The article deals with problems of interpretation of criminal legislation on liability for crimes against intellectual property rights provided for in Articles 146, 147, 180 and 183 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author attempts to explain the meaning of such terms as: misappropriation of authorship, causing major damage; repeated illegal use of trademark and warning label; theft of documents, containing trade secrets.
The article is devoted to the issues concerning the concept, essence and content of appellate procedure to be enacted as of January1, 2013. The article studies the development of this legal phenomenon and the problems of optimality as to its norm regulation in the RF legal procedure legislation. Analyzing new procedures, the author tries to understand the necessity to adapt the appeal procedure for the court decisions made at all the levels of Russian legal system.
Procedural mechanism of realization of the criminal proceeding in regard to persons falling under the particular order of production on criminal cases, provides for as component part and simultaneously method of providing of their inviolability the order of laying an action and bringing in of these persons complicated as compared to ordinary, as defendants on criminal cases. On this basis, the attempt of complex analysis of the most difficult and litigions questions, touching the criminal proceeding of persons for that he is initially intended, is undertaken in a publication. Authorial vision of possibilities of their decision is expounded in her, on a background a corresponding legal and theoretical ground. Complicating the general order of criminal trial, through introduction of additional duties and prohibitions for persons accountable for motion and end of production in criminal business, positions of the Russian Federation come forward, in opinion of author, as the extended judicial guarantees of inviolability of certain circle of the special subjects executing socially-meaningful functions. Not increasing the volume of their inviolability, they diminish possibility of her limitation, reducing, thus, the danger of realization of the groundless criminal proceeding. In spite of the fact that the list of the special subjects to the law is driven by exhaustive character, in part touching denotation of limits of their judicial immunity, the norms of ch.52 CPC of the Russian Federation carry blanket character, as his actual maintenance is different. An author considers on this basis, that accomplishing judicial actions and accepting statutory decisions a court, public prosecutor, leader of investigative agency, investigator, must take into account not only envisaged by CPC of the Russian Federation feature of production on criminal cases in regard to the separate categories of persons but also position of normative legal acts exposing their legal status, volume of plenary powers and limits of action of judicial immunity in a that kind, as they are envisaged in a branch legislation. Self legislation on that score, must consistently change in the river-bed of recommendations of International organization of CE «Group of States Against Corruption» (GRECO) speaking out in the report for reduction in him categories of persons to that the special procedure of bringing in of them spreads to criminal responsibility, and also for simplification of such procedure.
The work shows the legal significance of the forms of ownership for establishing the constitutional model of the modern economy, for ensuring the balance of private and public spheres of activity, supporting promising and traditional economic structures. Using the methods of interdisciplinary analysis, as well as the methods of the constitutional economy, special attention is paid to the disclosure of the socio-legal nature of public property. Based on the analysis of Russian legislation and the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the qualitative development of the legal content of public property is shown, and the independent regulatory significance of this institution is proved. In the past decade, through the public ownership of the legislator, the public lawfully forms public property, divides the property into different levels of power, connects the boundaries of its power over the objects of property with functions, powers of the authorities, the principle of special-purpose designation and the principle of the unity of nature of state and municipal property. There are a number of problems in regulating the issues of public property, including the need to develop more clear criteria for the delineation and redistribution of public property objects, the peculiarities of the regulation of certain property objects, especially the objects of the national (public) property. It is stated that the appearance of a significant amount of regulatory material on issues of public property requires its systematization and streamlining in a special federal law. The emergence of various quasi-public forms of property (formally private-law), through which the state significantly increases its presence in the economic life (for example, public-law companies), also belongs to the most important problems. These forms introduce an imbalance in the principles of freedom and equal legal protection of participants in economic activity, and are also economically less effective. In this regard, it is proposed to expand the understanding of public property by including in it the property that is under the direct actual control of the state. This will make it possible to justify the need for new legal criteria for determining state participation in the economic sphere.
