scholarly journals Constitutional and Legal Aspects of State Control and Supervision Activities (Legal Positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation)

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 161
Author(s):  
Aygul Faritovna Samigullina ◽  
Almas Azgarovich Imamov ◽  
Ksenia Vyacheslavovna Kostina ◽  
Alevtina Aleksandrovna Goncharova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Control ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Control Body

The presented article is devoted to the analysis of the legal positions of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court regarding the constitutionality of Russian legislation norms in the field of control and supervision activities. The generalization of the Constitutional Court practice of the Russian Federation allows you to group the decisions of the highest constitutional control body on several key issues: the limits of discretion by the legislator and law enforcer, the legal nature of state control and supervision measures, the balance of public and private interests in the sphere of relations under consideration and the guarantees of this balance. The team of authors concludes that the resolution of these problems is impossible without the Constitutional Court determining the content of a number of key concepts, developing the methodology for various constitutional principles and value balancing and, in general, focused efforts to constitutionalize Russian legislation.

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 The Legal Category "Public Good" in the Interpretation of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 78-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. L. Likhter
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Individual

The paper is devoted to the Russian Federation Constitutional Court understanding of the permissible limits of individual autonomy and boundaries of its limitation for the common good.Constitutional axiology as a form of direct relation to the model and practice of actual constitutionalism functions as the basis for the formation of a social policy. In Russia, economic cataclysms reveal problems in the system of pensions, taxation, employment and education. We are witnessing a certain deformation of the legal consciousness of the population. Such turning points inevitably raise questions about the best balance between the interests of the individual, society and the state.The threat of imbalance between public and private interests stimulates the highest judicial authorities to interfere in the formation of the hierarchy of constitutional and legal values. Increasingly, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation deals with issues of the common good, the need to take into account public interests in the resolution of tax, labor, civil and other types of disputes.

CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION AS A LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TYPE: ON THE ISSUE STATEMENT

2018 ◽  
pp. 133-140
Author(s):  
N.E. Sadokhina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Special Kind ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
The Stability

The relevance of the research topic is due to the uncertainty of the provision of constitutional responsibility in the system of legal responsibility types. The study purpose is to the legal nature analysis of constitutional and legal responsibility, allowing it to be viewed as a form of legal responsibility. The conducted research is based on general scientific analysis methods, deduction, and also private law – the formal legal method. So, on the basis of the analysis of the current legislation and law-enforcement practice, we conclude that the political and legal nature of constitutional responsibility is special. On the one hand, it is a form of legal responsibility and is applied to subjects of constitutional responsibility in cases provided for by constitutional norms. On the other hand, it helps to regulate relations that arise in the sphere of public administration, ensure the stability of the functioning of the state apparatus. It is established that this feature explains also the fact that constitutional responsibility can occur not only in case of an offense, but also in case of lawful behavior. It is determined that for consideration of the constitutional responsibility as a special kind of legal responsibility it is necessary to introduce a special procedural order of calling to account, including in particular the procedure for appealing the dissolution of the State Duma, giving the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation the powers to consider such cases. And it is also necessary to fix a list of circumstances that may form the basis for a decision on mistrust in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The conclusion is made that these legislative changes will underline the specificity of constitutional and legal responsibility and leave no doubt about its status as a kind of legal responsibility.

scholarly journals Topical Problems of Criminal Prosecution for Illegal Banking Transactions

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 962-970
Author(s):  
Diana Alekseeva ◽  
Irina Mikheeva ◽  
Tatyana Suspitsyna
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Bank Employees ◽  
Uniform Assessment ◽  
Unambiguous Interpretation

