scholarly journals DISCUSSION ISSUES OF THE LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 314 AND 316 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 877-884
Author(s):  
N.O. Mashinnikova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Absolute Number ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
State Process ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Simplified Procedures

In this article the author considers the simplified procedures of judicial proceedings from the point of view of their compliance with the basic principles of criminal proceedings, enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The article concludes that the race for the economic efficiency of any state process affected the proceedings as well. This was the reason that justice, as a service, was reborn in the state service of justice, which in turn led to a decrease in its quality, which according to the author is expressed not so much in the absence of "cancellations" as in its non-compliance with the principles and purpose enshrined in the criminal procedure code. The author welcomes the initiative of the Plenum of the Supreme Court about the need to adopt measures to decrease the absolute number of criminal cases dealt with in simplified procedures, however, did not agree with the solution proposed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In author’s opinion, the amendments proposed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation violate the rights of the accused to defense and contradict Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The author presents her own proposal to change the code of criminal procedure in this part with bringing the necessary justification to that.

scholarly journals The use of digital communication technologies in the context of a pandemic as a way to improve the effectiveness of justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-101
Author(s):  
E. V. Smakhtin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article deals with the peculiarities of the activity of courts in making judicial decisions in the context of a pandemic. First of all, we are talking about the wider use of digital and information technologies in criminal proceedings, which have previously been repeatedly recommended by forensic science for implementation in judicial practice. Some recommendations of criminalistics are currently accepted by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its Decision dated April 08, 2020 № 821 and Review on certain issues of judicial practice related to the application of legislation and measures to counteract the spread of a new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) in the territory of the Russian Federation № 2, which provided appropriate explanations for their use in practice. In particular, we are talking about the possibility of using video conferencing systems for certain categories of criminal cases and materials that are considered urgent, although this is not provided for in criminal procedure legislation. It is concluded that it is necessary to change the current criminal procedure legislation, bring it into line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, federal laws and subordinate regulatory legal acts, including orders of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Judicial legal positions in the context of conflicts related to the formation of the procedural status of persons against whom acts of criminal prosecution are actually implemented

2019 ◽  
pp. 114-119
Author(s):  
Sergey Grachev
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article considers the grounds for the emergence of the procedural status of a suspect in a criminal case. The rights and obligations of the specified person, including the right to protection are analyzed. Subject to the requirements of the criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation, legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the conclusion about the necessity of legislative consolidation of the procedural status of the person whose rights and lawful interests are affected carried out in relation to proceedings for verification of a crime report in accordance with article 144 of the Criminal procedure code and equating it to the status of a suspect, since during the pre-investigation check he has the right to protection from the criminal prosecution actually carried out against him.

scholarly journals Procedural Enforcement Measures Consisting in the Isolation of a Minor Suspect and Defendants: Implementation of International Standards in Russian Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 58-62
Author(s):  
Kirill V. Muraviev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Russian Law ◽  
A Minor

Russian legislation reflects international standards for the use of coercive measures of isolation of juvenile offenders as a last resort and for the shortest possible time. However, the RF Code of Criminal Procedure does not define a closed list of exceptional circumstances to regulate the conditions for detention of juvenile suspects and accused. Neither does it define the exceptions and other conditions for the detention of adolescents in comparison with the rules for the detention of adult offenders. Further improvement of the RF Criminal Procedure Code and correction of the clarifications of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are required to reinforce the guarantees of the rights of underage participants in criminal proceedings.

PARTICULAR FEATURES OF APPEAL AND VERIFICATION OF JUDGMENTS IN CASSATION ORDER, GIVEN IN FURTHERANCE OF SENTENCE

2021 ◽  
pp. 74-83
Author(s):  
Анастасия Анатольевна Рукавишникова
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Court Of Appeal

