employee
Ekaterinburg, Ekaterinburg, Russian Federation
UDK 34 Право. Юридические науки
GRNTI 10.79 Уголовно-процессуальное право (уголовный процесс)
OKSO 40.03.01 Юриспруденция
TBK 7582 Уголовно-процессуальное право
Relevance of the research topic. The Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes the equality of all subjects before the law and the court. However, the law establishes categories of citizens with immunity (immunity from criminal prosecution). Immunity was not a personal privilege and could be waived by the decision of a competent public authority. The moment of deprivation of immunity falls at the stage of initiation of criminal proceedings. The problem arises of the ratio of procedures for deprivation of immunity and pre-investigation verification, since the relevant actions are not simply regulated by different laws, but have a different legal nature. Setting of a problem. In criminal proceedings the procedure for depriving a person of immunity must be followed in order to bring to justice a person who has immunity from criminal prosecution. In the science of criminal procedure no distinction was made between pre-investigation verification and deprivation of integrity in full. It is not clear whether the state authorities that decided on the deprivation of immunity were involved in criminal proceedings, what issues should be clarified within the framework of the deprivation of immunity and the extent of the rights of the person in respect of whom the question was raised. Research objectives and methods. The purpose of the study is to determine the ratio of procedures for deprivation of immunity from criminal prosecution and pre-investigation verification. The objectives of the study are to investigate the legal nature of the deprivation of immunity from criminal prosecution; distinguish between this procedure and pre-investigation verification; review the criminal procedure situation of the authorities involved in the deprivation of immunity; summarize the rights of the person in respect of whom the issue of deprivation of liberty is being addressed. The methodological basis of the study was the dialectical-materialistic method, as well as the general scientific methods of scientific knowledge: analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, formal-logical, systemic. Results and key conclisions. Deprivation of immunity is a complex intersectoral procedure, which has a constitutional, criminal procedure and administrative-legal nature at the same time. The question of deprivation of immunity is resolved by the competent public authorities (often the highest public authorities), which are not ordinary participants in criminal proceedings, but resolve certain criminal procedural issues. The person in respect of whom the question of deprivation of immunity is decided should be granted rights similar to those granted to protect against criminal prosecution: to bring his position to the competent authority; qualified legal aid; to appeal against the decision. In the course of deprivation of immunity, the principle of presumption of innocence, which has a specific refraction, applies. The terms of the deprivation of immunity procedure exist separately from the terms of the pre-investigation check. In the future the ratio of initiation of criminal proceedings and deprivation of integrity should be changed. A decision must first be taken to initiate a case and then a procedure must be followed to remove immunity from criminal prosecution.
criminal proceedings, criminal prosecution, immunity from prosecution, initiation of criminal proceedings, pre-investigation inspection, deprivation of immunity, presumption of innocence, protection against criminal prosecution
1. Aguzarov T. K., Gracheva Yu. V., Chuchaev A. I. Ugolovno-pravovaya ohrana Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federacii // Lex russica. - 2015. - № 9. - S. 60-72.
2. Vershinin V. B. Material'no-pravovye garantii prava na sudebnuyu zaschitu // Rossiyskaya yusticiya. - 2016. - № 9. - S. 5-7.
3. Vitruk N. V. Obschaya teoriya yuridicheskoy otvetstvennosti : monografiya. - 2-e izd., ispr. i dop. - Moskva: Norma, 2009. - 259 s.
4. Galkovskaya N. G., Golub E. I. Otvetstvennost' i garantii arbitrov v svyazi s osuschestvleniem imi deyatel'nosti po razresheniyu sporov // Treteyskiy sud. - 2020. - № 1/2. - S. 393-403.
5. Gunich S. V. Otvetstvennost' Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federacii kak osnova funkcionirovaniya sistemy organov gosudarstvennoy vlasti // Gosudarstvennaya vlast' i mestnoe samoupravlenie. - 2018. - № 3. - S. 25-30.
6. Kazankov S. P. Konstitucionno-pravovye garantii pri privlechenii k ugolovnoy i administrativnoy otvetstvennosti deputatov Gosudarstvennoy Dumy i chlenov Soveta Federacii // Gosudarstvennaya vlast' i mestnoe samoupravlenie. - 2010. - № 6. - S. 33-35.
