scholarly journals TERMS OF CONSIDERATION OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE DECISION TO INITIATE A CRIMINAL CASE AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-157
Author(s):  
A.V. Mordvinov
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Fixed Time ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Maximum Term ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Maximum Period ◽  
The Right

The article points out the need to determine the permissible time limits for appealing the decision to initiate a criminal case and the time limits for its consideration. The problems arising in connection with the absence of a fixed time limit for appealing the decision to initiate a criminal case are highlighted. Conclusions by establishing a maximum term of appeal said decision and a maximum period of adjudication of the said complaint. The practical significance of the study lies in the development of problems related to the terms of appeal in court against the decision to initiate a criminal case, and in the formulation of proposals for their solution. The terms of filing a complaint against the decision to initiate a criminal case, as well as the terms of their consideration, are proposed. The opinion on the need to grant the right to the court to make specific decisions on the results of the consideration of this complaint in order to exclude repeated consideration of similar complaints by the court is substantiated. It is indicated that it is inadmissible to appeal against the decision to initiate a criminal case on the fact of committing a crime.

scholarly journals Powers of the prosecutor during pretrial proceedings to protect the rights of victims of crimes

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 89-93
Author(s):  
Lilia R. Komarova ◽  
Mikhail V. Kolesov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The article substantiates the need to change the criminal procedural legislation that regulates the powers of the prosecutor and the status of the victim and gives the prosecutor the right to initiate a criminal case. The proposed changes in the procedural powers of the prosecutor are also considered through the prism of organizing the activities of law enforcement agencies and the impact of statistical reporting indicators on their activities. The experience of prosecutorial and investigative practices and the opinion of distinguished domestic legal scholars are analyzed. The changes proposed by the authors could have a significant positive impact on the work of preliminary investigation bodies and reduce the number of violations committed during preliminary investigation stages. In addition, bringing the status of the prosecutor and the preliminary investigation bodies into a logical procedural position could eliminate unnecessary and inherently harmful corporate competition.

scholarly journals THE USE OF REMAND IN CUSTODY AND PERIODS OF DETENTION: SOME THEORETICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES

2020 ◽  
pp. 42-50
Author(s):  
Gennady I. Zagorski ◽  
◽  
Fedor M. Kobzarev ◽  
Mikhail S. Shalumov ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Article 5

One of the significant problems in contemporary domestic criminal proceedings is the issue of uniform, lawful and justified application of preventive measures in the form of remand in custody. This concerns both the selection of this measure of procedural coercion and the extension of the period of detention in custody. An analysis of scientific publications, legisla-tion, and the positions of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights suggests the need to improve the provisions of the Code of Criminal Proce-dure regulating the application of this preventive measure. Under Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which specifies the duration of remand in custody, remand in custody during the investigation of an offence may not exceed two months; if it is impossible to complete the preliminary investigation within that period and there are no grounds for changing or quashing the preventive measure, the period may be extended to six months. Further extensions (up to 12 months) may be made in respect of persons accused of serious or particularly serious offences only when the criminal case is particularly complex and there are grounds for choosing this preventive measure. The period of detention (up to 18 months) can be extended at the pre-trial investigation stage only in exceptional cases in respect of persons accused of especially grave crimes. As a general rule, this period is the maximum and no further extension is permitted. The exception to this rule is the extension of the period of remand in custody until the accused and his or her counsel have been informed of the case file (up to 30 days) or, if that is not sufficient, for a longer period of time. After the pretrial investigation has been completed, the period of remand in custody may also be extended by the court, on application by the investigator or the person conducting the initial inquiry, to ensure that the prosecutor, and also the trial court, takes account of the period provided for in article 221, paragraph 1, or article 226, paragraph 1, or article 226.8, or article 227, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (article 109, paragraph 8.1 of the Code). The time limit may also be extended in the cases referred to in paragraph 8.2 of Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - to ensure that the higher prosecutor, as well as the trial court, takes decisions on the received criminal case for a period, the length of which is deter-mined by taking into account the time limits referred to in paragraph 4 of Article 221, or paragraph 4 of Article 226, or paragraph 4 of Article 226.8, as well as paragraph 3 of Article 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the current Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia allows for a reasonable length of detention and does not set a time limit for a person under arrest to be held in strict isolation from society, limiting detention to an overall limit of 18 months only during the pre-trial investigation. This is because even very long periods of detention may be compatible with Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention. Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as the safeguards in that provision do not imply any permissible period of detention beyond which it would automatically be breached or guarantee compliance with it.

