scholarly journals PROSECUTOR'S REFUSAL TO CHARGE

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
И.Д. Мальцагов ◽  
Х.И. Магомадов
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right To Refuse

В статье рассматривается вопрос о возможности отказа от обвинения на стадии предварительного слушания. Указано, чем отказ от обвинения отличается от изменения обвинения. Авторы анализируют возможные варианты отказа прокурора от обвинения, дают классификацию видов и оснований такого отказа. Решается вопрос о том, в какой форме возможен отказ прокурора от обвинения, обосновывается необходимость согласования позиции государственного обвинителя с прокурором, утвердившим обвинительное заключение и поручившим поддержание обвинения. Дается оценка соблюдению прав потерпевшего при реализации государственным обвинителем права на отказ от обвинения. Приведена возможная структура речи государственного обвинителя в судебных прениях при отказе от обвинения. Предлагается внести в уголовно-процессуальное законодательство Российской Федерации некоторые изменения. The article discusses the possibility of abandoning the charge at the preliminary hearing stage. It is indicated how the refusal of the charge differs from the change of the charge. The authors analyze the possible options for the prosecutor's refusal to charge, give a classification of the types and grounds for such refusal. The question of the form in which the prosecutor's refusal from the prosecution is possible is resolved, and the need to coordinate the position of the public prosecutor with the prosecutor who approved the indictment and entrusted the prosecution with maintaining the prosecution is justified. An assessment is made of the observance of the rights of the victim in the exercise by the public prosecutor of the right to refuse to charge. The possible structure of the speech of the public prosecutor in the judicial debate when rejecting the charge is given. It is proposed to make some changes to the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation.

Prosecutor in the Court of Cassation in Criminal Cases

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Лев Бертовский ◽  
Lyev Byertovskiy ◽  
Дина Гехова ◽  
Dina Gekhova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Moscow City ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

Federal Law No. 433-FZ «On Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the Annulment of Certain Legislative Acts (Provisions of Legislative Acts) of the Russian Federation» entered into force since January 1, 2013 in relation to the powers of prosecutors to lodge cassation representations against court’s decisions is under review in the article. The authors analyse judicial practice of cassation instance in Moscow City Court of 2014 year on criminal cases and demonstrate some omissions of prosecutors in consideration of cases in the court of cassation. The conclusion shows that a cassation representation should be prepared and submitted by subordinate to higher prosecutor, provided that public prosecutor shall obtain the right to apply directly to that prosecutor who has the right to lodge a cassation representation along with the project thereof. Such novel will positively influence to the quality of cassation representations prepared and made by prosecutors.

scholarly journals Classification of crimes in designing criminal procedure regulations

2019 ◽  
pp. 130-137
Author(s):  
A. G. Kulev ◽  
L. O. Kuleva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Great Influence ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Substantive Law

The rules on categorization of crimes are substantive and legal by their nature. Nevertheless, they have a great influence on the state and development of criminal procedural matter. It is proposed to divide the provisions of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, which reflect the provisions of Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, into two groups. The first group includes the norms of criminal proceedings that are a kind of logical continuation of criminal law regulations related to exemption from criminal liability and punishment. The second group consists of strictly procedural rules that are not directly dependent on the substantive law: the composition of the bench, jurisdiction and competence of criminal cases, bail hearing, negotiations control and recording, the return of a criminal case to the prosecutor. Particular attention is given to the possibility for the court to change the classification of crimes. Based on the studied theoretical sources and court practice, the authors make suggestions aimed at improving the existing criminal procedure legislation and optimizing its application in the framework of the issues raised.

scholarly journals Implementation of Extraordinary Review (Pk) For the Public Prosecutors after the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 33/Puu-Xiv/2016

2021 ◽  
Vol 04 (06) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahmadianto Andra ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Right