7. Kleandrov M. I. Status sud'i: pravovoy i smezhnye komponenty / pod red. M. M. Slavina. - Moskva: Norma, 2008. - 448 s.
8. Kutafin O. E. Neprikosnovennost' v konstitucionnom prave Rossiyskoy Federacii : monografiya. - Moskva: Yurist, 2004. - 405 s.
9. Mityagin Yu. V. Neprikosnovennost' deputatov, vybornyh dolzhnostnyh lic organov mestnogo samoupravleniya // Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal. - 2010. - № 2. - S. 32-38.
10. Savchenko N. A. Prezidentskiy immunitet: pravovoe obespechenie neprikosnovennosti Prezidenta RF // Gosudarstvennaya vlast' i mestnoe samoupravlenie. - 2014. - № 9. - S. 6-10.
11. Adigamova Yu. I. Usloviya vozbuzhdeniya ugolovnyh del v otnoshenii otdel'nyh uchastnikov izbiratel'nogo processa // Aktual'nye problemy rossiyskogo prava. - 2015. - № 2. - S. 108-114.
12. Dobrovlyanina O. V. Vozbuzhdenie ugolovnogo dela v otnoshenii arbitrazhnogo zasedatelya // Rossiyskiy sud'ya. - 2016. - № 11. - S. 47-50.
13. Zheltobryuhov S. P. Vozbuzhdenie ugolovnogo dela v otnoshenii special'nyh sub'ektov ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva // Rossiyskaya yusticiya. - 2011. - № 12. - S. 38-41.
14. Ivanov A. V. Nekotorye problemy proizvodstva po ugolovnym delam v otnoshenii advokatov // Advokat. - 2014. - № 9. - S. 10-16.
15. Latypov T. R. O primenenii polozheniy glavy 52 UPK RF pri vozbuzhdenii ugolovnyh del v otnoshenii otdel'nyh kategoriy lic // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. - 2010. - № 8. - S. 59-65.
16. Romanenko N. V. Osobennosti ugolovnogo presledovaniya sud'i // Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika. - 2017. - № 3. - S. 82-86.
17. Romanenko N. V. Primenenie k sud'yam mery presecheniya v vide zaklyucheniya pod strazhu: problemnye voprosy zakonodatel'nogo regulirovaniya // Rossiyskiy sud'ya. - 2018. - № 7. - S. 23-27.
18. Salimzyanova R. R. Osobennosti proizvodstva po ugolovnym delam v otnoshenii sud'i : monografiya. - Kazan': Kazanskiy yuridicheskiy instituta MVD Rossii, 2007. - 110 s.
19. Sinicyn V. A. Otdel'nye aspekty zakonodatel'noy reglamentacii osobennostey proizvodstva po ugolovnym delam v otnoshenii General'nogo prokurora Rossiyskoy Federacii i Predsedatelya Sledstvennogo komiteta Rossiyskoy Federacii // Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika. - 2015. - № 5. - S. 61-65.
20. Trofimova G. A. O predelah deputatskoy svobody // Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal. - 2016. - № 2. - S. 82-89.
21. Fedotov I. S. Aktual'nye aspekty obespecheniya processual'nogo immuniteta special'nyh sub'ektov pri rassledovanii prestupleniy // Rossiyskaya yusticiya. - 2017. - № 3. - S. 66-68.
22. Shatalov A. S. Special'nye sub'ekty v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve Rossii: poryadok ugolovnogo presledovaniya // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. - 2016. - № 1. - S. 128-138.
23. Yakubov A. E. Esche raz ob otreshenii Prezidenta RF ot dolzhnosti i ugolovnom prave // Konstitucionnoe i municipal'noe pravo. - 2009. - № 7. - S. 20-24.
24. Reshetova N. Yu. Osobye usloviya privlecheniya k ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti // Vestnik Akademii General'noy prokuratury Rossiyskoy Federacii. - 2010. - № 3 (17). - S. 56-64.
