scholarly journals ON THE RELEVANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROCEDURES IN PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS APPLICABLE UNDER ARTICLES 25, 25.1, 28 PART 1, 28.1 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 1078-1084
Author(s):  
M.N. Tarsheva
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Regulation System ◽  
Structural Element ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Procedures

Legal procedures in a state governed by the rule of law are a kind of guarantor of legality and protection of citizens' rights, and therefore issues related to the development and improvement of the procedural mechanism are among the top priorities. The procedural mechanism is the most important structural element of the legal regulation system, which includes entire procedural branches. The article substantiates the need to develop and legislate procedures within which actions can be carried out to reconcile and make amends for harm, compensation for damage or otherwise make amends for harm (since gaps and shortcomings in the legislation associated with the lack of procedural mechanisms do not allow to fully realize the human rights potential of Articles 25, 25.1, 28 Part 1, 28.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), as well as the need to classify these procedures (which has not been previously carried out). The author proposes to divide such procedures into conciliatory and restorative ones. The author's definitions of conciliation and restorative procedures in pre-trial proceedings are given.

Ensuring the Rights and Legal Interests of the Victim when Checking the Crime Report: A Comparative Legal Analysis of the Criminal Procedure Codes of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China

2021 ◽  
pp. 128-133
Author(s):  
Irina G. Smirnova ◽  
◽  
Ekaterina V. Alekseeva ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
People’S Republic Of China ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
People's Republic Of China ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Procedure Codes

The article presents a comparative legal analysis of the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the People’s Republic of China, which regulate the rights and powers of the victim within the framework of the stage of initiating a criminal case. The authors highlight several significant differences in the legal regulation of this issue. The differences are: the obligation to comply with the rules of jurisdiction in China at the stage of filing a statement of a crime, which is not required under the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; compulsory fingerprinting of a person when filing a crime report with a public security agency implemented in China; the existence of several types of preliminary checks (the list of activities carried out as part of these checks in China is open); intensive development of IT technologies and their introduction into the life of society, including for the fight against crime and ensuring law and order in society, in China.

ELECTRONIC CRIME INCIDENT REPORT AS A REASON TO INITIATE A CRIMINAL CASE (THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEGAL REGULATION IN THE NORMATIVE ACTS OF THE RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THE RF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE)

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-50
Author(s):  
P. A. Samoylov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Electronic Interaction ◽  
Incident Report ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Internal Affairs ◽  
Electronic Crime ◽  
Crime Reports

The integration and active application of electronic document flow to the daily activities of the police have consistently and logically led to the fact that the electronic crime incident report is increasingly used as a reason to initiate criminal cases. The departmental normative legal acts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia regulate in detail the processing of such reports. However, under the RF Criminal Procedure Code, not all electronic crime reports registered by the Departments of Internal Affairs meet the established requirements, and, accordingly, they can not perform the function of a criminal procedural cause. In this situation, with the obvious relevance of electronic documents, an example of a contradiction and gap in the law is evident, which somewhat hinders the development of electronic interaction between the participants of criminal procedural activity and can cause negative consequences. The paper analyzes and compares the provisions of some normative sources regulating the reception and consideration of electronic crime reports by the Departments of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and the norms of criminal procedural legislation. The author critically evaluates the legal definitions of the concept of a crime incident report and some organizational and legal mechanisms for accepting and considering electronic crime reports established by the departmental legal acts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. The study highlights and clarifies the rules of filing, mandatory requisites, and some other requirements for electronic crime reports, which must be complied with according to the provisions of the criminal procedure code. Based on the data obtained, the author offers recommendations to improve criminal procedural law and the algorithm of accepting electronic crime reports using the official websites of the Departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals The subject of judicial control in consideration of complaints: controversial issues of legal regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-109
Author(s):  
El'vira Mirgorodskaya
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

scholarly journals To the admissibility of the civil law exemption of property from arrest, imposed in the criminal proceedings: domestic and foreign experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-200
Author(s):  
Natalia Kashtanova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Judicial Protection

