Suchergebnisse

The subject of the research is the additional powers of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in relation to cassation and supervisory complaints.The purpose of the article is to substantiate the necessity or redundancy of certain additional powers of the Chairman of the Russian Supreme Court taking into account the nature of such powers and the conditions for their application.The methodology. Analysis and synthesis, dialectical method as well as formal legal interpretation of Russian legislative acts and judicial practice of Russian Supreme Court were used.The main results. Since the transformation of the three-tier supervisory proceedings into a system of two cassation and one supervisory instance, as well as the liquidation of the Supreme Arbitration Court, the powers of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation have spread to a fairly wide range of relations that allow influencing the movement of the case in the cassation and supervisory instance, and on itself initiation of a case in a supervisory instance. Moreover, such activities are far from always regulated by the norms of the law.The Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (or his deputy) currently has leverage over the possibility of considering a case in the cassation instance of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court) and in the supervisory instance (Presidium of the Supreme Court). These possibilities are called control and substitute in the article. Control powers should include: 1) regulation of key deadlines in cassation and supervisory proceedings; 2) interference in the procedure for filtering complaints. The procedure and conditions for the use of these powers are not regulated in the procedural codes. Having such powers in relation to procedural terms, the President of the Supreme Court actually influences the very possibility of initiating a case in a court of cassation or supervisory instance, as well as the duration (and, accordingly, the quality) of the examination of the complaint. The intervention of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the procedure for filtering complaints has a clearly pronounced discretionary nature, moreover, it is selective. It would not be superfluous to point out that such as "order" in itself creates conditions for its abuse both by the participants in the case and by the courts. The substitute authority is the right of the Chairman of the Supreme Court to initiate supervisory proceedings on his own initiative, contrary to the basic rule of civil proceedings based on the principle of discretion (the case is initiated by the person whose rights have been violated). Supervisory proceedings are currently intended to appeal against judicial acts adopted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation itself when considering cases in the first, appeal and cassation instances. However, among the objects of appeal there are also acts of the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court, applications to which are possible with complaints against acts of any lower courts, with some restrictions on the decisions of justices of the peace (Article 390.4 of the Civil Procedure Code; Article 291.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Court). In this regard, the supervisory authority must continue to be viewed as the final link in the system of reviewing judicial acts. However, the system for reviewing judicial acts is very contradictory. On the one hand, there are a number of strict rules that cut off certain types of judicial acts from appeal; filtering complaints in the second cassation and supervision; establishing special rules for the jurisdiction of complaints. On the other hand, it is possible not to comply with these strict rules and directly contact the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.This extraordinary power of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has been preserved, precisely because the Russian legislator firmly and consistently adheres to the conviction that it is necessary to leave at least one official who is not a party to the case the right to initiate an audit of a judicial act.Conclusions. The extraordinary powers of the Chairman of the Supreme Court are of an extra-procedural nature, at best they are based on the rules of record keeping (instead of the law), are selective and opaque. ; Анализируются некоторые особенности кассационного и надзорного производств в цивилистическом процессе, связанные с возможностью Председателя Верховного Суда РФ (или его заместителя) влиять на движение дела в кассационной (Судебной коллегии) и надзорной (Президиуме) инстанциях Верховного Суда РФ. Среди этих возможностей выделяются контрольные (принятие решения по сроку подачи жалобы; контроль за отказными определениями) и замещающее – возбуждение надзорного производства на основании собственного представления. Обосновываются приемлемость, при надлежащем правовом регулировании, контрольных полномочий и неприемлемость права Председателя ВС на возбуждение надзорного производства.

The subject. The paper deals with the procedural issues of imposition of administrative sanctions by the courts.The purpose of the paper is to identify how the form of proceedings impacts on the rights and obligations of administrative trial participants.Methodology. The author uses the methods of analysis and synthesis, as well as dialectic approach. The formal-legal interpretation of the Code of Administrative Offences, the Code of Administrative Proceedings, the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and is also used.The main results and scope of their application. The rules of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation are "average" according to their nature, they are designed for application by a lot of authorities competent to impose administrative sanctions.The focus of the rules of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation is to regulate the procedure for imposition of administrative sanctions and to define the punishment for an administrative offense. Therefore, the civil procedural form is not applicable here and the rules of the Civil Procedure Code and Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Russian Federation shouldn't be used."Procedural form" in cases of administrative offenses considered by arbitration courts is mainly represented by the rules of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation. The accused person can receive a little from actually judicial (civil) procedural form.The serious contradictions of the Code of Administrative Offences with the rules of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation couldn't be seen, on the one hand, but, on the other hand, the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation have a different focus. The results of research may be used as the basis of correction of Code of Administrative Offences, the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and may also inspire new researches concerning procedural issues of imposition of administrative sanctions by the courts.Conclusions. Participants in simplified administrative proceedings fall into a double trap: they are initially deprived of guarantees of procedural form due to the predominance of the rules of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and are again deprived of the "remains" of procedural form because of using the simplified proceedings. Empowering the courts with the authority of administrative jurisdiction does not correspond to the current trends in the development of legislation. ; Обсуждаются вопросы рассмотрения судами дел о привлечении к административной ответственности. Рассматривается соотношение норм административного и процессу-ального законодательства. Обосновывается влияние процессуальной формы на дела о привлечении к административной ответственности. Делается вывод, что наделение судов полномочиями органа, привлекающего к административной ответственности, не соответствует современным тенденциям развития законодательства.

