scholarly journals The investigator as an independent subject of criminal prosecution in cases of terrorist crimes

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (Especial II) ◽  
pp. 328-336
Author(s):  
Alexander Yurevich Epihin ◽  
Oleg Aleksandrovich Zaitsev ◽  
Zyufyar Shakirovich Gataullin ◽  
Larisa Gennadyevna Tatyanina ◽  
Andrey Viktorovich Mishin
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Optimal Resolution ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Chief Prosecutor

This article aims to study the theory and practice of criminal prosecution of terrorist crimes in the Russian Federation. Most of the scientific work is mainly devoted to the study of criminal law and the criminological aspects of the fight against such criminal activities. It is therefore of particular importance to identify the problems of legal regulation of the investigator's activities in order to prosecute criminal offences and develop proposals for their optimal resolution. Cognitionic methods include: an anthropological, synthesis, statistics, partner, particular, systemic structural, legal modeling. In the Russian federation the prosecutor has judicial supervision in the criminal proceedings. Everything concludes that Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 87-87-05.06.2007 redistributed control of the criminal proceedings by the investigator of the corporation a series of substantive rights of the chief prosecutor of the investigating body. In this sense, the optimal proportion of departmental control and tax supervision of the investigator, such as the establishment of a reasonable balance of these powers of control and supervision, increases the effectiveness of criminal prosecution of terrorism offences.

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 The right of Police officers and the Criminal-executive system to use firearms: some issues of theory and practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 136-143
Author(s):  
A. А. Alimov ◽  
◽  
S. A. Yunusov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Penal System ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Executive System ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the analysis of the Federal Law «On the Police» and the law of the Russian Federation «On Institutions and Bodies Executing Criminal Sentences in the Form of Imprisonment», which empowers the police and the penal system with the right to use firearms. Possible problems of the implementation of the provisions of the legislation are identified, specific measures are proposed to improve the efficiency of legal regulation of the use of firearms by police officers and the penal system

scholarly journals Current problems of the institute of extradition in modern criminal proceedings Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
pp. 126-135
Author(s):  
S. V. Matveev ◽  
S. M. Kolotova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
The Russian Federation

The Institute of extradition is one of the most important areas of international cooperation in the fight against crime, since this tool ensures the achievement of the fundamental principles of the criminal process, which include: the restoration of the rights of the victim violated by the crime, the application of fair punishment to the criminal, despite the differences in the legal regulation of this issue in the jurisdiction of different States. However, should the legal regulation currently, this institution does not have, and therefore the activities of law enforcement agencies in this part cause certain difficulties.The article analyzes some features of the legal regulation of the institution of extradition in the criminal process of the Russian Federation, identifies current problems of theory and practice of application. In addition, the author suggests ways to solve the problems of legal regulation of this institution. Attention is focused on the need to make changes not only to the legislative framework, but also to modernize the extradition mechanism itself. In addition, the current issues that arise in the course of the extradition procedure, both at the request of the Russian Federation and foreign States, are considered. 

scholarly journals Discretionary Model of Legal Regulation of a Criminal Case and Criminal Prosecution Termination: Pro et Contra

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. 214-222
Author(s):  
G. N. Kucherov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Enforcement Officer ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Law Enforcement Officer ◽  
The Law

The paper discusses the issues of choosing the most effective model of criminal proceedings termination, analyzes the proposed in the scientific literature model of refusal of the discretion of the law enforcement officer when making an appropriate procedural decision. The author, based on the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, studies the relationship between the principle of justice and the legality of procedural decisions to terminate a criminal case and criminal prosecution. The author concludes that the discretionary model of legal regulation of a criminal case and criminal prosecution termination is an effective means of achieving the purpose of criminal proceedings, allowing the law enforcement officer to make a fair decision, given the nature, degree of social danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission, information about the identity of the person who committed the crime. Refusal of the discretion of the law enforcement officer in the matter of terminating a criminal case will not only not contribute to the humanization of legislation, but will mark the victory of formalism over justice in criminal proceedings.