scholarly journals Civil-legal terms in contractual system

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 731-742
Author(s):  
G. B. Dobretsov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Maximum Period ◽  
Calculated Period ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Working Day ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The Right

Objective: to develop the “term” concept in the contract system legislation and to identify the features of terms calculation, taking into account the wording of the Federal Law “On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, and services for state and municipal needs” of 02.07.2021.Methods: general scientific and specific scientific research methods are used in the work.Results: the legislation on the contract system does not register the “term” concept, but establishes it in all procedures and for all participants of the contract system. Terms violation entails administrative liability for both legal entities and officials. The entire logistics of procurement activities is connected with terms. As a result of the study, the following features related to terms in the contract system were identified: a) the terms calculation in the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, and services for state and municipal needs must be carried out in accordance with Chapter 11 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; b) Monday to Friday, except for federal official holidays, as well as other non-working days established by the authorities of the Russian Federation, should be considered working days; c) taking into account the high administrative responsibility for these offenses, if possible, to add to the established minimum and to subtract from the maximum period at least one day for unforeseen technical failures, in addition to the calculated period; d) in the legal structure “from the day following the day”, when establishing the maximum preventive terms in the law, to calculate the terms from the day of the event, the minimum preventive terms – from the day following the specified event; e) in some cases, as, for example, when concluding a contract, the customer should not only comply with all the terms of the formula “not more”, but also plan so that at the last stage there is no contradiction between “not more” and “not less”; f) the calculation of the terms provided by Law for the placement of electronic documents and information in the UIS starts from the moment they are placed in the UIS. Individual documents are placed in the UIS through the Treasury, the territorial body of which has the right to form notifications about the passage of control of these objects of control during the next working day. At that, the placement of control objects in the UIS will be carried out on the next working day from the date of their referral for control to the appropriate Treasury body.Scientific novelty: the article for the first time examines the norms and rules for calculating the terms stipulated in the Federal Law “On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, and services for state and municipal needs” as amended on 02.07.2021, and analyzes regulatory legal acts in the field of procurement that come into force on January 1, 2022.Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific, pedagogical and law enforcement activities when considering issues related to the calculation of terms in the field of procurement.

Ch.7 Non-performance, s.3: Termination, Art.7.3.2

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huber Peter
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
The Other ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
The Right

This commentary analyses Article 7.3.2 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning notice of termination. Under Art 7.3.2, termination of the contract has to be made by notice to the other party and sets a time limit for giving notice in certain cases of breach. The provision serves two objectives: first, it aims to prevent the aggrieved party from speculating on market fluctuations by postponing its decision on whether or not to terminate and, secondly, it allows the non-performing party to avoid any losses due to uncertainty as to whether the aggrieved party will terminate the contract. This commentary also discusses time limits for the exercise of the right to terminate and the burden of proof concerning notice of termination.

Ch.3 Validity, s.2: Grounds for avoidance, Art.3.2.12

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huber Peter
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
The Other ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Individual Term ◽  
Time Period ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right

This commentary focuses on Article 3.2.12 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning time limits for exercising the right to avoid the contract. Art 3.2.12 stipulates that notice of avoidance shall be given within a reasonable time, having regard to the circumstances, after the avoiding party knew or could not have been unaware of the relevant facts or became capable of acting freely. Where an individual term of the contract may be avoided by a party under Article 3.2.7, the period of time for giving notice of avoidance begins to run when that term is asserted by the other party. In relying on a ‘reasonable time’ period rather than setting out a clearly defined period of time (for example, two years after conclusion of the contract), Art 3.2.12 follows the common law model rather than the typical civil law solution. This commentary discusses the commencement and duration of ‘reasonable time’ period as well as the consequences of failure to avoid a contract within time limit.

INTERACTION OF INVESTIGATORS AND PROSECUTORS IN NEW LEGAL REALITIES

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 147-153
Author(s):  
A. V. Grinenko
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
New Form ◽  
The Right

Determination of the investigator and the prosecutor procedural status is formulated in the article. Powers of the prosecutor in relation to the investigator are described. The author notes main objectives of the prosecutor activity. Changes of criminal procedure legislation which affect functions of the prosecutor and the investigator are studied. The problem of procedural independence of the investigator is considered. Main questions which the prosecutor has the right to address to the investigator are analyzed. It is offered that investigators should be a part of unified department but should closely interact with other law enforcement agencies. Rights of supervision of decisions legality, investigator actions (inaction) don’t limit procedural independence of the investigator. It is offered to give to the prosecutor an opportunity to give to the investigator written instructions on the direction of investigation and procedural actions production. At the same time the investigator has to have the right not to agree with these instructions and to report about it to the head of investigative body and also to the higher prosecutor. Introduction expediency of a new form of public prosecutor's reaction - introduction of cautions about inadmissibility of law violation to the investigator is proved. Such caution doesn't influence procedural independence of the investigator and just notifies him that when the prosecutor receives criminal case with indictment, contents will have certain claims. At the legislative level it is expediently to differentiate the prosecutor's powers on consideration and permission of complaints depending on the form (inquiry or preliminary investigation) in which preliminary investigation on criminal case is conducted.