На основании изучения норм закона, разъяснений Пленума Верховного суда РФ, правоприменительной практики и сущности современного порядка проверки в суде кассационной инстанции промежуточных судебных решений формулируется вывод о существовании системы процессуальных особенностей обжалования и проверки судебных решений, вынесенных в порядке исполнения приговора, проводится их систематизация и анализ. На основе систематизации выделены следующие особенности применения норм гл. 47.1 УПК РФ при обжаловании и проверке судебных решений: способы проверки решений, основания проверки и виды решений, выносимых по итогам такой проверки. Делается вывод, что обоснованность не должна выступать самостоятельным основанием проверки таких решений, но может быть проверена как последствие нарушения требований ч. 4 ст. 7 УПК РФ. Решения, выносимые судом кассационной инстанции при проверке таких решений, должны зависеть от вида допущенной ошибки и от того, было ли данное решение предметом проверки суда апелляционной инстанции. Существенные ошибки в применении уголовного закона должны выявляться и устраняться самим судом кассационной инстанции путем внесения изменений в состоявшиеся решения. Существенные ошибки в применении процессуального закона, повлиявшие на ничтожность процессуальной формы при рассмотрении вопросов, связанных с исполнением приговора, могут быть только выявлены судом кассационной инстанции, но исправляться должны судом первой или апелляционной инстанции (где они допущены), что обеспечивает соблюдение требования ч. 3 ст. 8 УПК РФ. Суд кассационной инстанции должен принять решение о возвращении материалов в соответствующий суд. При выявлении нарушения требования ч. 4 ст. 7 УПК РФ решение отменяется, а материалы направляются в суд той инстанции, который допустил выявленное нарушение. Аргументируется, что в целях обеспечения правовой определенности применения судами процессуального законодательства, процессуальные особенности применения гл. 47.1 УПК РФ, выявленные применительно к проверке изучаемой категории решений, нуждаются в разъяснении на уровне Постановления Пленума ВС РФ. Based on legal norms research, resolutions of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, law enforcement practice and essence of modern order of verification in cassation court of intermediate judgments, it is formulated a conclusion on existence of the system of procedural particularities of appeal and verification of judgments, given in furtherance of the execution of sentence, it is made its systematization and analysis. Based on systematization it was pointed out following particular features of the application of norms of article 47.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in case of appeal and verification of judgments: methods of verification of judgments, grounds for verification and types of judgments, made on the results of this verification. It is made a conclusion that justification should not be a separate grounding for verification of such judgments, but it can be verified as consequence of violation of requirements of part 4 of the article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Decisions of the cassation courts in case of verification of these decisions should be dependent on the type of committed error and on the judgment which was the subject of this verification by the cassation court. Substantial errors in application of criminal law should be determined and eliminated by cassation court itself by modification of existed judgments. Substantial errors in application of procedural law, which influenced on nihility of procedural form of reviewing questions related to execution of sentence, can be revealed by the cassation court, but they should be eliminated by the general court jurisdiction or by the court of appeal (where these errors were made), it provides compliance with requirements of part 3 of the article 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Cassation court should make a decision to return case materials to corresponding court. When revealing violation of requirements of part 4 of article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code the judgment of the court is canceled, case materials are remitted to that court, where this violation was detected. In this article the author gives reasons that in case of providing legal certainty to apply procedural legislation by the courts, discovered procedural particularities of application the chapter 47.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation relating to verification of considering category are required to be explained by the Resolutions of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

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.

scholarly journals TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE CONCEPT «PROCEDURAL COSTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS»

Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-93
Author(s):  
S.M. Darovskikh ◽  
◽  
Z.V Makarova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Procedural Costs ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Article 5

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.

scholarly journals Referring a Case to the Highest Division of the Supreme Court in the Criminal Procedure Legislation of Ukraine and European Countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-165
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Uniform Law ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Court Practice

The article aims to examine one of the elements of the formal mechanism of maintaining court practice unity in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries – referring a case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Similar to the Ukrainian criminal procedure legislation, the grounds for referring a criminal case and the procedure of its application are provided in the legislation of Estonia, Italy and Lithuania. At the same time, the Ukrainian legislator has established a number of special features, however, the wording of the relevant articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is not perfect. The article provides answers to such questions as how forceful the provisions of criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine are, to what extent of effectiveness the Supreme Court exercises its legal authority regarding the unity of court practice in criminal proceedings, and whether the controversies in legal positions of the structural divisions of the Supreme Court have been successfully avoided. In order to achieve the stated aims, parts 2 and 3 are devoted to the examination of the grounds for referring a case in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries. Part 4 outlines the shortcomings of the content of some articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine concerning the procedure of the referral of a criminal case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Part 5 provides the analysis of the validity of decisions made by the boards of judges at the Supreme Court on the referral of criminal proceedings to its higher judicial divisions – the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. On the basis of the study of the judgements of boards, the judicial chambers of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in part 6 the question is answered on whether the Supreme Court of Ukraine managed to perform its duty on the assurance of court practice unity in such an area as criminal proceedings. Keywords: exclusive legal problem, development of law, formation of uniform law enforcement practice, the Supreme Court, criminal proceedings, Ukraine.

scholarly journals Legality and Validity of Property Seizure in the Investigation of a Criminal Case

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 118-126
Author(s):  
O. A. Malysheva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Institution ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
First Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
The Russian Federation

The importance of the measure of procedural coercion in the form of seizure of property increases against the background of the high amount of damage caused by crimes, namely about 550 billion rubles annually. This measure of procedural coercion has a high security potential in order not only to satisfy claims in civil lawsuits, but also to recover a fine and other property claims provided for in Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Investigators (interrogators) annually initiate the seizure of property about 40 thousand times. 90% of cases are a success. The application of this measure is accompanied by the restriction of the property rights of both natural and legal persons, including those who are not recognized as a civil defendant in a criminal case, in the first case, and the accused (suspect).The seizure of property in criminal procedure practice is accompanied by the need for the investigator to overcome a number of difficulties, which are caused, firstly, by the intersectoral nature of the regulation of this legal institution; secondly, by the presence of gaps in the regulation of relations arising in connection with the imposition of this arrest; thirdly, by the inconsistency of the objectives of proof to establish the nature and amount of damage caused by a crime and the implementation of security activities in a criminal case. This gives rise to numerous violations of the legality and validity of the seizure of property on the part of not only the investigator, but also the court, despite the expression of a number of positions of the ECHR on this issue, despite the explanations of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.The author concludes that without the release of the investigator as a subject of proof in a criminal case from performing an unusual function — providing compensation for property penalties in a criminal case — it is impossible to achieve the full legality and validity of the seizure of property.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document