The subject of paper deals with the legal nature of measures of criminal procedural compulsionin the form of seizure of property.Methodological basis of the article is based on general scientific dialectical methods of cognitionof objective reality of the legal processes and phenomena that allowed us to conduct anobjective assessment of the state of legislation and law enforcement practice in the proceduralaspects of the cancellation of the seizure of property in criminal proceedings of Russia.The results and scope of it’s application. It is submitted that the cancellation of the seizureof the property (or the individual limit) is allowed only on the grounds and in the mannerprescribed by the criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation. However, the studyfound serious contradictions in the application of the relevant law. In particular, cases inwhich the question of exemption of property from arrest (exclusion from the inventory),imposed in the criminal case was resolved in a civil procedure that, in the opinion of theauthor of the publication, is extremely unacceptable.On the stated issues topics analyzes opinions of scientists who say that the dispute aboutthe release of impounded property may be allowed in civil proceedings, including pendingresolution of the criminal case on the merits. The author strongly disagrees with this positionand supports those experts who argue that the filing of a claim for exemption of propertyfrom arrest (exclusion from the inventory) the reviewed judicial act of imposing of arrestwithout recognition per se invalid. In this regard, the author cites the legal position ofthe constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, from which clearly follows that of theright of everyone to judicial protection does not imply the possibility of choice of the citizenat its discretion, techniques and procedures of judicial protection, since the features of suchjudicial protection is defined in specific Federal laws.The author analyzes and appreciates Kazakhstan's experience of legal regulation of the permissibilityof filing a civil claim for exemption of property from seizure imposed in criminalproceedings. The author notes that the new civil procedural legislation of the Republic ofKazakhstan, which came into force from 01 January 2016, clearly captures that considerationin the civil proceedings are not subject to claims for exemption of property from seizureby the criminal prosecution body.Conclusions. Necessity of amendment to article 422 of the Civil Procedure Code of Russia:this article should not apply to cases of application of measures of criminal procedural compulsionin the form of seizure of property. Among other things, the author proposed additionsto part 9 of article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia.

scholarly journals Problems of interpretation the norms of General part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-200
Author(s):  
M. P. Рronina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
General Part ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article is devoted to one of the current areas of legal science related to the problems of interpretation the norms of General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The interpretation of legal norms is the activity of state bodies, non-governmental organizations and individuals to clarify and explain the meaning of legal norms embedded by the legislator in them and the actual content of the legal provisions (regulations, definitions) contained in them in order to implement them correctly and improve the effectiveness of legal regulation public relations. The interpretation of legal norms is a complex volitional process aimed at establishing the exact meaning of the rule of law. This process consists of two elements: 1) the interpreter (interpreter) clarifies the content of the legal norm for himself; 2) then in order to establish its equal understanding and application it clarifies the meaning of the legal prescription to all interested parties. The first part of this activity – clarification – characterizes the epistemological nature of interpretation aimed at the knowledge of law. Understanding acts as a thought process taking place in the mind of the subject applying the rule of law. The explanation is the second part of a unified process of interpretation the law addressed to other parties to a relationship. It is carried out by the competent authorities and persons in order to eliminate ambiguities in understanding the content of the norm and thus ensure its correct application to the circumstances for which it is aimed. Subjects of interpretation may be public authorities, officials, organizations, enterprises, institutions, individuals. The objects of interpretation are laws and regulations. Legal interpretation is an activity that from a practical point of view is connected with the completion of the regulation of life relations by law. Legal norms as a result of interpretation become ready for implementation, practical implementation. The presented scientific article examines the interpretations given by the highest judicial instance, which showed that in some cases they contain contradictions that violate the legal and technical rules. Examples of the interpretation of criminal court decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are given, and author’s editions are proposed.

scholarly journals Grounds for Canceling Seizure in Pre-Trial Criminal Proceedings