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.

scholarly journals SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE IN CRIMINAL CASES: LEGISLATIVE, DOCTRINAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-166
Author(s):  
O. S. Pashutina ◽  
I. N. Chebotareva
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Forensic Expertise ◽  
Special Knowledge ◽  
The Russian Federation

A counsel at law has broad advocacy authority to use specialized knowledge in criminal proceedings, which is one of the hallmarks of the adversarial process, in which the officials conducting criminal proceedings are confronted by a defense endowed with all legal arrangements to adjudicate the rights and legitimate interests of the suspected offenders and accused. The paper discusses procedural and non-procedural possibilities for a counsel at law to use the special knowledge in criminal proceedings through forensic expertise and the involvement of a specialist in that field. The author explains why activities of the counsel at law and of these two specialists in criminal cases are inextricably linked and mutually refer to each other. A counsel at law realizes his rights to participate in forensic expertise asking a specialist for help when appointing a forensic expertise, analyzing the expert's conclusion, applying for an additional or repeated expertise and summoning an expert to give evidence. Violation of the counsel at law rights in the process of the forensic expertise may be grounds for the recognition of the evidence inadmissible and cancel the procedural decision. The authors analyze a legal regulation of the counsel’s at law procedural possibilities on participating in a forensic expertise and on involving a specialist, taking into account changes in the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced by Federal Law No. 73-FZ of April 17, 2017. The authors also summarize the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on problem issues arising in the process of implementation by the counsel’s at law rights granted by law. The article reveals ambiguity of the existing law enforcement practice and contradictory positions worked out by the highest judicial instances.

scholarly journals Public Prosecutor’s Inspection as a Guarantee of Compliance with the Law during Initiation of Criminal Proceedings

2017 ◽  
pp. 41-45
Keyword(s):  
Significant Role ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Primary Method ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Compliance With The Law

The author states that the stage of initiation of criminal proceedings must serve as a barrier for unjustified criminal prosecution. It means that a significant role on this stage belongs to prosecutors. The primary method of enforcing the law is prosecutors’ inspection. However, a lack of appropriate legal regulation of prosecutors’ supervision in the Russian legislation on criminal procedure prevents effective application of prosecutors’ powers. A lack of systematic regulation of prosecutors’ inspection, legislative gaps and collisions result in significant inefficiency of the prosecutors’ supervision. The article sets out the results of the surveys conducted by the author among the employees of prosecutor’s offices. The majority of respondents found it necessary to define the «prosecutor’s inspection on compliance with law» in the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. Also it is essential that the reasons, motives and limits of prosecutors’ inspection in the stage of initiation of criminal proceedings are defined in the legislation.

Public hearings as an institution of deliberative democracy in major Russian and American cities

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
The Russian Federation

Currently, public hearings are one of the most widespread forms of deliberative municipal democracy in Russia. This high level of demand, combined with critique of legal regulations and the practices for bringing this system to reality – justified, in the meantime, by its development (for example, by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and the Public Chambers of the Russian Federation) of proposals for the correction of corresponding elements of the legal code – make both the study of Russian experiences in this sphere and comparative studies of legal regulations and practical usage of public hearings in Russia and abroad extremely relevant. This article is an attempt to make a contribution to this field of scientific study. If the appearance of public hearings in Russia as an institution of Russian municipal law is connected with the passing of the Federal Law of 6 October 2003 No.131-FZ, “On the general organisational principles of local government in the Russian Federation,” then in the United States, this institution has existed since the beginning of the 20th century, with mass adoption beginning in the 1960s. In this time, the United States has accumulated significant practical experience in the use of public hearings and their legal formulation. Both countries are large federal states, with their own regional specifics and diversity, the presence of three levels of public authority and different principles of federalism, which cause differences in the legal regulation of municipal public hearings. For this reason, this article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of Russian and American experiences of legal regulation and practical use of public hearings, on the example of several major municipalities – the cities of Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh and New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. A comparison of laws influencing the public hearing processes in these cities is advisable, given the colossal growth in the role of city centers in the industrial and post-industrial eras. Cities in particular are the primary centers for economic growth, the spread of innovations, progressive public policy and the living environment for the majority of both Russian and American citizens. The cities under research are one of the largest municipalities in the two countries by population, and on such a scale, the problem of involving residents in solving local issues is especially acute. In this context, improving traditional institutions of public participation is a timely challenge for the legislator, and the experiences of these cities are worth describing. The unique Russian context for legal regulations of public hearings involves the combination of overarching federal law and specific municipal decrees that regulate the hearing process. There are usually two municipal acts regulating public hearings on general issues of the city district (charter, budget, etc.) and separately on urban planning. In the United States, the primary regulation of public hearings is assigned to the state and municipality level, with a whole series of corresponding laws and statutes; meanwhile, methodological recommendations play a specific role in the organisation of hearings, which are issued by the state department of a given state. It is proposed that regulating the corresponding relationships at the federal subject level will permit a combination of the best practices of legal administration with local nuances, thereby reinforcing the guarantee of the realization of civil rights to self-government. There are other features in the process of organizing and conducting public hearings in the United States, which, as shown in the article, can be perceived by Russian lawmakers as well in order to create an updated construct of public discussions at the local level.

