Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Law and Politics
Reference:

Signs of individual judicial regulation in criminal proceedings and its definition

Kripinevich Svetlana Sergeevna

PhD in Law

Deputy Head of the Department of Criminal Procedure Law named after N.V. Radutnaya, Russian State University of Justice, Moscow

117418, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Novocheremushkinskaya, 69

s.kripinevich@yandex.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0706.2022.6.38243

Received:

08-06-2022


Published:

15-06-2022


Abstract: Criminal proceedings are the sphere of mandatory regulation. However, its development and modern achievements of the entire legal science as a whole make it possible to make relevant clarifications to its content (legislation and activities). The purpose of the work is to identify the most significant features of individual judicial regulation in the field of criminal proceedings and offer them to the general scientific community for discussion. The main subject of this study was the theoretical concept of "individual judicial regulation" and its features in criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings to date, such studies have been fragmentary, whereas in the theory of law, civil sciences, this area is represented by large-scale and fundamental works. It seems that the scale of the research and its long history should be realized not only in civil proceedings, civil and administrative law, but also in criminal proceedings. One of the first in this series should be the definition of the concept of "individual judicial regulation in criminal proceedings".   In the course of the research, traditional scientific methodology was used: including general scientific methods (dialectics, analysis, synthesis, generalization, etc.), as well as private scientific methods - comparative legal and formal legal. The applied methods of scientific research allowed us to gain new knowledge concerning the essential features of individual judicial regulation and their use in defining this concept. The result was the author's definition of individual judicial regulation in criminal proceedings. The application of the results is possible in the field of ongoing scientific research, in terms of improving criminal procedure legislation and the practice of its application. The main conclusion of the author is the need to introduce the concept of individual judicial regulation into criminal proceedings at the level of its theoretical provisions and into the legislative framework.


Keywords:

judicial power, individual judicial regulation, the main signs, the concept, criminal proceedings, legal relations, legal regulation, participants in criminal proceedings, court decisions, procedural form

This article is automatically translated.

The requirements specified in Article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (legality, validity, motivation) apply to procedural judicial decisions, and Article 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation also applies to the court verdict. With regard to court decisions in the modern theory of criminal procedure and related activities, many questions arise, both from the point of view of the totality of the requirements put forward [20], and their content and nature. We note the reasoned position of a number of scientists regarding the problems of appealing and reviewing court decisions [21], their stability in pre-trial proceedings [22], etc.

The search for ways to solve them is currently being carried out without taking into account the category of individual judicial regulation, which may be constructive and have a positive impact on the entire criminal process. In particular, we are talking about the fact that individual judicial regulation involves the practical implementation of the "feedback principle" [23], which will allow to identify gaps in legislative regulation and subsequently adjust the procedure of judicial decision-making, as well as their properties, features of the content of individual court decisions taken in alternative forms of judicial proceedings, in pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases, etc.

The positive, in our opinion, lies in clarifying and developing procedures for making procedural court decisions, optimizing judicial competence in the implementation of individual regulation, giving a complete legal appearance to this activity in criminal proceedings, including in relation to special forms of judicial proceedings. It should be taken into account that the procedures of individual judicial regulation are also considered as an element of its essence [24].

Let us note another feature of individual judicial regulation (the third), distinguished in the theory of law – content. This feature is one of the main ones and allows us to consider this concept from the point of view of its content. In addition, the content of individual judicial regulation in relation to criminal proceedings determines the setting of goals, the formation of a range of tasks and the definition of ways to solve them in judicial activity. In some scientific works, the content of individual judicial regulation is formulated as a specification of judicial discretion. At the same time, the activity of the court on individual regulation consists of a variety of procedural actions, including obtaining information about the content of the legal relationship under investigation (for example, the nature and circumstances of the charge), verification and legal assessment of information, substantive and procedural qualification of the situation in the criminal case, the choice of the most correct solution (if such a choice is provided by the criminal codeprocedural law). Discretion in this scheme is really visible at almost all stages. However, not only discretion.