2020 ◽  
pp. 228-233
Author(s):  
Boris B. Bulatov ◽  
◽  
Alexander S. Dezhnev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article examines the normative legal basis of the grounds for canceling property seizure in pre-trial criminal proceedings. The problem of the legislator’s usage of evaluative categories in removing investigator’s, interrogator’s or court’s restrictions is also analyzed. The solution of this problem is made dependent on the implementation of public or private interests. Discussing these issues, the authors come to the conclusion that this sphere is neither presented nor analyzed in academic monographic works. This circumstance indicates the novelty of the study owing to the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the issue. The conclusion about the priority of public principles over private interests concerning matters which are not related to civil lawsuits is made on the grounds of empirical data and the analysis of legislative approaches. The contradictions of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation regulating the basis and procedure for canceling property seizure and the laws on bankruptcy are identified. The directions for improving the legal regulation of these issues are presented. The necessity of a multisectoral regulation of some aspects of law enforcement is inferred. The examination of private principles in canceling property seizure is connected with securing a civil lawsuit in criminal proceedings. The authors substantiate the existence of additional opportunities in making decisions in this field via the legal regime. This regime is also used in some other legal acts and may be put into practice in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. However, the imposed restrictions can be canceled on the basis of the decision by a person considering a criminal case. The authors note the incoherence of some provisions of Part 3 and Part 9 of Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. This incoherence is connected with different approaches to the view on public and private interests in decision making. The authors substantiate the necessity of a legal linking of grounds for canceling property seizure with the decision on imposing this resriction. The conclusion about the comprehensive order of property seizure is made in the final part of the article. It is also stated that this order does not contain distinct criteria of the legality of the decision. Certain parts of the criminal procedure laws should be corrected. Some ways to improve the field of legal regulation concerning the opportunity of canceling seizure are given.

House arrest in the system of procedural preventive measures against minors (in genesis)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-139
Author(s):  
Ol'ga Tuchina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
The Russian Federation

To implement the norms of international law into the practice of Russian legal system while choosing a preventive measure against an accused minor or a suspect, to decide on the most humane preventive measure is the issue of great importance. This position is reflected in Art. 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code providing the fundamental foundations of criminal procedure provisions concerning preventive measures against minors. When making a decision on restraint measures related to isolation from society, the possibility of applying an alternative, more humane preventive measure should be taken into account. The article describes the ratio of house arrest to detention. It has been justified that in the system of preventive measures house arrest should be recognized as a measure not related to isolation from society, and as a more common alternative to detention. The legislator periodically attempts to improve the procedural situation of minors involved in criminal procedure. Problems are connected with unstructured placement of norms regarding juvenile suspects and accused in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Secondly, it is linked with the absence of features of house arrest of minors. All this makes the author state that despite the large-scale judicial and legal reform, the legal regulation of preventive measures against minors needs to be further improved. The subject of the study is a scientific analysis of the sources of criminal procedure legislation on the legal regulation of house arrest in the system of preventive measures against minors. The purpose of the study is to provide scientific analysis of the features of house arrest applied to minors and to form an author’s position on this issue. Research methods cover systemic analysis, structural, logical, and comparative scientific methods. The results achieved are the analysis of the system of preventive measures against minors with the identification of the specifics of house arrest, the recognition of this measure as a preventive means not related to isolation from society, and the formation of the author’s version of the norm of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation governing this preventive step.

scholarly journals Legal Regulation of Protecting the Rights and Freedoms of the Suspect During the Pre-Trial Proceedings in a Criminal Case: Historical and Legal Aspect

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 95-102
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Aspect ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

Basic aspects of legal regulation of the suspect’s status in the course of pretrial proceedings in a criminal case are considered. The provisions of the current edition of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, regulating the rights and obligations of the suspect, are analyzed. Based on the results of the review of the current criminal legislation, some problems of ensuring the rights and legitimate interests of a suspect as a subject of legal relations are identified. A number of amendments to the current criminal legislation are proposed.

scholarly journals Criminal Procedure Code of Russia: Twenty Years Later (2001–2021)

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-188
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viktor I. Kachalov
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Impact

