scholarly journals ON THE INTERACTION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT BODIES AND JUDICIAL COMMUNITY

2017 ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Олег Степанов ◽  
Oleg Stepanov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
The Public ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Relevant Level

The article discusses the possible forms of interaction between law enforcement bodies and judicial community. There are also proposals for improvement of the qualification collegiums of judges, for increasing of the public confidence in the judicial branch of power in current conditions. The current law allows bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility for the imposition of clearly illegal judicial act, if the illegality is confirmed by the highest instance, and the conclusion about the apparent illegality is made by the qualification collegium of judges. This approach does not contradict the legal approach on the principle of non-involvement of the judge to the responsibility for rendering its judgment — the judge shall be brought to disciplinary responsibility not for the opinion expressed in the judicial act, but for actions that violate the requirements of the Law on the status of judges. The author suggests the new way for the composition of the qualification collegiums of judges of all levels, which implies to guarantee the objectivity and impartiality of their work by reducing of the proportion of judges in the collegium to 51% and to replace remaining 49% of members by the members of the public society (25%) appointed by representative bodies of the relevant level, and the remaining (24%) — by the independent prosecutors appointed by the President of Russia. According to the author, creation of such institution of “independent prosecutors” in Russia will provide more effective implementation of the principle of “three keys”, when the appointment of the members of the qualification collegiums of judges will be involved popularly elected President, Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Federation Council (the legislative assemblies of the constituent entities).

scholarly journals «Use of office position» when committing fraud: problems of application

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-104
Author(s):  
Valeria V. Zabrodina ◽  
Anna G. Menshikova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Position Errors ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Official Position ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The authors in the article consider the problems of establishing the qualifying feature use of official position when committing fraud. Based on the analysis of the doctrine of criminal law, clarifications of the highest court, materials of specific judicial practice, a circle of subjects related to persons using their official position is determined, as well as the procedure and mechanism for using official position in fraud. According to the results of the study, it is proposed to include in the current resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation On judicial practice in cases of fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement additional clarifications that reveal the understanding of the content of the sign use of official position. The authors propose to expand the understanding of the subject of official fraud. Such provisions will promote uniformity in law enforcement and helpavoid qualifying fraud using official position errors.

scholarly journals Features of informatization of the criminal process in the context of the pandemic: New challenges

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 544-554
Author(s):  
Evgenii V. Smakhtin ◽  
◽  
Irina G. Smirnova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Digital Data ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Coronavirus Infection ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article analyses the features of the application of the current criminal procedural legislation in practice in the context of the new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) after recognizing it as a disease that poses a danger to others, the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of April 08, 2020 and Reviews on certain issues of judicial practice related to the application of legislation and measures to counter the spread of the new coronavirus infection in the Russian Federation of April 21, 2020 and April 30, 2020. However, the difficulties that have arisen in law enforcement practice, also assessed in the article, indicate that criminal procedural legislation will be adjusted in the near future since the number of Decisions of the Presidium and the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are not sufficient to eliminate ambiguities and contradictions in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. In particular, the article reflects such key problems as the emerging system of procedural decisions at the pre-trial and trial stages in a pandemic, the possibility of considering not only criminal cases but also case materials using videoconferencing systems as well as the prevailing and optimal understanding by law enforcement agencies of the category “urgency” of such consideration. The authors pay special attention to the absence in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation of the concepts introduced by paragraph “m” Art. 7 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation such as “information technologies” and “digital data turnover”. The results of the study make it possible to formulate proposals for improving criminal procedural regulation in terms of the described problems.

scholarly journals The Perpetrator of the Crime in Complicity and without Complicity: A Universal Role in the Diversity of Legal Constructions

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 107-122
Author(s):  
D. M. Molchanov
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Main Element ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Sense