Among the mandatory elements of the content of individual judicial regulation is the selection and interpretation of the norms to be applied, the clarification of their content in relation to a specific procedural situation. In criminal proceedings, this kind of activity takes place not only in relation to the final procedural decision – the verdict of the court, but also in relation to other possible situations, for example, admission or refusal of admission of a person who is not a lawyer as a defender, (requires an assessment by the court of the qualifications and other potential of such a person), appointment by an expert, invitation of a specialist and many others. The court is obliged, on the one hand, to act clearly within the limits established by law, and on the other hand, to individualize its decision each time based on specific circumstances that may change court decisions.

For example, in a criminal case, the court considered an application for admission as a defender of a person who is not a lawyer and refused to satisfy it, in another situation, it granted such a request. In both cases, the higher court instance confirmed the legality of the court decision.

Accordingly, the essential feature of individual judicial regulation is to a greater extent not the discretion of the court, but the legal statement of a certain situation. Therefore, the identification of individual judicial regulation with judicial discretion, we believe, is not true. By its content, both the concept itself and the procedural activity of the court designated by it in criminal proceedings is a complex complex consisting of several systems, each of which has its own legislative basis and regulatory features (for example, the competence of the court in the field of resolving a criminal case does not have such a basis as discretion, but is based on imperative rules).

The fourth feature of individual judicial regulation is its procedural form. In the theory of law, this feature is considered as mandatory and one cannot disagree with this. In criminal proceedings, the procedural form of individual judicial regulation has not been considered so far. Taking into account the considerations expressed regarding the content of the relevant judicial activity, it is fashionable to assume that the procedural form should include rules that determine not only the entire process of obtaining the necessary information, its legal assessment and qualification of the conclusions drawn, but also the feedback procedure for eliminating existing legislative gaps.

Summing up, we propose the following definition of individual judicial regulation.

Individual judicial regulation in criminal proceedings is a derivative law enforcement activity of the court, which has a criminal procedural nature, consisting of procedural actions of the court aimed at clarifying factual circumstances and their legal assessment, based on the interpretation of the meaning and adaptation of the general procedural norm to specific conditions, leading to the adoption of a procedural decision that has the significance of a legal fact.

References
1. Berova, D.M. (2010). Functions of the court in criminal proceedings. Society and law, 5 (32), 176–184.
2. Kachalova, O.V. (2014). Functions of the court in modern Russian criminal proceedings. Russian judge, 1, 8–10.
3. Sementsov, V.A. (2011). Judicial control in pre-trial proceedings. Law and justice: theory, history, practice: Sat. scientific articles. In 3 volumes. Krasnodar: Russian acad. justice, Sev.-Kavkazsky fil., V. 2., 159–165.
4. Gromova, A.V. (2020). The special role of the court as a subject of proof in criminal proceedings. Young scientist, 50 (340), 181–184.
5. Dikarev, I.S. (2020). On the role of the court in proving in criminal cases considered in accordance with Chapter 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Bulletin of Military Law, 2, 34–38.
6. Astafiev, A.Yu. (2012). The effectiveness of judicial activity: the concept and evaluation criteria. Bulletin of the Voronezh State University. Series: Law, 1, 123–133.
7. Vasiliev, D.S. (2021). Indicators of judicial statistics as criteria for evaluating judicial activity. Law and Politics, 3, 79–100.
8. Burmagin, S.V. (2009). The role and legal status of the court in the modern Russian criminal process: dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. Vladimir, 263.
9. Sukolenko, E.A. (2011). Court as a subject of criminal procedural relations in pre-trial criminal proceedings: dis. … cand. legal Sciences. Rostov-na/D., 203.
10. Ershov, V.V. (2013). Legal and individual regulation of public relations as paired categories. Russian Justice, 4 (84), 4–23. p. 21.
11. Alekseev, S.S. (1974). Soviet law as a system: Methodological principles of research. Soviet state and law, 7, 16–17.
12. Ershov, V.V. (1986). Individual judicial regulation. News of higher educational institutions. Jurisprudence, 6, 9–17.
13. Ovdienko, E.B. (2021). On the issue of individual judicial regulation of civil legal relations. Law and State: Theory and Practice, 8 (200), 62–64. ð. 63.
14. Stepin, A.B. (2016). Forms of individual judicial regulation. Russian Journal of Legal Research, V. 3. N. 4 (9), 21–24. ð. 22.
15. Bibilo, V.N. (1999). Normative and non-normative regulation in the genesis of justice in criminal cases. Law and Democracy: Sat. scientific tr. Minsk: Law and Economics, 284–296. ð. 5.
16. Ershov, V.V. (2022). Legal relations: occurrence and regulation. Justice, V. 4. N. 1, 8–27. ð. 18.
17. Ershov, V.V. (2013). Judicial discretion? Individual judicial regulation? Russian justice, 8 (88), 5–16. ð. 13.
18. Ershov, V.V. (2013). The legal nature of the legal positions of the court. Russian justice, 6 (86), 37–47.
19. Ershova, N.S. (2012). Final and intermediate criminal procedural decisions. Actual problems of Russian law, 198–206.
20. Nikitina, S.V. (2022). Evidentiary activity of the court in making procedural decisions in pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases: dis. … cand. legal Sciences. Ulyanovsk, 229 p. pp. 18–19.
21. Sementsov, V.A., Rudakova, S.V. (2021). Modern problems of appeal in domestic criminal proceedings. Legal Bulletin of the Kuban State University, 2, 33–42.
22. Gladysheva, O.V. (2016). Stability of procedural decisions in the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings (statement of the problem). Science and Life of Kazakhstan. (international popular science journal), 5 (40), 57–58.
23. Ershov, V.V. (2013). Legal and individual regulation of public relations as paired categories. Russian Justice, 4 (84), 4–23. ð. 21.
24. Minnikes, I.A. (2006). Individual legal regulation as an independent type of legal regulation. Russian Journal of Law, 2 (50), 19–25

