Suchergebnisse

The subject. The article examines the refraction of the doctrine of legal procedure in relation to the activities of parliament.The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that parliamentary procedure is the kind of legal procedureThe methodology. The author uses formal legal interpretation of Russian legislative acts and decisions of Russian Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights as well as such general scientific methods as analysis, synthesis, systemic approachThe main results, scope of application. The author draws attention to the fact that at the present stage of the development of the theory of law, it can be stated that procedural social relations have developed in the parliamentary bureaucracy, which are not only regulated, but must also be regulated by procedural norms, which confirms the conclusions of the authors of a "broad" approach to the theory of legal process. However, there will be a window of opportunity for the supporters of the "narrow" approach in the parliamentary process. In accordance with the conclusions of the ECHR and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which have prerequisites even in the works of Montesquieu, the parliament, as a body with jurisdictional powers, must comply with the appropriate procedure in their implementation. Hence, the author deduces the tasks of further improving both the doctrine of parliamentary procedure and the need for clear and competent regulation of legal procedures in parliament, the ultimate goal of which is to observe and implement the rights, freedoms and constitutional guarantees of participants in the parliamentary process.Conclusions. The procedures governing the work of the Parliament and its organs are legal procedures in the broad sense of the term. This does not negate the understanding that the legal procedures of the parliament, corresponding to its quasi-judicial powers, has the nature of the jurisdictional process. This conclusion is consistently confirmed in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. ; Рассматривается преломление учения о юридической процедуре применительно к деятельности парламента. Внимание заостряется на том, что на современном этапе развития теории права можно констатировать, что сложились процессуальные общественные отношения в парламентской бюрократии, которые должны быть урегулированы процессуальными нормами, что подтверждает выводы авторов «широкого» подхода к теории юридического процесса. Однако и для сторонников «узкого» подхода в парламентском процессе найдется окно возможностей. В соответствии с выводами ЕСПЧ и Конституционного Суда РФ, имеющими предпосылки еще в работах Монтескье, парламент как орган, обладающий юрисдикционными полномочиями, – должен при их реализации соблюдать соответствующую процедуру. Отсюда выводятся задачи как дальнейшего совершенствования учения о парламентской процедуре, так и четкого и грамотного регулирования юридических процедур в парламенте, конечной целью которых является соблюдение и реализация прав, свобод и конституционных гарантий участников парламентского процесса.

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 current research direction is the Institute of Alternative Dispute Resolution procedures, many of which have existed in theory and practice for many centuries, others have appeared and have found their consolidation in the legislation of the Russian Federation relatively recently. The subject of the study of this article is the procedure of mediation, as an alternative way of resolving disputed issues. The study is to analyze the extent of the legislative settlement of the mediation procedure, as well as its application in everyday life. Thus, this article discusses the actual problems of using the procedure of mediation, the features of the Federal Law N193-FZ "On the Alternative Procedure for Settlement of Disputes with the Participation of Mediators (Mediation Procedure)", the ways of solving actual problems in practice.

The article provides a transdisciplinary analysis of mediation as an alternative conflict resolution procedure under the realities of modern Russian society. The brief review of modern scientific research conducted in the article allowed us to make a comparative analysis between different methods of conflict resolution, to consider the reasons for the greater public popularity of dispute resolution through the system of state coercion and the less popular alternative procedure – mediation. At the same time, we analyze the new alternative procedure − involving a judicial conciliator in the resolution of a dispute. It is shown that the participation of a judicial conciliator in conflict resolution is new in law, and, consequently, in the sociocultural system of Russian society.

Historically, English criminal procedure is characterised by the role of private prosecution, which allowed each person to bring charges against any other person. A relic of the Middle Ages, it has nevertheless survived successfully to the present day, although it has undergone a number of significant transformations. Its remarkable resilience, despite its inability to serve as a fullfledged instrument of Crown criminal policy, is due to the fact that the ancient procedural form is constantly emerging with new uses. In the twentieth century there was a growing demand for it by commercial and noncommercial organizations who needed an instrument for the proactive prosecution (in public or private interests). Continental critics, who had earlier protested against the introduction of the English model of private prosecution into the criminal procedure of Germany or France, raised many objections against it, but the English history has shown that their fears were baseless. At the same time, the development of public prosecutions in England has greatly reduced the space for private initiative. Most of the procedural advances, among them the increased accessibility of criminal justice, were due to the expansion of the state.