A comprehensive study of the perpetrator’s role leads to the following conclusions: “perpetrator of the crime” is a universal term used to describe an act that constitutes an objective element of the crime committed both in complicity and without complicity. Four alternatives to the actions of the perpetrator exist: executor who performed the objective element alone, an accomplice who performed the objective element with other accomplices, an indirect perpetrator, an indirect accomplice. Other ways to qualify person’s act as a perpetrator are based not on the law, but on the recommendations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation that de facto acquired the status of the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (joint participation in the organized group, joint participation in a crime with “technical distribution of roles”). The main element of the act of the perpetrator includes the fulfillment of the objective element described in the disposition of the article of the Special Part. The content of the objective element of a particular crime does not depend on the existence of complicity, hence the term “perpetrator” is applicable to any crime and has a universal value. It is impractical to describe in the law the same acts in different terms. “Technical distribution of roles” is a doctrinal term. Its content is disclosed in some resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF. Extensive interpretation of the term “perpetrator” in crimes with “technical distribution of roles” is a forced measure on the part of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, since the term “the group of persons in conspiracy” is interpreted restrictively. This interpretation complicates the application of the criminal law and does not allow us to adequately assess the greater risk of crimes committed in complicity. The term “technical distribution of roles” does not have a universal (acknowledged) interpretation in jurisprudence, which also makes it difficult to apply the law. Joint participation in a legal sense in crimes committed by an organized group is a construct that is not based on law applied to crimes with a special subject, which contradicts part 4, Art. 34 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals The Concept of Freedom of Enterprise Through the Prism of Criminal Law Characteristics of Fraud

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-299
Author(s):  
Yekaterina Yakimova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Entrepreneurial Activities

The research of issues connected with the analysis of business risks is relevant because of the problem of qualifying the actions of entrepreneurs under the fraud-related Articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Besides, the development of technologies increases the number of frauds in the digital environment, which makes it necessary to determine key features of fraudulent actions connected with the changes in the economic organization of the society connected with the digital transformation of some branches of the world economy in general and Russian economy in particular, of the social sphere, and of the specifics of public administration of some areas of life. The responsiveness of lawmakers manifested in amending a group of Articles in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation regarding the legal characteristics of fraud, shows that there are some problems in the legislative regulation of this sphere. The author believes that they are caused by an attempt to assess the degree of freedom of enterprise and the degree of involvement of each side of legal relations in the risk of investment. The analysis of legislation, the law enforcement practice, statistical data give reason to believe that most of the problems of legislative understanding of fraud in entrepreneurship are not connected with contradictions in the legal regulation, but rather with the drawbacks of the law enforcement practice, the prevalence of repressive methodology in classifying the actions of entrepreneurs and the inner conviction of the law enforcement employees that entrepreneurs intentionally strive to obtain negative results in any, and primarily entrepreneurial, activities. The author argues that further improvement of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation will not yield any tangible results, which testifies to a considerable transformation of the fraud-related Articles in the last 15 years. Changes in the practice of enforcement of the criminal law’s articles regarding fraud are only possible after the principles of such work are worked out by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, who at present pays much attention to this issue, although some clauses of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation require further analysis and improvement.

scholarly journals Malfeasances: features of law enforcement.

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-337
Author(s):  
M.P. Pronina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Assessment ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article deals with the problems of law enforcement in the group of malfeasances. Official crimes are most dangerous due to the fact that they undermine the prestige of the authorities and directly violate the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations. In this regard the legislator has established criminal liability for officials who abuse their functional duties. In particular the author studies the problems of qualification arising in the legal assessment of crimes enshrined in Ch. 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, due to the highest level of their blanketness and evaluativeness. Examples of judicial and investigative practice on competition issues of general and special rules are given. Difficulties are revealed in the legal assessment of the actions of officials when determining the signs of abuse of office, enshrined in Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Arguments are presented that are a clear demonstration of the fact that the solution to the identified problems of applying the norms of the criminal law lies in the plane of reducing the level of conflict of laws of criminal legislation. Practical proposals are being made to include amendments to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 09.07.2013 No. 24 “On judicial practice in cases of bribery and other corruption crimes” (clause 12.1) and Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 16.10.2009 No. 19 “On judicial practice in cases of abuse of office and abuse of office” (p. 21.1). The solution of the stated problems in the field of application of the norms of the criminal law consists in the development of a uniform practice of application of the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, reduction of the level of gaps in criminal legislation, the development of methodological and scientific recommendations with the participation of law enforcement officials and scientists, the preparation of draft laws and plenums of the Supreme Court aimed at elimination of gaps and gaps.

scholarly journals Implementation of the Doctrine of Good Faith (Bona Fides) in Corporate Legal Relations

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (12) ◽  
pp. 70-80
Author(s):  
Yu. V. Brisov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Corporate Ethics ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