The background of this paper is inspired and triggered to observe and study the legal uncertainty between the public prosecutor and the convict/his heirs regarding the authority to submit a PK Application as regulated in Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The article states "the right of the public prosecutor" to apply for a PK application. However, what is expected by the Petitioner's wife is that Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be interpreted in this way, "PK applications can only be filed by the convicted person or their heirs". This condition was exacerbated by the issuance of the Constitutional Court decision Number 33/PUU-XIV/ 2016 regarding "the right of the public prosecutor to file a PK application in a criminal case". This study aims to determine the application of extraordinary legal remedies by the public prosecutor and the implications of implementing these extraordinary remedies. The research method used is normative legal research. The results showed the application of extraordinary PK legal remedies for the public prosecutor after the Constitutional Court decision Number 33/PUU-XIV/2016, had direct implications for the Petitioner and his family. This implication is detrimental to the Petitioners' constitutional rights based on Article 28G of the 1945 Constitution because the protection of personal, family, honor and dignity has clearly been lost. It is better if the Constitutional Court reaffirms the legal principles in the article through constitutional interpretation which is an integral part that is not separate from the article in question and is able to provide fair legal certainty.

scholarly journals On Criminal Procedure and Criminalistic Measures of Counteracting Crimes Against Legal Entities

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-105
Author(s):  
Olga Aivazova ◽  
Galina Vardanyan ◽  
Irina Smirnova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Entities

The article discusses some aspects of proving in cases of crimes against legal entities. The criminalistic description of the victim represented by a legal entity determines specific details of applying criminalistic and criminal procedure measures aimed at the identification, investigation, detection and prevention of such crimes. Under the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, one of the elements of ordering criminal proceedings is the protection of rights and legal interests of organizations that became victims of crimes. Part 1 of Art. 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation details this guideline for the first time by giving legal entities, viewed as independent subjects of criminal procedure legal relations, the right to be recognized as victims of criminal actions if the crime inflicted damage on their property or business reputation. Nevertheless, the imperfections in the regulation of legal entities’ participation in criminal proceeding, and the insufficient attention to the specifics of realizing their rights and legal interests in comparison with the physical persons of a similar procedural status give rise to numerous problems. The complex of such problems has a negative impact on the effectiveness of investigating this category of crimes and, as a consequence, on the ability of criminal proceedings to produce the intended result. The literal interpretation of Part 1, Art. 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation points out that the consequences of such crimes must include the infliction of two types of damage simultaneously — «to property and to business reputation», which can hardly be considered a good de­finition from the standpoint of juridical technique. Quite naturally, the investigation and court practice shows that law enforcers, while collecting proof on the character and size of damage inflicted on legal entities as a result of a crime, usually limit themselves to proving material damage, and even this damage is not proven in full (the common omission being losses of expected income). As for the damage inflicted on business reputation of a legal entity, its establishment during criminal proceedings is still problematic and, in practice, there is usually a gap in proving it. The authors point out that incomplete character of evidentiary information regarding the infliction of damage on the business reputation of legal entities is inadmissible and present their recommendations for resolving this problem, including the use of specialist knowledge and the improvements in the tactics of specific investigatory actions aimed at obtaining criminalistically relevant information on the case.

scholarly journals Jawność rozprawy głównej a gwarancje przewidziane w Konstytucji

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-237
Author(s):  
Radosław Koper
Keyword(s):  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Fundamental Change ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Main Trial ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
The Public ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right

The principle of openness, as one of the foremost principles of criminal proceedings, is realised above all during the main trial. The amendment act of law to the code of criminal procedure issued on 10 June 2016 introduced model changes in this regard. The article is devoted to a discussion of mainly these changes in the context of their consistency with the Constitution. The first change has to do with the fact that the public prosecutor has the right to express his or her objection toward the holding of a trial in camera, while such an objection is binding for the court. This regulation is a source of reservations of constitutional nature, for it violates the constitutional right to a fair adjudication of a case by the court. The second fundamental change consists in the establishment, as a principle, of audio-visual registering of the court session by the representatives of media outlets. In these terms, a critical analysis should be conducted upon the removal of the condition of the respect of the important interest of the participant of a criminal proceeding. However, a basically positive evaluation was received by the extension of the scope of the openness of the main trial, expressing a thesis about the constancy of this regulation with the Constitution.

