Роль личности в становлении и развитии института суда присяжных в современной России
The judicial statistics on criminal trial by the courts concludes about trace amount of absolutory sentences in modern Russia (0,8 %). The constitutional principle of doing justice by the citizens (for example: jury) is not getting development , but conversely is limiting by the «cutbacks» of the competence of the jury. The article presents a brief retrospective of development of jury trials in Russia , as well as reflect the participation in the establishment and development of jury at the present stage by the authoritative lawyer – S.A. Pashin. Author marked the most pressing problems of functioning of the jury in connection with the implementation the appellate from 1 January 2013. Article aims to acquaint readers with the participation of Personality - S.A. Pashin, in the establishment and development of jury which, need development in the future.
The chapter deals with the Russian law on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and practice of its enforcement.
The articles included in the collection allow us to comprehensively assess the achievements of the reform of the judicial system, its current state, the problems of reforming civil and arbitration procedural legislation, criminal law and procedural problems of protecting private and public interests, as well as proposals for improving the judicial system and judicial proceedings from historical and theoretical, socio-humanitarian, communicative, educational, sectoral and other aspects.
In the basis of book lies the dialectical description of the judicial system as a purposeful system having a complex hierarchy and rules of functioning, which is in continuous interaction of its internal elements and external factors of influence, including other branches of government, therefore structural changes of the judicial system in itself, as well as its competence and the quality of justice in general are observed. Consideration by the author of judicial system as an integrated dynamic system allows to reveal a number of regularities in its cyclical development. Society, as it is known, develops in a spiral. Exactly this model of evolution in philosophy arose as a result of the interaction of the three laws of dialectics: the unity and conflict of opposites, the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative, and the negation of negation. The court as a mirror of society repeats the convolutions of its development. The line forming a spiral is the hierarchy of the judicial system. At the same time this line, as the spiral of lower order, represents the unification and differentiation of judges’ specialization in consideration and resolution of cases, in jurisdiction and official knowledge of controversies, as well as the centralization and decentralization of judicial control, and as a consequence, the redistribution of powers between the judicial instances (appeal, cassation, supervision). Reduction or increase in number of judicial instances occurs simultaneously with the change of the administrative-territorial division of the state, and principles of government, the population size, and hence the number of cases coming to court. Depending on what authority (judicial or non-judicial) heads the judicial system and carries out check of the court decisions, there is the correction of its principles and procedures. The domestic judicial system, having passed some cycles, recently passed the bifurcation point and again is in an unstable state. Evidence of this is the merger of higher judiciary in the system of arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction, despite the fact that this task was not included in the Federal target program for development of the judicial system until 2020. Complex study of factors influencing the judicial system will allow us to comprehend the global processes in society and the state – as being fundamentals in forming the structure of the judicial system and principles of its functioning. Such researches are useful for fledged understanding the history of the development of the domestic judicial system and its trends. Therefore, taking into account the history of transformations and their scales, the book gives a new understanding of the modern state of judicial system and possibility of its modeling – with due regard for the mistakes of the past.
The article continues the series of analytical reviews, adopted during the sessions of the European Commission for Democracy through Law. The authors analyze adopted on the 113-th Plenary session Opinion CDL-(2017)036 regarding to Poland, prepared in light of an extensive judicial reform. Consideration and adoption of the Opinion had debatable character due to a wide range of controversial points of the reform. So the Venice Commission came to firm conclusion that the National Council of the Judiciary – the highest body of judicial community – was politicized. The formation procedure of this body, in particular, promotes politization as it includes excessive participation of the Parliament. The Polish lawmakers are going to create in the structure of the Supreme Court two new chambers – Extraordinary and Disciplinary. Legal provisions on these chambers provoked criticism by the Venice Commission because of obviously incompliance of the status of the chambers with international standards and the theory of procedural law. Finally, the Venice Commission examined in detail the Polish bills to ensure the independence of judges and came to the disappointing conclusion about gross breach of this principle. On independence, in particular, adversely affected excessive powers of the presidents of the courts regarding to judges. At the same time the presidents of the courts are in a vulnerable position too, Polish bills view them as a kind of officials, supervised by the Ministry of Justice. Considerable attention in article is paid to finding parallels with the Russian legislation on judicial system and status of judges. The authors came to the conclusion that a number of problems for Poland and Russia is similar.
The book addresses judicial reforms in a number of post-socialist countries, including Poland, Bulgaria, Baltic states, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and several other former Sovier republics. The focal point is the impact of the Soviet past (Soviet attitude towards law, specifics of early Soviet criminal law, the role of Soviet courts and the phenomenon of the Soviet judicial mentality) on judicial and police reforms.
The author of the article on the basis of analysis of examples from judicial practice tries to draw the readers’ attention to the problems related to a new type of judicial proceeding — «On Special Procedure of Taking Judicial Decision in Conclusion of Prejudicial Agreement of Cooperation» (Chapter 40(1 of the Criminal Procedure Code) and proposes to evaluate the consequences of decision taken by the judge in the part of punishment for participants of procedure.
The article gives examples of the newest investigative-judicial practice. The analysis of such practice will allow to make a conclusion that definite algorithm of application of articles 108–109 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation taking into account the requirements of Chapter 40-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been worked out so far.