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 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.

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 Meaning of the Category “Validity of the Charge” in Criminal Proceedings

2021 ◽  
pp. 218-223
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viкtor I. Kachalov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Simplified Procedure ◽  
Special Order

The aim of the article is to identify the meaning of the category “validity of the charge” in criminal proceedings and the scope of its application. After analyzing the content and legal essence of this category, as well as procedural situations in which it is necessary to establish the validity of the charge, the authors come to the following conclusions. Any coercive measures against suspects and accused persons can be applied only if there are serious grounds to assume that a person is involved in the commission of a crime since the restriction of the most important constitutional rights of citizens who, by virtue of the presumption of innocence, are innocent of committing a crime is possible only in exceptional cases. The validity of the charge (suspicion) assumes that a person is involved in the commission of a crime, as well as the fact of the criminal prosecution of this person. It is established if there is sufficient evidence that a person may have committed a crime (a person was caught committing a crime or immediately after it was committed; the victim or witnesses identified the person as the perpetrator of the crime; obvious traces of the crime were found on the person or their clothing, with them or in their house, etc.). The validity of the charge may be confirmed by a decision to initiate a criminal case and bring a person as an accused, by protocols of detention, interrogations of the accused, the victim, witnesses, and other materials. In the procedural sense, the conditions for establishing the validity of the charge differ significantly. When resolving the issue of the use of detention and other preventive measures, the validity of the charge is established within the framework of a court session in the conditions of adversariality with the participation of the parties. When giving the court permission to conduct investigative and other procedural actions in accordance with Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, to ensure the secrecy of the investigation, the issue is resolved in the absence of adversariality with the possible participation of only the prosecutor, the investigator, and the inquirer. The category “validity of the charge” is significant in legal terms in a criminal case with the special order of proceedings. A prerequisite for the court to consider a criminal case in a simplified procedure is the validity of the charge and its confirmation by the evidence collected in the case. The validity of the charge in the appointment of a trial in the special order provided for by Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is established by the court outside the court session in the absence of the parties. In any of the above situations, the court is responsible for establishing the validity of the charge since failure to establish it means that the decision made is unfounded.

scholarly journals ON SOME COMMENTS ON THE NORMATIVE FORMULATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1(63)) ◽  
pp. 127-133
Author(s):  
Виктор Николаевич ГРИГОРЬЕВ
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
Law Enforcement Officials ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The purpose of Russian criminal proceedings, which is very important among the modern social and legal institutions, is nevertheless deficient in its legal and regulatory form. It is noted that in the modern situation, some formulations of the purpose of criminal proceedings have come into conflict with the real social and legal reality. Purpose: to resolve contradictions between the formulations of the purpose of criminal proceedings and the actual social and legal reality. Methods: the author uses the methods of dialectical and formal logic, comparison, description, observation, interviewing, experiment, analysis, interpretation. Results: a theoretical basis has been developed for the choice, in the event of a conflict between the formulations of the purpose of criminal proceedings and the actual social and legal situation, of whether to change the normative formulation of the purpose of criminal proceedings or whether to change the procedure itself. In choosing the subject of reform, preference is given to traditional Russian values. Modern trends in Russian criminal proceedings do not fully reflect the needs of civil society in the Russian Federation. It is more accurate to assume that this is the result of a system of departmental and bureaucratic measures to distribute influence and burden. From a humanitarian standpoint, it would be more correct to return the criminal justice system to a state where it will again reflect the lost purpose, in particular, protecting individuals from unlawful accusations. The first step should be to remove from law enforcement officials the obligation to be unilateral in the examination of evidence and to represent only one party – the accusation (Chapter 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), as well as to remove the normative prohibition for the preliminary investigation and inquiry bodies to gather evidence defending the accused (Part 2 article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

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 Restriction of the access to justice for consideration of the criminal procedure dispute in accordance with the Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-69
Author(s):  
Tatiana Topilina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Soviet Space ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

This article analyzes the problems of implementation of the right of access to justice for consideration of the criminal procedure dispute in accordance with the Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The author carefully examines the legislation of the countries of post-Soviet space on filing a complaint against actions (omissions), as well as decisions of the prosecuting agency in pretrial proceedings. The subject of this research is the norms of the Russian and foreign legislation that regulate the right of access to justice in criminal proceedings. The object is the legal relations arising in the context of implementation of the right of access to justice. The article employs the universal systemic method of cognition; comparative-legal, formal-legal, and statistical methods; as well as logical analysis of the normative legal acts. It is indicated that restriction of the access to justice for consideration of the criminal procedure dispute in accordance with the Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is also established by the practice developed in law enforcement for evaluation of the complaint prior to its consideration involving  the parties with the possibility of making a decision on whether to remit or reject the complaint in the absence of legislatively specified grounds, which directly affects the number of addressed complaints. The conclusion is made on the need to specify the grounds for remitting the complaint of an applicant filed in accordance with the Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, for the purpose of excluding the possibility of decision made by the court that is not based on the law on remitting or rejecting the complaint for consideration (the Article 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

scholarly journals SOME ASPECTS OF THE PROSECUTOR'S PARTICIPATION IN REHABILITATION (IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION)

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 747-752
Author(s):  
A.I. Shmarev
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

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.

scholarly journals On the problem of establishing a condition for compensation for damage and making amends for damage when a criminal case (criminal prosecution) is terminated in connection with the appointment of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 129-134
Author(s):  
I.V. Fatyanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Compensation For Damage

The article examines the ambiguity in the interpretation of article 76.2 of the Criminal code and article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation to establish terms of compensation for the damage and (or) smoothing caused by the crime harm. The author substantiates the argument about the fallacy of considering this condition only formally, the author focuses on the mandatory establishment in this case of the characteristics of the identity of the guilty person and the measure of public danger of the committed act. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the approach proposed by the author to the study of the problem of establishing such a condition. In particular, the author considers it essential to solve such a problem to study the legal nature of compensation for damage and compensation for damage when a criminal case (criminal prosecution) is terminated on this basis. The author defines the specifics, identifies the main purposes of such a legal phenomenon in the context of a legal problem. The article concludes that if the preliminary investigation body and (or) the court (justice of the peace) the lack of property harmful consequences from the crime, the failure to make reparation is not to be considered as an obstacle to the termination of criminal proceedings on the grounds provided by article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation, article 76.2 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. As a conclusion, the scientific work has prepared a specific text of the interpretation of the condition in the relevant explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which will exclude ambiguity on this issue from the law enforcement officer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document