Constitutional basis for public property in the context of the creation of a legal entity of public law

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 134-149
Author(s):  
Vladimir Nizov
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The State ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Property ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right

The article discusses problems of the constitutional regulation of property rights and property itself. The research has been narrowed down to the features of public property regulation in the Russian Federation. The relevance of the research is explained by the process of the reform in the public property administration in Russian Federation, which has transferring of the state property to some legal entities of public law as distinguished feature. The author proposes the historical analysis of the property regulation’s development and the role of the Constitution in this process. The comparative instruments are used to show the main preconditions and trends of public property regulation in Russia and other countries. The author argues the Russian Federation is going on the process of the property regulation construction and the modern stage sees the Constitution as a main axiological filter for that. Meanwhile, the Russian legal system has several obstacles in this way: the limitation of the direct force of the Constitution, the spoiled separation of power, etc. The importance of the system of the check and balances in the property administration is noted. Thus, the research explains the differences between the system of the separation of power in the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and Russia. The author discloses the distinguishing features of the public property the state needs to account in the process of the property transition to public law entities. The critic overview of detailed property regulation in the Constitution’s text is expressed. The author notes constitutional provisions that regulate property issues are features of the post-socialist states. The difference between property rights and sovereign rights is also enclosed in the article. The justification of the right to administrate public property is provided, the research explains the importance of the justification in public property administration and its role in democratic societies, especially in the Russian Federation. The privatization and decentralization of the public property administration are needed to be explained the effectiveness and stability of these decisions. Additionally, the author argues that public property must have more concrete regulation because it needs more complex rules for just and effective administration. The conclusion of the article explains the linkage between the constitutional ideal and the development of public property regulation.

scholarly journals Appealing against Decisions on Reimbursement of Procedural Costs Made in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 155-166
Author(s):  
S. R. Zelenin
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The Body ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Procedural Costs ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The One ◽  
Judicial Procedure ◽  
The Right

The legality and validity of the decisions of the investigator, inquirer and the prosecutor on the payment  of the amounts related to procedural costs remain problematic due to the absence in the law of a mechanism  ensuring the judicial procedure for their appeal.  In order to fill this gap, the author studies the possibilities of introducing a procedure similar to the one enshrined  in Art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The paper analyzes the positions of the  Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-P dated May 13, 2021. It concerns the  victims’ appeal against the decisions of the investigator and the head of the investigative body regarding the  reimbursement of expenses for a representative. Some examples of judicial practice for resolving other disputes  related to the reimbursement of procedural costs are also analyzed.  It is concluded that the right of a person claiming to receive the amounts provided for in Part 2 of Art. 131 of the  Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation against a judicial appeal made at his request is universal  and does not depend either on his status in a criminal case, or on the type of the indicated amounts, or on the  body or official that made the contested decision.  Taking into account the practice of applying other norms on appealing against decisions of the investigating  bodies, it was proposed to introduce Art. 125.2. The author formulate its content given the characteristics of the  participants in the proceedings and the powers of the court to resolve the complaint.

scholarly journals Modern practice of public hearings in Russia

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Pinaev ◽  
Tatiana Kukhtina
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
The Public ◽  
Expert Review ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Two Stages ◽  
Public Consultations

The article describes the current practice and features of public consultations conduction in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation. Other ways of informing the public are considered. The authors describe the experience of organizing and conducting public consultations and hearings on the materials of the environmental impact assessment of planned economic and other activities that are subject of state expert review in various regions of the Russian Federation. The right of everyone on a favorable environment and reliable information about its condition, which is encorporated in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, makes it necessary to inform the public about planned economic and other activities and their possible impact on the environment. The article describes two stages of conducting public consultations and provides established practices for organizing public hearings. The requirements for the announcement of public consultations and its publication are explained. Requirements for opening public receptions in places where public hearings will be held are presented. The requirements for the content of the protocol of public consultations as a result of organizing public hearings are given. The article contains information about the current realities of organizing and conducting public consultations, taking into account the current practice on the ground.

scholarly journals Real Served Term in Case of Parole: Problems of Determination

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Руслан Долотов ◽  
Ruslan Dolotov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the practice of parole. The main goal of the study is to determine if is it properly to include a period of house arrest in six months term of imprisonment, necessary for the creation of the right to parole. The article proves that in practice they judge from the following conclusion: as the period of house arrest is included in the period of detention, and the detention period is included in the term of imprisonment, so when a real served term for parole is determined it is necessary to include in it the period of house arrest. The author explains that such conclusion is flawed since it is based on a dogmatic rather than systemic interpretation of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation without understanding the role which plays set by the legislator six months term in case of parole in the system of criminal law measures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document