Introduction. 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, adopted by the State Duma on November 22, 2001 by Federal Law No. 174-FZ. The development of criminal procedure legislation in these years was not always consistent, often characterized by chaotic and hasty measures. Nevertheless, the main factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, as well as the key trends in the legal regulation of criminal procedure legal relations, have remained fairly stable for twenty years. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The object of the study is the norms of criminal procedure law that have emerged and developed during the period of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation since 2001. The methodological basis of the study is the general dialectical method of scientific knowledge, which allowed us to study the subject of the study in relation to other legal phenomena, as well as general scientific methods of knowledge (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, and modelling) and private scientific methods of knowledge (formal legal, historical-legal, and comparative-legal). Results. Among the variety of various factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, there are several main ones: 1. The impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal proceedings. Having ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms in 1998, Russia voluntarily assumed obligations in the field of ensuring citizens rights and freedoms, as well as creating the necessary conditions for their implementation. Among the most important criminal procedure norms and institutions that have emerged in the system of criminal procedure regulation under the influence of the positions of the ECHR, the following are notable: a reasonable period of criminal proceedings, the rights of participants in the verification of a crime report, the disclosure of the testimony of an absent witness at a court session, and alternative preventive measures to detention. 2. Optimisation of procedural resources and improvement of the efficiency of criminal proceedings. From the very beginning of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, there was a special procedure for judicial proceedings, which is a simplified form of consideration of criminal cases, provided for in Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. In 2009, this procedure was extended to cases with concluded pre-trial cooperation agreements (Chapter 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), and in 2013, the institute of abbreviated inquiry appeared in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Chapter 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). 3. Social demand for increasing the independence of the court, and the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings. Society’s needs to improve the independence of judges, increase public confidence in the court, transparency and quality of justice led to the reform of the jury court in 2016 (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 190-FZ). As a result of the reform, the court with the participation of jurors began to function at the level of district courts, the jurisdiction of criminal cases for jurors was expanded, the number of jurors was reduced from 12 to 8 in regional courts and 6 in district courts. However, practice has shown that sentences handed down by a court on the basis of a verdict rendered by a jury are overturned by higher courts much more often than others due to committed violations, which are associated, among other things, with the inability to ensure the objectivity of jurors. In the context of a request for an independent court, Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the independence of judges (Federal Law of 2 July 2013 N 166-FZ) was adopted. 4. Reducing the degree of criminal repression. In the context of this trend, institutions have emerged in the criminal and criminal procedure laws that regulate new types of exemption from criminal liability. In 2011, Article 281 “Termination of criminal prosecution in connection with compensation for damage” was adopted, concerning a number of criminal cases on tax and other economic crimes (Federal Law of 7 December 2011 N 420). In 2016, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation introduced rules on the termination of a criminal case or criminal prosecution in connection with the appointment of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine (Federal Law of 3 July 2016 N 323-FZ). 5. Digitalisation of modern society. The rapid development of information technologies and their implementation in all spheres of public life has put on the agenda the question of adapting a rather archaic “paper” criminal process to the needs of today, and the possibilities of using modern information technologies in the process of criminal proceedings. Among the innovations in this area, it should be noted the appearance in the criminal procedure law of Article 1861 “Obtaining information about connections between subscribers and (or) subscriber devices” (Federal Law of 1 July 2010 N 143-FZ), Article 4741 “The procedure for using electronic documents in criminal proceedings” (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 220-FZ), the legal regulation of video-conferencing in criminal proceedings (Federal Law of 20 March 2011 N 39-FZ), and the introduction of audio recording of court sessions (Federal Law of 29 July 2018-FZ N 228-FZ), etс. Currently, the possibilities of further digitalisation of criminal proceedings, and the use of programs based on artificial intelligence in criminal proceedings, ets. are being actively discussed. Discussion and Conclusion. The main factors determining the vector of development of modern criminal justice should, in our opinion, include the impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal justice; optimisation of procedural resources and the need to improve the efficiency of criminal justice, social demands for strengthening the independence of the court, adversarial criminal proceedings; the needs of society to reduce the degree of criminal repression, and digitalisation of modern society.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document