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The article proposed for review is devoted to the signs "...individual judicial regulation in criminal proceedings ..." and its definition. The author has chosen a special subject of research: the proposed issues are investigated from the point of view of the theory of law and criminal procedure law, while the author notes that "...Such an aspect as individual judicial regulation in criminal proceedings remains out of the field of view of scientists and active scientific research to date." Legislation relevant to the research topic is being studied. A certain amount of scientific literature is also studied and summarized. Research methodology. Based on the set goals and objectives, the author has chosen a certain methodological basis for the study. In particular, the author uses a set of general scientific and special legal methods of cognition. The methods of analysis and synthesis made it possible to summarize and separate the conclusions of various approaches to the proposed topic, as well as draw some conclusions from the materials of the opponents. The author used a formal legal method, which allowed for the analysis and interpretation of the norms of current legislation. In particular, the following conclusions are drawn: "... the criminal procedure approach to the definition of individual judicial regulation, its procedural aspects, including forms of implementation, results, legal consequences, can and should take into account the available results of civil studies..." etc. Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is fully adequate to the purpose of the article, allows you to study certain aspects of the topic. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. The author notes that "In modern theory, large-scale discussions are underway about the functionality of the court, its essence, forms of expression and ways of implementation ...". Thus, scientific research in the proposed field is only welcome. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is beyond doubt. It is expressed in the specific scientific conclusions of the author. Among them, for example, are: "...We believe that the identification of individual judicial regulation with judicial discretion is not correct. According to its content, both the concept itself and the procedural activity of the court designated by it in criminal proceedings is a complex complex consisting of several systems, each of which has its own legislative basis and features of regulatory regulation ..." and the definition of individual judicial regulation. As can be seen, these and other theoretical conclusions can be used in further scientific research. Thus, the materials of the article as presented may be of some interest to the scientific community. Style, structure, content. The subject of the article corresponds to the specialization of the journal, as it is devoted to the signs. "..individual judicial regulation ..." and its definition. The article contains an analysis of the opponents' scientific research. The content of the article corresponds to the title, as the author considered the stated problems and achieved the goal of his research. The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as improved. The subject, objectives, methodology, results and scientific novelty directly follow from the text of the article. The design of the work generally meets the requirements for them. No significant violations of the requirements were found. Bibliography. The quality of the literature used should be highly appreciated. The works of the above authors correspond to the research topic, have a sign of sufficiency, and contribute to the disclosure of certain aspects of the topic. Appeal to opponents. The author conducted a serious analysis of the current state of the problem under study. The author describes different opinions, trying to argue for a more correct position in his opinion, and offers solutions to individual issues. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The conclusions are logical, concrete, proven, and they are obtained using a generally accepted methodology. The article in this form may be of interest to the readership in terms of the systematic positions of the author in relation to the issues stated in the article. Based on the above, summing up all the positive and negative sides of the article, I recommend "publishing".