Автором анализируются современные проблемы российского гражданского (арбитражного) судопроизводства и процессуального права, которые носят интернациональный характер. Это связано с тем, что развитие права в современный период характеризуется сближением гражданского процессуального законодательства. Оно является предметом рецепции во многих государствах. В то же время, если законодательство сближается, то практика применения не имеет такой тенденции. Парадокс заключается в том, что в настоящее время граница различий одной процессуальной системы от другой лежит не в области законодательства или доктрины, а в основном – в сфере практики и правовой культуры и, того, что мы называем «духом закона». В этой новой ситуации в процессуальном праве особое значение приобретает обмен реальным юридическим опытом. Это означает, что мы, устремляя свои взоры на соответствующее законодательство, юридическую литературу, юридическую практику, должны сосредоточить свой анализ на деятельности законодательных органов, ведущих ученых, адвокатов и судей. Без усилий всего процессуального сообщества не могут получить адекватного отображения охарактеризованные в настоящей статье разрывы и изменения, и тем более не могут быть объективно определены смысл и направление реформирования российского гражданского процесса, протекающего в условиях глобализации и сближения законодательства разных стран. ; The author analyzes a number of modern challenges existing in the Russian civil (arbitration) procedure and Procedural Law, mostly bearing international character. It is connected with the fact that the development of law at present is characterized by the approximation of the civil procedural legislation, being the subject of reception in many states. At the same time, whereas legislation is being approximated, the practical application is out of this trend. The irony of the situation is that currently various procedural systems are differentiated not in the sphere of legislation or doctrine, but mostly in the sphere of practice and legal culture, and, moreover, of what one knows as the spirit of law. In the current situation the special significance in the procedural law is given to the exchange of the effective legal experience. This means that referring to certain legislation, legal sources and practice, one should analyze the activity of legislation bodies, prominent scholars, lawyers and judges. The gaps and changes in the legislation, touched upon in the present article, can not be properly comprehended without the efforts of the whole legal community, moreover, the essence of the reforms needed in the Russian civil procedure system can not be defined in an appropriate way.

The article considers the problem of state criminal law procedure and the quality of insertionof changes. The reason was the adoption in 2013 and 2014 annually 25 and 30 laws, respectively. The state of Criminal Procedure Law in 2015 and 2016 were subjected by the author to the analysis of сentral publications. This article is the analysis of the changes adopted in 2017, continues this tradition. During the past year 14 laws reforming the Code of Criminal Procedure were adopted, 4 decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation recognized that the criminal procedure rules are partially inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. During the entire period of its existence, the Code of Criminal Procedure has varied 222 laws and was corrected 27 the Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, and in general, 249 normative legal acts. The characteristic again of the changes is interesting: the way they are reasoned and consistent, if they improves the criminal procedure regulation, as well as the interests of citizens or agencies, if they do not produce any contradictions and gaps? It was noted that despite the trend towards stabilisation of the Criminal Procedural Law it remains highly unstable changing monthly 1.2 law. The promises of deputies to tighten the practice of amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure were not fulfilled no more than 1 time per year. The interests of agencies in lawmaking is dominated by almost 2 times above the interests of citizens. Inconsistencies, contradictions, omissions are continues to be. However, the legislator has chosen the right way for stabilization, although it is not consistent. Attention to the changes in criminal procedure legislation is lawful, but it must not be weakened. ; В статье рассматривается проблема состояния уголовно-процессуального законодательства и качество вносимых в него изменений. Причиной послужило принятие в 2013 и 2014 годах ежегодно 25 и 30 законов соответственно. Состояние уголовно-процессуального законотворчества в 2015 и 2016 годах подвергалось автором анализу в центральных изданиях. Данная статья с анализом изменений, принятых в 2017 году, продолжает эту традицию. В прошедшем году было принято 14 законов, изменяющих УПК РФ, 4 постановления Конституционного Суда РФ признали уголовно-процессуальные нормы частично не соответствующими Конституции РФ. Всего за время своего существования УПК РФ менялся 222 законами и корректировался 27 постановлениями Конституционного Суда РФ, а в целом 249 нормативно-правовыми актами. Представляет интерес характеристика вновь вносимых изменений: насколько они обоснованы и последовательны, улучшают ли они уголовно-процессуальное регулирование, отвечают ли интересам граждан или ведомств, не порождают ли противоречий и пробелов? Констатировано, что, несмотря на наметившуюся тенденцию к стабилизации уголовно-процессуального законодательства, оно продолжает оставаться в высокой степени нестабильным, меняясь ежемесячно 1,2 закона. Не оправдались обещания депутатов ужесточить практику внесения поправок в УПК не более 1 раза в год. Интересы ведомств в законотворчестве преобладают почти в 2 раза над интересами граждан. Продолжают иметь место непоследовательность, противоречивость, пробельность. Тем не менее законодатель избрал правильный путь на стабилизацию, хотя недостаточно последовательный. Внимание к изменениям уголовно-процессуального законодательства правомерно, оно не должно ослабевать.