Financial control in the public finance law doctrine is understood as a term that unites any control of national and local governments in financial sphere. This testifies to use of “the law branches approach” to understanding financial control, and the scientists put forward various positions for explain labelling of tax control, exchange control and supervision by the Bank of Russia, including control in the sphere of monetary circulation, as varieties of public financial control. This article proves the failure of the law branches approach use to financial control and suggests “the nature approach”. The closest study of financial control and its comparison with exchange control, tax control and banking supervision with respect to a subject-matter and objectives demonstrates their essential differences. Public financial control does not unite the various types of public control in the financial sphere, but is an independent type of control on a par with tax and exchange control. The differentiation between control and supervision is carried out, first of all, depending on inclusion into financial resources management. The case for audit as a type of financial control is unworkable. Study of the financial control framework allows us to confirm that financial control is a category not only of public law but also of private law and, first of all, financial control is carried out by an owner of financial resources as an interested person of law.
Article contains methodological analysis of improvements of professional training specialists in criminal justice. Author proposes problem approach towards various elements of criminal law.
The article is an attempt to formulate new approaches to define the essence and legal nature of working time. On the basis of the norms of the RFConstitution, Section Four ofthe RF Labour Code and foreign experience, the research has been tackled the concepts, content and types of working time. Some suggestions are made on improving legal regulation of working time.
The paper presents historical aspect of the development of elements of administrative justice in Russia. A wide historical period is studied beginning with the pre-revolutionary era and ending with the present stage. Besides, the paper analyzes historical and legal documents on the issues under consideration to generalize. The author points out that Russia has a rich experience of the institute of administrative justice. The history of the development of domestic legislation administrative proceedings and administrative justice can help in reforming the modern legislation in this area as mistakes of the past must not be forgotten and repeated in the future. The institutes of administrative proceedings and administrative judgment are analyzed from its origins throughout centuries. The path of the system presents relevance as it identifies landmarks such as Law books of Ivan III (1497) and of Ivan IV (1550) (the beginnings of complaint procedure), Council Code (1649) (liability for violating the petition proceeding) to the era of Peter the Great reforms and the reign of Catherine II (modern principles of submitting complaints against an official to a superior body), great reforms of Alexander II and of his monarchs successors (administrative proceedings), Rules of administrative courts (1917), the great disturbances of October 1917 and the development of a new legal system (new detailed regulation of appellate proceeding, formation of theoretical fundamentals of claim as of an administrative law category) and modern conditions. The history of the institute of administrative justice in Russia shows an important fact, i.e. no single view has existed on single, common or generalizing attitude to its nature. No legal definitions of the major concepts exist, in particular administrative process, administrative and jurisdiction case, administrative dispute, administrative justice, administrative judgment proceedings etc. The same relates to the subject matter and scope of the area.
The paper is devoted to the question of crime committer and assisting offender activities distinction in the interpretation of the current criminal legislation and judicial practice, accumulated over the last twenty years.
There is a verification of the Special Part of the Criminal Code articles compliance with the general provisions of complicity. The empiric basis consists of crimes against human life and health, sexual inviolability and sexual freedom of the person; against property; against public security, human health and public morality; ecological crimes and crimes related to bribery court practice.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation key acts, containing clarifications on the question of the crime committer and assisting offender roles distinction, are covered. There is the analyze of highest judicial body acts ambiguities, generating discussion in scientific community and the enforcement practice uniformity absence. The paper contains a precedents selection, which set out the courts position different from the Supreme Court clarification.
Particular attention is paid to the federal law adoption, adding p. 3 to the Art. 2051 of the Criminal Code, which stated abetting in terrorism as an independent crime, and to the state authorities positions, where set out their draft law review. This law led off the tendency of crime committer and assisting offender activities confusion at the legislative level. The tendency was continued by the addition of the Criminal Code Art. 2911 ‘Mediation in bribery’. There is also the analyze of the draft laws which are currently under consideration in the State Duma. In case of their adoption abetting in some crimes committing will be recognized as independent crimes and persons committed these crimes will be recognized as crime committers.
The author notes that the Supreme Court often is beyond the permissible interpretation and its position is an application of the law by analogy but not the explanation. The author supports the proposal to make the p. 5 Art. 33 of the Criminal Code activities list open to avoid difficulties with this rule application. In general, the author concludes that there is the tendency to blurring distinction between the crime committer and assisting offender roles, states the judicial practice uniformity lack and considers the development of the general provisions of complicity is the right direction.