Experimental legislation: some conceptual approaches to explanation

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 16-23
Author(s):  
MIKHAIL DEGTYAREV ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Species Diversity ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Experimental Approach ◽  
Thought Experiment ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Goals And Objectives ◽  
Law Making

In connection with the adoption of the Federal Law of July 31, 2020 No. 258-FZ “On Experimental Legal Regimes in the Field of Digital Innovations in the Russian Federation” and of the Federal Law of July 31, 2020 No. 247-FZ “On Mandatory Requirements in the Russian Federation” (Article 13 “Experimental legal regime”) the topic of experimental legislation was updated. The article is devoted to the application of the experimental approach in legal regulation. The author reveals the essence of the concept of experimental legislation, explains the goals and objectives of using the appropriate technologies. The author notes that although in a broad sense it can be said that the adoption of any new law is in itself an experiment, there are still significant differences within the experimental law. The author sets out the essential features of a legislative experiment. The article examines the reasons for the need and prerequisites for the rationality of the use of experimental legislation. The author shows the nature of legislative experimentation and the merits of this toolkit. The author shows the areas of relevant application of the method of experimental legislation. The species diversity of methods of experimental regulatory regulation is indicated. The article compares the method of practical experimental legislation and the method of thought experiment in norm-writing and law- making activities. The article compares the method of practical experimental legislation and the method of digital duplicate-models of legislative acts. The author substantiates the existence of limits of applicability of the method of experimental legislation and demonstrates selected technologies of experimental legislation. In conclusion, the author turns to the complex and controversial problems of using the method of experimental legislation.

Harmonization of the Russian Federation Legislation with Current International Recommendations

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 111-115
Author(s):  
O. Kochetkov ◽  
V. Klochkov ◽  
A. Samoylov ◽  
N. Shandala
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Radiation Safety ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Safety Standards ◽  
Legal Documents ◽  
Article Analysis ◽  
The Russian Federation

Purpose: Harmonization of the Russian Federation legislation with current international recommendations Results: The concept of the radiation safety system has been significantly modified by recommendations of ICRP (2007) and IAEA (2014). An analysis of existing international regulatory framework for radiation safety allowed to identify the main provisions to be implemented in the Russian legal and regulatory framework. It’s showed that the current Federal Law of 09.01.1996 No. 3-FZ «On Radiation Safety of Population» must be ultimately revised to be harmonized with international documents. General approaches to legal regulation of radiation safety should be essentially modified to create a strong relationship between this law and other regulatory and legal documents in force in the Russian Federation. Conclusion: An article-by-article analysis of the current Federal Law of 09.01.1996 No. 3-FZ «On Radiation Safety of Population « showed the need to modify 22 existing articles and add 12 new articles in order to harmonize it with international documents. Given such a large volume of modification it is advisable to pass a new law with simultaneous abolition of the current federal law. A new name has been proposed: Federal Law of the Russian Federation «On Radiation Safety in the Russian Federation». The enactment of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation «On Radiation Safety in the Russian Federation» with the main by-laws approved by the Russian Federation Government – «Radiation Safety Standards» and «Basic Rules for Ensuring Radiation Safety» – will allow to establish an actual regulatory framework for ensuring radiation safety of personnel and population in Russia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document