The article analyzes the changes that have occurred in the criminal procedure legislation in 2018. This article is a logical continuation of a series of articles in which the author makes an annual analysis of the changes made in this branch of law in order to assess the effectiveness of the newly introduced criminal procedure regulation and its characteristics. The properties of hyperactive lawmaking are considered. It is stated that, despite the excessively large number of changes introduced into the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, it does not get better, and its repressiveness is increasing. It increases the number of flaws, which sometimes even causes some authors to talk about the adoption of a new Criminal Procedure Code. There is disagreement with this position and it is proposed that, if we do not introduce a moratorium on introducing amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, then we will drastically reduce them. Changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be made by a conjuncture hyperactive lawmaking, but by a thoughtful, fundamental, integrated approach with preliminary extensive discussion. As a model, it is proposed to consider the Criminal Procedure Code of France, where criminal procedure relations are described more fully and democratically. ; В статье анализируются изменения, произошедшие в уголовно-процессуальном законодательстве в 2018 году. Данная статья является логическим продолжением серии статей, в которых автор подвергает ежегодному анализу производимые изменения в этой отрасли права с целью оценить эффективность вновь вводимого уголовно-процессуального регулирования и его характеристик. Рассматриваются свойства гиперактивного законотворчества. Констатируется, что, несмотря на чрезмерно большое количество изменений, вводимых в УПК РФ, он не становится лучше, а его репрессивность усиливается. В нем увеличивается количество изъянов, что порой даже заставляет некоторых авторов говорить о принятии нового УПК. Высказывается несогласие с такой позицией и предлагается если уж не ввести мораторий на внесение изменений в УПК, то резко их сократить. Изменения в УПК следует вносить не конъюнктурным гиперактивным законотворчеством, а вдумчивым, фундаментальным, комплексным подходом с предварительным широким обсуждением. В качестве образца предлагается рассмотреть УПК Франции, где уголовно-процессуальные отношения изложены более полно и демократично.

Introduction. The issues of legal regulation of the accounting procedure for scientific research, experimental design and technological work for civil purposes (hereinafter — R&D, work) plays an important role in the implementation of governmental science & technological policy. Such accounting not only stimulates the identification and registration of rights to the results of intellectual activity (hereinafter referred to as RIA) created during the work — it also contributes to improving the quality of rights management for such RIAs, their commercialisation and their wider involvement in civil law turnover. It also creates conditions for accessing the effectiveness of budgetary expenditures for such work. In addition, the system for recording the results of R&D for civil purposes simplifies the implementation and administration of tax benefits associated with their performance. The aim of this study is to monitor current legislation for regulating civil R&D accounting procedures and to identify its shortcomings in order to determine further measures for improvement. Methods. The analytical research methods employed include systemic, structural, functional, specific and sociological, formal and legal, as well as technical and legal methods along with methods for interpreting legal rules. Results. The procedure for state registration of civil R&D projects carried out with federal budgetary funding is regulated by a set of regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation. The technical basis for accounting is the state information system for recording scientific research results, experimental design and technological work for civil purposes (hereinafter referred to as the System). This system is accessible online. A list of accounting objects, forms of sending information for accounting and the procedure for interacting with customers and project executioners from the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia in the implementation of accounting have been established. The information contained ...