УДК 347.9The purpose of the article – a critical analysis of the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the justification, through the analysis of the ECtHR practice and scientific work on execution of the ECtHR judgments, about the coordination of positions of national courts and the supranational body.The methodological basis for the study: general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, comparison); private and academic (interpretation, comparative legal, formal-legal).Problems and basic scientific results:The issue of implementation of the Human Rights Court decisions at the national level oc-curs when the compensation is not enough to eliminate the revealed violations. Russian legislator opted for the situation of Human Rights by the European Court finding a violation of the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the consideration by the court of a particular case, in connection with the decision by which the applicant applied to the ECtHR mechanism for review of the decision on the new circumstances. Supreme Court puts forward three conditions for the implementation of the revi-sion of the judicial act on a national level, which should be available at the same time: 1) the continuous nature of the adverse effects; 2) the existence of violations of the Convention or gross procedural violations; 3) a causal link between the breach and the consequences.The author point out that the regulation of possible conflicts between the Convention and national legislation is based on cooperation (not confrontation) States and the European Court of Human Rights. Such practice of cooperation based on the principles of subsidiarity (addition to national rights protection system); evolutionary interpretation of the Convention (which implies flexibility, and accounting for changes in public relations); Judges dialogue and to develop advisory opinions. Consequently, the task of the Constitutional Court can not be default search options, on the contrary, its task – to determine exactly how, taking into account the differences in the legislation, the decision will be enforced. Failure, as well as the improper execution of judgments of the ECtHR may involve the establishment of a new violation of the provisions of the Convention and sanctions against violators. ; УДК 347.9Автор рассматривает порядок реализации постановлений Европейского Суда по правам человека через возможность пересмотра решения российского суда по новым обстоятельствам. В качестве нового обстоятельства рассматривается признание Европейским Судом по правам человека нарушения положений Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод при рассмотрении судом конкретного дела, в связи с принятием решения по которому заявитель обращался в ЕСПЧ. Конституционный Суд РФ полагает, что суды Российской Федерации обязаны обращаться в КС всякий раз, когда при пересмотре дела по новым обстоятельствам приходят к выводу, что вопрос о возможности применения соответствующего закона может быть решен только после подтверждения его соответствия Конституции РФ.

УДК 342.951+347.999This informational introductory article is devoted to the peculiarities of the procedure of creation of the arbitration institution according to the new 2015 Federal Law "On arbitration (arbitration proceedings)". The aim of the article is the identification of the new law preconditions to the emergence of administrative barriers in the establishment of arbitral institutions. The study is based on methods of formal law, analysis and synthesis, the sociological method of survey is also used. The results and scope of the results. The article notes the objective difficulties in the establishment of arbitration institutions as well as provides a critical analysis of the innovations in 2015 Federal Law "On arbitration (arbitration proceedings) in the Russian Federation". The procedure for creating the arbitration courts became more bureaucratic and it is focused on filtering such institutions by tightening the requirements. The procedure for creating the arbitration courts can be described as permissive and multi-stage. The second noticeable trend in the 2015 Federal Law is broad sphere of control over arbitration courts and substitution of their competence by a competent court. According to the results of a survey of representatives of the business community authors identify the legislative background of administrative barriers on a way of establishment of arbitration courts. The results of the study can be used in the improvement of legislative procedures for the estab-lishment of arbitration courts. Conclusions. New Law actually creates a "quasi-judicial" bodies, that have highest level of bureaucratization, so arbitration courts lose their main characteristics: contractual and dispositive principles. Novels of Law, aimed at stricter administration and control, are obvious, however, a new quality for arbitration as the most popular form of alternative dispute resolution is still not created. ; УДК 342.951+347.999Вступительная статья информационного характера посвящена особенностям процедуры создания арбитражного учреждения согласно новому Федеральному закону от 29 декабря 2015 г. № 382-ФЗ «Об арбитраже (третейском разбирательстве) в Российской Федерации». Отмечаются трудности объективного характера при создании арбитражных учреждений, проводится критический анализ нововведений закона о создании третейских судов.