In recent years there has been an increase in the number of crimes under Art. 172 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation («Illegal banking»), whose subjects, among other things, act as intermediaries for their clients and are not one of the sides in a contract with the bank. Such practice is not indisputable, because innocent people could be prosecuted if there is a mistake in the qualification of actions. The authors of the article assess the actions of physical persons providing the services of intermediaries for the bank clients who open accounts, make payments, conduct encashment and different cash operations. Specifically, the authors note that different actions of the bank and the client connected with banking transactions are designated in law in the same way, which leads to controversial situations, including the qualification of such actions as crimes. The authors determine the legal nature of banking as an aggregate of systemic banking operations and conclude that the actions of physical persons — intermediaries who are not bank employees or managers or other persons authorized by the clients of the bank — do not correspond to the characteristics of a crime under Art. 172 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. They stress that the current edition of Art. 172 of the CC of the RF does not allow for an unambiguous interpretation of the subject of the analyzed corpus delicti; the authors also present data from court practice that testify that it does not have a uniform assessment. The position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on this issue raises questions. The authors support the legal approach according to which Art. 172 of the CC of the RF refers to a special subject (head or other employee of a credit organization). They also point out that the disposition of the norm, in the part that includes subjective characteristics, makes it possible to prosecute a person for both intentional and negligent actions, which is not very well-grounded; the authors support the position that a person can only be prosecuted for illegal entrepreneurship if the intention is determined.

scholarly journals Problems of jurisdiction in disputes involving a self-employed individual as a special subject of economic activity with an undefined legal status

2021 ◽  
pp. 9-23
Author(s):  
Marietta Damirovna Shapsugova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Professional Activities ◽  
Self Employment ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Substantive Law

Due to proliferation of the experiment on introduction of special self-employment tax regime across the Russian Federation, the number of self-employed individuals is expected to rise. Moreover, the lockdown brought on by the current pandemic led to a sharp increase in self-employment. This circumstance makes the subject of this research more relevant – the questions of legal status of self-employed individuals in connection to their financial-legal and procedural-legal aspects. The article analyzes the doctrinal approaches towards definition of jurisdiction, the use of which allows overcoming current legislative gap. Research is conducted on the normative act and case law of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation that forms the conceptual approach towards self-employment. For the first time, the activity of a self-employed individual is examined in relation to the concepts of economic, entrepreneurial, and professional activities. The problem of undefined procedural status of a self-employed individual is explored in conjunction with its undefined status in the substantive law. A conclusion is made that such activity should be classified as economic. The scientific novelty consists in posing the question of jurisdiction of disputes involving self-employed individuals. The author concludes on undefined nature of self-employed individual in the substantive law, which leads to legal uncertainty of their procedural status. The uncertainty is expressed in the absence of rules of jurisdiction over disputed involving self-employed individuals. The author makes proposal for changes to procedural legislation.

scholarly journals Constitutional justice in the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 396-400
Author(s):  
Elena Yevgenievna Grishnova ◽  
Tatiana Viktorovn Larina ◽  
Andrey A. Soloviev ◽  
Yuri Viktorovich Stepanenko ◽  
Yuriy Nikolaevich Tuganov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Research Problem ◽  
Inductive Method ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Systemic Analysis ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Constitutional Justice ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article aims at studying the legal nature and essence of constitutional proceedings with due regard to historical experience and modern legislative approaches to the structure and system of constitutional justice in Russia. The main research method was the deductive method which allowed the authors to study the legal nature of the Constitutional Court and its role in the separation of powers in Russia. The article also used the inductive method, the method of systemic analysis, and comparative-legal and historical methods. To solve the research problem, it is necessary to consider the legal foundations and features of constitutional justice based on the amendments made to the Constitution of the Russian Federation on July 1, 2020. The article proves that the legal nature and the main goal of constitutional control remain unresolved issues. According to the authors, the most important condition for the creation of a strong judicial power is its high independence. Judicial errors can also cause distrust in the judiciary.

scholarly journals The Theory of Criminal Law Should Not Be Reduced to the Analysis and Criticism of Criminal Legislation

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-140
Author(s):  
Anatoly Naumov
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Principle Of Legality

