scholarly journals On legal succession in reconciliation of criminal cases of private prosecution

2021 ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
Aminat Alkhazovna Batchaeva
Keyword(s):  
General Rule ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
State Coercion ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The subject of this research is the criminal prosecution of cases established by the Part 2 of the Article 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which is carried out in private capacity and significantly modifies the rights and responsibilities of the parties to criminal proceedings. Pursuant to the general rule, the state authorities and officials do not carry out private prosecution cases. In view of this, close attention is given the procedural activity of private prosecutor, who is vested the right in application of measures of state coercion, but entrusted with responsibility on formulating, proving, and pressing charges in court. Retrospective analysis of the Russian criminal procedure legislation reveals that modern legislation has no legal succession of the centuries-long experience of classifying a range of offences as cases of private prosecution. The author believes that the list of cases of private prosecution can be extended by taking into account the provisions of the Criminal Law and Practice Statute 1864, Regulations of Punishments Imposed by Justices of the Peace, which enables reconciliation of the parties and entails unconditional termination of proceedings in certain categories of minor offences. This would ensure the effective implementation of criminal proceedings, restoration of social and legal justice, and accessibility of justice to general public.

Forced to sexual activities: legal positions of Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and Republic of Kazakhstan

2019 ◽  
pp. 175-189
Author(s):  
Ardak Alimkhanovna Biyebayeva ◽  
Aigul Mailybayevna Kalguzhinova ◽  
Vera Anatolievna Chunyaeva
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
General Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Sexual Activities ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The relevance of the study is due to the importance of finding effective and at the same time humane measures to combat crime against minors that meet the generally accepted principles and norms of international law. The purpose of the study is to consider the international legal norms that form the basis of standards in the field of implementation of the rights of minors involved in the criminal proceedings orbit. We consider some aspects of the fair juvenile justice standards implementation in the Russian criminal procedure legislation. We analyze the provisions of the key normative acts in the field of juvenile justice, their application practice, as well as doctrinal approaches to the prospect of further improvement of the criminal procedural form of legal proceedings against minors. On the basis of the analysis, we highlight the proceedings features in the criminal cases category: criminal prosecution can be initiated only after reaching a certain age; expanded the subject of proof; the production involves additional participants; the establishment of additional grounds and conditions for the use of coercive measures related to the restriction of freedom; confidentiality, which determines the characteristics of the trial; expansion of the range of issues resolved by the court in sentencing. It has been concluded that the existing domestic criminal proceedings the order of proceedings in criminal cases in juvenile, despite the peculiarities that distinguish it from the general procedure, it is impossible to recognize the self-differentiated procedure.

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 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 Initiation of Criminal Proceedings against a Particular Person as the Ground for Recognizing him as a Suspect (para 1, part 1, art. 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation)

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 71-78
Author(s):  
I. V. Smolkova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Status ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Russian Federation

The paper is devoted to the analysis of a new ground for recognition of a person as a suspect, introduced under the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, namely, the initiation of a criminal case against the person. The ground under consideration has caused controversial debates among criminal process scholars. The author has carried out a retrospective analysis of the legislative regulation of this ground for giving a person the status of the suspect. The paper evaluates various doctrinal approaches to its merits and disadvantages. The author also demonstartes the need for the new ground for recognition of a person as the suspect in law enforcement on the basis of statistical data, according to which more than half of criminal cases in Russia are initiated against a particular person. The study at question reveals an interconnection between initiation of proceedings upon commission of a crime and a particular person. The conclusion is substantiated that the recognition of a person as a suspect in case of initiation of criminal proceedings against him is aimed at ensuring his right to protection from criminal prosecution. However, the issuance of the order to initiate criminal proceedings against a particular person entails the possibility of implementation of coercive criminal procedural measures against him. It is shown that suspicion forms the substantive basis of recognition of a person as the suspect. The author criticises the approach according to which the issuance of the order to initiate criminal proceedings against a particular person forms an allegation that he has committed an act prohibited under the criminal law. Under this approach the assumption is made that can later be either proven or refuted in the course of further investigation. The author criticises the practice of dividing criminal cases into a judicial perspective and lacking such a perspective, which entails violations of the rights and legitimate interests of individuals suspected in committing crimes.

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.

On the Role of the Prosecutor in Initiating a Criminal Case and Initiating Criminal Prosecution

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 85-94
Author(s):  
Т. Yu. Vilkova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public Prosecution ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Special Competence ◽  
State Body

The paper shows that the consolidation of the functions of the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation at the constitutional level leads to the need to return to the question of the effectiveness and sufficiency of the prosecutor’s powers to independently initiate a criminal case, initiate criminal prosecution, and bring charges. The modern models of granting various subjects the authority to initiate and carry out criminal prosecution, to bring charges in criminal procedural comparative studies are identified and analyzed. They are: 1) a system of public prosecution, or a monocratic model, in which criminal prosecution is initiated exclusively by the decision of state bodies with appropriate special competence, primarily the prosecutor’s office (prosecutor’s monopoly); 2) an ex officio prosecution system, or a polycratic model, when the subject of criminal prosecution is any of the state bodies authorized to conduct proceedings in a case, there is no monopoly of one state body or official to initiate criminal prosecution; 3) a private prosecution system, when the subject of criminal prosecution is either the victim or his legal successors; 4) a “people’s” system charges, in which any private person has the right to initiate criminal prosecution, regardless of whether he is a victim or not. The conclusion is substantiated that Russia belongs to the states in which the polycratic ex officio model is combined with private prosecution in certain categories of cases, while, unlike most other states, the prosecutor is not among the officials authorized to initiate criminal proceedings and/or criminal prosecution. It is shown that the lack of powers of the prosecutor in pre-trial proceedings hinders the achievement of the purpose of criminal proceedings. It is concluded that it is necessary to return to the prosecutor the authority to initiate a criminal case independently.

