Ekaterinburg, Ekaterinburg, Russian Federation
UDK 342.534.2 Неприкосновенность. Иммунитет. Привилегии. Право расследования
UDK 343.123.52 Уголовное преследование по должности
GRNTI 10.79 Уголовно-процессуальное право (уголовный процесс)
OKSO 40.05.01 Правовое обеспечение национальной безопасности
BBK 67 Право. Юридические науки
TBK 7582 Уголовно-процессуальное право
BISAC LAW027000 Criminal Procedure
Abstract: Relevance of the research topic. In the Russian Federation, the equality of all persons before the law and the courts is enshrined at the constitutional level. At the same time, it is well known that there are several types of immunity available in criminal proceedings according to the law (in particular, immunity from criminal prosecution, immunity from the application of a number of measures of criminal procedure compulsion, witness immunity). Immunity from prosecution occupies a special place among procedural immunities since it requires additional procedures to address the key and the most universal issue of bringing a person to justice. As an exception to the general rules of the uniform criminal procedure, the law establishes specific criminal proceedings for some categories of persons performing certain types of public legal activities (see chapter 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). At the same time, the features of those persons are not universal. Therefore, there is a need to examine the concept of immunity from prosecution and to classify its types. Problem setting. Chapter 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines the specifics of judicial proceedings in relation to a very wide range of persons. In respect to some persons, the initiation of a criminal case may be carried out only by the senior investigative authorities. The question arises whether this feature can be considered immunity from criminal prosecution, and if not, what are the essential features of this immunity. Furthermore, immunity from criminal prosecution should be classified, since the court proceedings vary markedly depending on the type of immunity. In the science of criminal procedure, these aspects have not received due attention. Commonly, any complications in the course of the criminal procedure described in chapter 52 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are declared immunity from criminal prosecution, which does not correspond to the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Research objectives and methods. The purpose of the study is to define the essential signs of immunity from criminal prosecution and to classify its types. The objectives of the study are to explore the legal nature of immunity from criminal prosecution and distinguish the types of immunity according to different grounds. The methodological basis of the study is the universal dialectical-materialistic method, as well as the general scientific methods of theoretic inquiry: analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, formal-legal method. Results and key findings. Immunity from criminal prosecution entails a decision to prosecute the person with immunity only with the permission of the competent public authority, usually within the legislative or judicial branch of power. Immunity guarantees a certain procedure for obtaining such consent, that grants significant rights to the person in question. Due to the mentioned circumstances, the complication of proceedings limited solely to the initiation of criminal proceedings by the superior authority of the investigative agency cannot be considered immunity from criminal prosecution. This immunity is granted to persons expressly specified in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Its provision to other persons is fundamentally permissible accounting for the restrictions contained in the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
criminal proceedings, initiation of criminal proceedings, criminal prosecution, peculiarities of criminal proceedings, immunity from criminal procedure; immunity from prosecution, waiving of immunity
1. Kovaleva E. V. L'goty i immunitety kak narushenie principa ravenstva pered zakonom // Vestnik Luganskoy akademii vnutrennih del imeni E. A. Didorenko. - 2019. - № 1 (6). - S. 46-51.
2. Mazyuk R. V. Osobye formy ugolovnogo presledovaniya v rossiyskom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve // Vestnik Orenburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. - 2008. - № 3 (84). - S. 111-114.
3. Astahov P. A. Advokatskiy immunitet kak garantiya prava na zaschitu // Zakon i pravo. - 2006. - № 1. - S. 55-60.
4. Cvetkov Yu. A. Ugolovnoe presledovanie v otnoshenii lic osobogo pravovogo statusa - 20 let v poiskah koncepcii // Zakony Rossii: opty, analiz, praktika. - 2021. - № 6. - S. 52-59.
5. Shatalov A. S. Processual'nyy mehanizm ugolovnogo presledovaniya special'nyh sub'ektov: sovremennoe sostoyanie i perspektivy optimizacii // Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. - 2015. - № 3. - S. 100-118.
6. Shatalov A. S. Sovremennoe sostoyanie processual'nogo mehanizma ugolovnogo presledovaniya special'nyh sub'ektov i voprosy ego optimizacii // Chelovek: prestuplenie i nakazanie. - 2015. - № 1 (88). - S. 57-70.
7. Dement'eva I. Yu., Gorbachuk V. Immunitety ot ugolovnogo presledovaniya: nacional'nye i mezhdunarodno-pravovye aspekty // Voprosy rossiyskoy yusticii. - 2021. - № 12. - S. 458-467.
8. Dobrovlyanina O. V. Vozbuzhdenie ugolovnogo dela v otnoshenii arbitrazhnogo zasedatelya // Rossiyskiy sud'ya. - 2016. - № 11. - S. 47-50.
9. Ivanova E. V. O nekotoryh voprosah proizvodstva po ugolovnomu delu v otnoshenii rukovoditelya sledstvennogo organa // Pravo i gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika. - 2013. - № 11 (107). - S. 108-112.
10. Kazakov A. A. Disbalans v pravovom regulirovanii processual'nyh immunitetov v sfere ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva // Lex russica (Russkiy zakon). - 2016. - № 4 (113). - S. 115-123.
11. Kovaleva M. G. Osobennosti vozbuzhdeniya ugolovnogo dela v otnoshenii otdel'nyh kategoriy lic // Kriminalist'. - 2008. - № 3. - S. 49-55.
12. Stremouhov A. V., Presnov I. N. Neprikosnovennost' deputata Gosudarstvennoy Dumy // Leningradskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal. - 2005. - № 3 (4). - S. 144-156.
13. Sumin A. A. Nekotorye problemy kolliziy ugolovnogo i ugolovno-processual'nogo zakonov // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta MVD Rossii. - 2012. - № 8. - S. 111-113.
14. Cvetkov Yu. A. Osobennosti ugolovnogo presledovaniya sudey // Ugolovnyy process. - 2017. - № 3 (147). - S. 24-31.
15. Titov P. M. Nekotorye problemy ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva po delam chastnogo obvineniya // Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal. - 2019. - № 4 (127). - S. 69-77.
16. Samko A. V. O poryadke presledovaniya otdel'nyh kategoriy lic po ugolovnym delam chastnogo obvineniya // Uchenye zapiski. - 2020. - № 4 (36). - S. 88-91.
17. Izotov A. V. Ugolovno-processual'nyy immunitet professional'nyh uchastnikov ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva // Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika. - 2008. - № 2. - S. 80-83.
18. Ryazanov M. V. Sootnoshenie immuniteta v ugolovnom prave i instituta osvobozhdeniya ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti // Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Seriya: Ekonomika i pravo. -2007. - № 6. - S. 201-204.
19. Evdokimova O. N. Isklyucheniya iz immunitetov dolzhnostnyh lic ot mezhdunarodnoy i nacional'noy ugolovnoy yurisdikcii // Voprosy rossiyskogo i mezhdunarodnogo prava. - 2017. - T. 7. - № 3A. - S. 272-282.
20. Konovalova L. G. Immunitet deputata zakonodatel'nogo (predstavitel'nogo) organa gosudarstvennoy vlasti sub'ekta RF // Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal. - 2010. - № 6 (75). - S. 15-24.