scholarly journals CERTAIN ISSUES OF FAMILIARIZATION WITH THE MATERIALS OF THE CRIMINAL CASE AT THE END OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 1107-1112
Author(s):  
L.G. Tatyanina ◽  
S.V. Starodumov
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Legal Representative ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public Prosecution ◽  
Mandatory Participation ◽  
The Right

Familiarization with the materials of the criminal case at the end of the preliminary investigation affects the timeliness and quality of criminal proceedings in the court and adoption of a procedural decision, as well as the observance of the procedural period of criminal proceedings and ensuring the rights of participants in the parties, and therefore there is a need to resolve problems during its conduct. The authors uphold the position that it is necessary to provide for the mandatory participation of the legal representative of the minor victim and the accused in familiarization with the materials of the criminal case in order to carry out their defense, as well as the need to rehabilitate the victim after the crime committed against him. It is proposed to give the prosecutor the power to return the criminal case to the investigator if he considers it necessary to satisfy the applications. This proposal is aimed at ensuring the quality of support for public prosecution. A proposal to grant the parties the right to petition the investigator to declare the evidence in the case inadmissible and not to include it in the indictment is substantiated. The proposed procedure will exclude disputes that are not related to the circumstances of the commission of the crime in court, will improve the quality of criminal proceedings.

scholarly journals ACCESS OF PARTICIPANTS OF CRIMINAL TRIAL TO MATERIALS OF CRIMINAL CASE IN A PRETRIAL PRODUCTION IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVIDING OF SECRET OF PRIVATE LIFE

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-152
Author(s):  
A.P. Lipinsky
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right

The article points out the need to ensure the protection of the privacy of participants in criminal proceedings. The problems associated with the violation of the right to privacy in the course of investigative and procedural actions are identified. Conclusions are drawn about the need to ensure the privacy of not only participants in the criminal process (parties and other persons), but also other persons whose information is contained in the materials of the criminal case. The order regulating the warning of participants of investigative and other procedural actions about inadmissibility of disclosure of the data received in connection with participation in investigative and procedural actions is developed. The opinion on inadmissibility of acceptance of refusal of the signature fixing the fact of the warning of the person about criminal liability for disclosure of data of preliminary investigation is proved. A proposal was formulated to establish the participants and the procedure for familiarizing themselves with the materials of the pre-investigation check.

scholarly journals ANALISIS HUKUM SECARA ANALOGI PENERAPAN ASAS PEMISAHAN HORIZONTAL PADA PRAKTEK JUAL BELI TANAH TIDAK BESERTA DENGAN POHON KELAPA DI ATASNYA DI KEC. PATILANGGIO KAB. POHUWATO

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-157
Author(s):  
Nasrullah Nasrullah
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
Basic Difference ◽  
Legal Subject ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
The Right

The principle of horizontal separation in the LoA is a principle that separates the ownership of the land by the right to the property on the ground or attached to the land, where the existence of the object attached to the land there is a time limit provision either by agreement or on the basis of the provisions of the legislation.Based on the analogy of law in the above analogy, it can be concluded that the practice of buying and selling land is not accompanied by coconut trees on it also apply the principle of horizontal separation due to the separation or difference of legal subject holder of property rights to the land with legal subject holder of property rights on coconut trees . But if you look at the various legal bases in the BAL which regulate the principles of horizontal separation such as Right of Use, Right of Use, Right to Use, Lease of Land for Building Establishment, Right of Ride, and Lease of Land for Agriculture all have clear clear time limits on the basis of agreement and also on the basis of the provisions of legislation. And for the duration of the term is not over so long also the holder of property rights on the land should not use his right either to build the building, manage or make it as collateral (collateral) debts and so on. While in the sale and purchase of separate land with coconut trees on it is not so, because there is no provision of clear time limit of the existence of coconut trees on the land rights of others and holders of land rights are still entitled to grow crops on their property rights. So the basic difference is what distinguishes the application of the principle of horizontal separation in BAL with the principle of separation of horisoltan on the practice of buying and selling land is not accompanied by coconut trees on it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document