scholarly journals CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE PROSECUTOR AS FACTORS DETERMINING THE SPECIFICS OF PROSECUTOR's SUPERVISION IN PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-132
Author(s):  
A.A. Nasonov
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Main Function ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Scientific Discussion ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

The article analyzes the opinions of scientists expressed during the scientific discussion that unfolded around the issue of criminal procedure functions of the Prosecutor in pre-trial proceedings. Provides additional arguments in favor of supervision of execution of laws as the main function of the Prosecutor under the Law on the Prosecutor determines other types of prosecutorial activities (criminal prosecution, the preliminary investigation, etc.) that are supportive in nature. These types of Prosecutor's activities are not only ways to specify Prosecutor's supervision in criminal proceedings, but also means of implementing the criminal procedure function of the prosecution, which exists according to the concept of the current criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, focused on the adversarial process, along with the function of protection and the function of resolving criminal cases. The article also addresses the issue of granting additional powers to the Prosecutor in pre-trial proceedings. It is proved that the decision to grant additional powers to the Prosecutor in pre-trial proceedings should create opportunities to maintain the necessary balance in pre-trial proceedings between Prosecutor's supervision, departmental control and judicial control. Evidence is given that the harmonious existence of Prosecutor's supervision and departmental control in pre-trial proceedings will allow us to count on overcoming existing violations of the law in the investigation of crimes, which currently remain many.

PROBLEM ASPECTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL NORMS OF PROTECTION OF THE VICTIMS FROM CRIME

2020 ◽  
pp. 72-76
Author(s):  
Яна Валерьевна Самиулина
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Effective Mechanism ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Selection Of

В настоящей статье предпринята попытка исследовать отдельные проблемные аспекты института потерпевшего в российском уголовном процессе. В этих целях подвергнуты анализу правовые нормы, регламентирующие его процессуальный статус. Раскрываются отдельные пробелы уголовно-процессуального законодательства в сфере защиты законных прав и интересов потерпевшего. Автор акцентирует внимание на том, что совершенствование уголовно-процессуального законодательства в части расширения правомочий потерпевшего по отстаиванию своих нарушенных преступлением прав следует продолжить. На основании проведенного исследования действующего законодательства в части регламентации прав потерпевшего от преступления предлагается расширить перечень получаемых им копий постановлений, указанных в п. 13 ч. 2 ст. 42 УПК РФ. Автор предлагает включить в перечень указанной законодательной нормы право получения потерпевшим копии постановления об избрании конкретного вида меры пресечения, избранного в отношении подозреваемого (обвиняемого). Для создания действенного механизма защиты интересов потерпевших от преступления юридических лиц предлагаем ч. 9 ст. 42 УПК РФ изложить в следующей редакции: «в случае признания потерпевшим юридического лица его процессуальное право в уголовном процессе осуществляет представляющий его профессиональный адвокат». This article attempts to investigate certain problematic aspects of the institution of the victim in the Russian criminal process. For this purpose, analyzed the individual norms governing his procedural status. Separate gaps of the criminal procedure legislation in the sphere of protection of the legal rights and interests of the victim are disclosed. The author emphasizes that the improvement of the criminal procedure legislation in terms of the extension of the victim’s authority to defend his rights violated by the crime should be continued. On the basis of the study of the current legislation regarding the regulation of the rights of the victim of a crime, it is proposed to expand the list of decisions received by him, referred to in paragraph 13, part 2 of article 42 Code of Criminal Procedure. The author proposes to include in the list of the indicated legislative norm the right to receive the victim a copy of the decision on the selection of a specific type of preventive measure, selected in relation to the suspect (accused). To create an effective mechanism for protecting the interests of legal entities victims of a crime, we offer part 9 of art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation shall be reworded as follows: «if a legal entity is recognized as a victim, his procedural right in criminal proceedings is exercised by the professional lawyer representing him».

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 FEATURES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF PRIVATE PROSECUTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 875-880
Author(s):  
E.F. Tensina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Procedural Rights

The article reveals the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, which establishes the freedom to dispose of material and procedural rights. The forms of manifestation of dispositive principles in the material and procedural aspects in the course of criminal proceedings are determined. Taking into account the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, various models of proceedings in criminal cases of a private prosecution and the peculiarities of the implementation of the provisions of the criminal procedure principle of the presumption of innocence are considered. The author critically assesses the legal constructions that allow the application of a special procedure for making a court decision in criminal proceedings of a private prosecution if the accused agrees with the charge brought. In particular, taking into account the provisions of the principle of the presumption of innocence, it is concluded that it is inadmissible to apply Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation when considering a criminal case of a private prosecution if it is initiated by filing an application directly with a magistrate in the manner prescribed by Art. 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation or when investigating a criminal case of this category in the form of an abbreviated inquiry, regulated by Ch. 32.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document