Good faith (bona fides) is presented in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as a general principle and presumption. In resolving corporate disputes, the courts are governed by general principles of good faith. However, corporate relations have a specificity due to, inter alia, the variety of corporate forms. It can be assumed that the application of good faith provisions should also vary taking into account the characteristics of corporate patterns, the types and forms of corporate relations, subjective internal corporate circumstances. Common law countries have developed a system of good faith elements and special tests to apply the required requirement of good faith according to the context. A special place is given to fiduciary relations as a product of bona fides. The author has carried out a comparative analysis of the provisions of the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the law enforcement practice of Germany, the USA, Great Britain and Canada on the issues of good faith in the consideration of corporate disputes. Special attention is paid to the interrelation between corporate ethics and law. Examining a number of key cases from the law-enforcement practice of the courts of the Anglo-American system of law, the author substantiates the possibility of applying special tests, namely, objective and subjective good faith tests, to regulate matters related to the application of the rules of good faith from the Civil Code and special laws in dealing with corporate disputes. Special attention is paid to the role of courts and permissible discretion in the formation of standards of enforcement of blanket norms and general principles of law in corporate relations.

scholarly journals SURROGACY: ON THE CONFLICT OF LEGAL POSITIONS IN THE POSTMODERN STYLE

2021 ◽  
pp. 16-23
Author(s):  
Надежда Николаевна Тарусина
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Surrogate Motherhood ◽  
Surrogate Mother ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Medical Legislation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Genetic Parents

В статье рассматриваются вопросы, обусловленные противоречивыми подходами российского законодателя и российских судов к институту суррогатного материнства, в той его части, которая фиксирует статусы суррогатной матери и генетических родителей относительно судьбы ребенка, рожденного в результате их участия в соответствующей программе. Предлагается анализ двух определений Конституционного Суда РФ, трех особых мнений судей данного Суда и постановлений Верховного Суда РФ по данному вопросу. Констатируется наличие явной коллизии этих правовых позиций. Выражается надежда на снятие означенной коллизии и, главное, на справедливую корректировку норм семейного и медицинского законодательства, посвященных этой проблеме. The article examines the issues caused by the conflicting approaches of the Russian legislator and Russian courts to the institution of surrogate motherhood, in that part of it, which fixes the status of a surrogate mother and genetic parents regarding the fate of a child born as a result of their participation in the corresponding program. An analysis of two definitions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, three dissenting opinions of the judges of this Court and the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on this issue is offered. The presence of a clear conflict of these legal positions is stated. Take hope on expressed for the elimination of the aforementioned conflict and, most importantly, for a fair adjustment of the norms of family and medical legislation dedicated to this problem.

scholarly journals Court’s modification of category of gravity of the committed offence and implementation of compulsory measures set by the Article 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: problems of theory, legislative regulation, and law enforcement

2021 ◽  
pp. 59-84
Author(s):  
Kirill Igorevich Nagornov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Closed Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Scientific Doctrine

Leaning on the analysis of the provisions of current legislation, clarification of the supreme judicial authority, scientific doctrine, case law materials and statistics, this article explores the implementation of compulsory measures set by the Article 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, after court’s modification of the category of gravity of the committed offence in accordance with the Part 6 of the Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The goal of this research lies in assessment from the perspective of the theory of criminal law of such specific procedure for implementation of disciplinary compulsory measures and herding to closed-type special institution, as well as identification of possible flaws and contradictions that may cause problems and ambiguous decisions in law enforcement practice. Attention is given to the existing contradictions between the provisions of criminal law and criminal procedure law, explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as well as legislative gaps and problems emerging in law enforcement practice in the context of provision set by the Article 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in accordance with the Part 6 of Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Taking into account the sequence, grounds and conditions established by the legislator in the Part 6 of the Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the use of the latter, the conclusion is made on impossibility to apply compulsory educational measures in line with this norm. The article also substantiates the position infeasibility of preliminary imposition of penalty (de lege ferenda) on release of such with implementation of compulsory measures set by Part 1 and 2 of the Article 92 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author also offers to supplement and rectify certain provisions of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10 of May 15, 2018.

Hearing of Cases about Indemnification, Caused to the Environment: Procedural Questions ofJudicial Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 48-58
Author(s):  
M. A. Fokina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Research Gaps ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

Research objective is the analysis of practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on cases of indemnification caused to the environment. Proceeding their concepts of integrative right understanding the author reveals the importance of legal positions of the supreme judicial authorities for law-enforcement practice of inferior courts by hearing of cases about indemnification, caused to the environment. During the research gaps in the current legislation and ways of their completion in judicial practice are revealed. Methods. As methods of a research the legallistic method, synthesis, the analysis, induction, deduction were used. Results. The research showed certain shortcomings and gaps of legal regulation of an order of the indemnification caused the environment. Legal positions of the supreme courts which allowed to meet lacks and shortcomings of the legislation are revealed and analysed and to provide appropriate protection of the rights of citizens and legal entities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document