In both normative and sociological senses criminal law includes three components — criminal legislation, judicial practice, and criminal law doctrine, and the development of this branch of law is possible only in their unity. The criminal law doctrine is to a certain extent superior to the other components of the "triad" and involves the development of the branch’s principles, goals and objectives. At the same time, the improvement of criminal law is not the only goal of the theory of criminal law. It should not be limited only to criticism of the current legislation and proposals for its improvement. However, the vast majority of modern domestic criminal law publications, such as monographs, articles in legal periodicals, dissertations, are devoted to criticism of the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Indeed, the current criminal law is not perfect, but the "imbalance" of research into the "law-making" side significantly reduces the scope of criminal law doctrine. And there will always be demand for theoretical studies on the analysis of the subject and method, system and objectives of criminal law, its sources.Debatable, for example, still is the issue of the legal nature of the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and, in particular, the judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court are a special kind of judicial interpretation and a fairly reliable tool for the courts to understand "the letter of the criminal law" and it’s applicability to the particular case. As for the assessment of the legal nature of the judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the criminal law doctrine often fails to notice that they touch upon the methodological problems of the theory of criminal law. In relation to a number of criminal law prohibitions, judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation are a source of criminal law, along with the Criminal Code. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation specified the most important principle of criminal law — the principle of legality and clarified the characteristics of criminality of socially dangerous acts prohibited by criminal law, which is directly related to the issue of criminal liability. In this sense, the Constitutional Court formulated a new and important addition to the content of the principle of legality — the certainty of criminal law rules, and, first of all, the criminal law prohibitions. Thus, the judicial authority overtook the criminal law doctrine in solving one of the most important issues for criminal proceedings.

Doctrinal Approach to the Interrelation between National and International Law in the light of Constitutional Amendments

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.O. Madaev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Dual Model ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Constitutional Amendments ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article analyzes the Law of the Russian Federation on the amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation of March 14, 2020 No. 1-Federal Constitutional Laws «On Improving the Regulation of Certain Issues of the Public Power Organization and Functioning». The author carries out the theoretical and legal analysis of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court practice and the legislation adopted in view of this practice. It is noted that the amendments added to the Constitution of the Russian Federation reflect the official doctrine based on the recognition of the priority and supremacy of the Russian Federation Constitution in the legal system of the country. The author agrees that representatives of economically and militarily strong states have a significant influence on the development of international law, expressing the foreign policy doctrines of their states, while building a dual model of behavior: in relation to themselves – the priority of national law, in relation to other countries – the priority of international law. Under these conditions, the doctrine becomes a universal tool that connects the national and international legal spheres. It is necessary to recognize the ability of the doctrine to ensure the individualization, self-identification of the domestic legal system, the convergence of the Russian legal system and the systems of international public and private international law.

THE RIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE IN THE SYSTEM OF POWERS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

2021 ◽  
pp. 46-52
Author(s):  
Dmitrii V. Zmievskii
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Special Role ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Initiative ◽  
Control Body ◽  
The Right

The article considers the right of legislative initiative of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the light of amendments made to the Fundamental Law of our state in 2020, as well as subsequent updating of special federal constitutional legislation. It is noted that the problem of practice deficiency in implementing the mentioned power by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is not new for the Russian legal science; in general, it is naturally determined and is due to a number of objective factors. However, the process of updating and developing the constitutional provisions on the supreme judicial control body of Russia and, in particular, creating the system of preliminary judicial constitutional control, bring the problem under consideration to a qualitatively new level. The approach itself in terms of granting the mentioned power to supreme courts in the Russian Federation is characterized as atypical for the countries near and far abroad. At the same time, the current lack of practice in exercising the power in question by the Constitutional Court is due to the special role of the latter in the system of supreme state authorities, in particular, the judiciary. The point of view is expressed that the problem cannot be unambiguously solved at the present stage of the statehood development. The author does not share the increasingly expressed point of view today that the right of legislative initiative should be excluded from the powers of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, since this will lead to a violation of the equality of the constitutional and legal statuses of the two independent supreme judicial authorities. In addition, the shortcomings in the wording of certain constitutional provisions have been identified and possible ways to eliminate them have been proposed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document