of complaints of the parties to criminal proceedings, which would ensure their resolution within the framework of a single prosecutorial branch in a single instance.


Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-117
Author(s):  
S. M. Darovskikh ◽  

The article, along with the positive influence of the legal positions formulated by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in its Decisions and Definitions on law enforcement practice and legislative activity, considers the reasons for the creation of these legal positions, legal uncertainty that negatively affects the activities of participants in criminal proceedings. The author refers to the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of July 16, 2015 No. 23-P «In the case of the verification of the constitutionality of the provisions of parts 3-7 of article 109 and part 3 of article 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the complaint of gr. S.V. Makhina» and the legal positions formulated by this court in other decisions regarding the possibility of increasing the maximum permissible period of detention specified in Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, concludes that with these decisions the possibility of taking into account the maximum period of detention is practically leveled


Author(s):  
Olga Andreeva ◽  
Viktor Grigoryev ◽  
Oleg Zaytsev ◽  
Tatiana Trubnikova

The problem of abuse of rights in the criminal process is currently widely discussed by both researchers and practicing specialists. However, until today there has been no large-scale representative research of law enforcement practice or surveys of law enforcement employees focusing on this issue. The article analyzes some results of researching the practice of law enforcement. The study was conducted by the authors in 2016–2017 within the framework of the project «Abuse of Rights in the Criminal Process: Systemic and Non-Systemic Manifestations, their Prevention and Suppression». The authors studied archives of criminal cases, appeal and cassational proceedings, complaints filed under Art. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, complaints from the archive of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, and published court judgments. The paper presents situations that were classified by law enforcers or could (according to expert evaluations) be classified as the abuse of rights by the criminal proceedings’ participants, the authors systematize the identified forms of the abuse of rights, evaluate the scale and character of these forms (systemic or non-systemic), determine causes and conditions that contributed to the emergence of some cases of the abuse of rights, describe measures of improving the criminal procedure legislation aimed at eliminating the causes of systemic abuse of rights, describe effective ways of preventing and suppressing some types of actual abusive behavior, argue that in some cases the abuse of legal rights is caused by the behavior of officials, and also that the state and law enforcers involved in a criminal case should show certain tolerance to the possible abuse of rights if it is not systemic in order to provide a maximally full legal protection of proceedings’ participants.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 24-27
Author(s):  
Sergey S. Burynin ◽  

The article provides an analysis of the legislation and practice of combating the abuse of citizens’ right to appeal against actions (inaction) and decisions of officials of investigative bodies. According to the results of the analysis, certain ways of resolving some issues of law enforcement of Chapter 16 of the code of criminal procedure and part 5 of article 11 of the Federal law of may 2, 2006 № 59-FZ “On the procedure for consideration of appeals of citizens of the Russian Federation” in terms of termination of correspondence on complaints.


2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 179-188
Author(s):  
I. N. Chebotareva

The article is devoted to changes analysis made in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation by the Federal law No. 73-FZ of April 17, 2017 regarding strengthening of lawyer legal status in criminal legal proceedings. Additional guarantees of lawyer’s independence rendering qualified legal aid in criminal legal proceedings brought by this law are revised. It is possible to call this law "lawyer law" because it is devoted to questions of legal regulation improvement of lawyer’s status in criminal legal proceedings. And in fact is a reduction of existing Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in compliance with legal positions created by earlier Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. On the basis of changes analysis of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation conclusions on strengthening of guarantees of lawyer independence rendering legal aid in criminal legal proceedings and some critical remarks on the matter are stated. Three blocks of questions which cover changes are allocated: the introduction of the defender in criminal case, lawyer secret, and participation of the defender in proof. Changes concern the following questions: formal obstacles for the defender introduction in criminal trial are eliminated; interrogation of the lawyer is possible only according to the petition of protection side; the person called for questioning which isn't subject to interrogation doesn't acquire the status of witness; search, survey and dredging concerning the lawyer can be carried out only under the judgment at observance of established guarantees; additional guarantees in petition satisfaction declared by the lawyer are established; procedural funds of use of expert help are deposited by the defender.


2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-166
Author(s):  
O. S. Pashutina ◽  
I. N. Chebotareva

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.


2020 ◽  
pp. 98-106
Author(s):  
V. V. Levin

The article is devoted to the analysis of judicial practice as the basis of law-making activity in the Russian Federation, on the basis of which it is possible to create a precedent. Case law in Russia is Advisory in nature and is not mandatory for law enforcement practice. Courts use the signs of case law in their decisions in the reasoned part. Signs of case law is a ruling of the constitutional court of the Russian Federation and regulations of the armed forces of the Russian Federation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document