|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
Law and Politics
Reference:
Vinokurov A.Yu.
Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation from 02.17.2015 No. 2-P and the significance of its descriptive part for the theory and practice of prosecutors supervision
// Law and Politics.
2015. ¹ 7.
P. 937-944.
URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=52456
Vinokurov A.Yu. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation from 02.17.2015 No. 2-P and the significance of its descriptive part for the theory and practice of prosecutors supervisionAbstract: The subject of this research is the content of the descriptive part of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation from 02.17.2015 No. 2-P, in which certain positions of Articles 6, 21, and 22 of the Federal Law “On Prosecutor’s Office the Russian Federation” are subjected to a rigorous assessment from the perspective of constitutionality. These Articles regulate the issues pertaining to prosecutors exercising their authority within the framework of obtaining statistical and other information from the supervised branches, as well as inspections to ensure adherence to the laws within the corresponding branches. The scientific novelty of the research consists in the fact that the author is first to conduct a detailed analysis of the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the most problematic issues that come up in law enforcement practice; the author expresses a critical opinion on the objectiveness of the theses contained in the ruling of the branch of constitutional control, and underlines the most important approaches for the theory and practice of prosecutors supervision. Keywords: Legality, Upholding the law, Constitutional Court, Prosecutor’s office, Prosecutor’s authority, Court ruling, Legal position, Inspection, Prosecutor, Prosecutors supervision
This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article
References
1. SZ RF. – 2015. – ¹ 9. – St. 1389.
2. SZ RF. – 1995. – ¹ 47. – St. 4472 (s posled. izmeneniyami). 3. Postanovleniya Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF ot 11.04.2000 ¹ 6-P «Po delu o pro-verke konstitutsionnosti otdel'nykh polozhenii punkta 2 stat'i 1, punkta 1 stat'i 21 i punkta 3 stat'i 22 Federal'nogo zakona «O prokurature Rossiiskoi Federatsii» v svyazi s zaprosom Sudebnoi kollegii po grazhdanskim delam Verkhovnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Fe-deratsii» (SZ RF. – 2000. – ¹ 16. – St. 1774) i ot 18.07.2003 ¹ 13-P «Po delu o proverke konstitutsionnosti polozhenii statei 115 i 231 GPK RSFSR, statei 26, 251 i 253 GPK Rossiiskoi Federatsii, statei 1, 21 i 22 Federal'nogo zakona «O prokurature Rossii-skoi Federatsii» v svyazi s zaprosami Gosudarstvennogo Sobraniya – Kurultaya Respubliki Bashkortostan, Gosudarstvennogo Soveta Respubliki Tatarstan i Verkhovnogo Suda Res-publiki Tatarstan» (SZ RF. – 2003. – ¹ 30. – St. 3101). 4. O znachenii etogo ponyatiya sm.: Vinokurov A.Yu. Prokurorskaya nauka: sostoyanie i perspektivy razvitiya // Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava. – 2014. – ¹ 9. – S. 125-130. 5. Bessarabov V.G., Zhmakin A.S. Mesto prokuratury v politicheskoi sisteme // Za-konnost'. – 2009. – ¹ 11; Veliev I.V. Mesto prokuratury v sisteme organov gosudarst-vennoi vlasti Rossiiskoi Federatsii // Sovremennoe pravo. – 2005. – ¹ 10 i dr. 6. Baikin I.M. K voprosu o gosudarstvenno-vlastnykh polnomochiyakh prokuratury // Gosudarstvennaya vlast' i mestnoe samoupravlenie. – 2011. – ¹ 4. 7. Podcherknem, chto s tochki zreniya prokurorskoi nauki nadzornaya funktsiya odna i v Zakone o prokurature ona oboznachena kak prokurorskii nadzor. 8. Takoi funktsii u prokuratury net, poskol'ku nadzor za ispolneniem zakonov yav-lyaetsya otrasl'yu (sostavnoi chast'yu) funktsii prokurorskogo nadzora. 9. SZ RF. – 2008. – ¹ 51 (ch. 1). – St. 6228 (s posled. izmeneniyami). 10. Gulyagin A.Yu. Prokuratura v sisteme pravookhranitel'nykh organov administra-tivnoi yurisdiktsii: monografiya. – M.: Yurist, 2012 // SPS «Konsul'tantPlyus». 11. SZ RF. – 2003. – ¹ 40. – St. 3822 (s posled. izmeneniyami). 12. Talipov D.Kh., Boldyrev D.Yu. Nadzor za ispolneniem zakonov: podmena funktsii kontroliruyushchikh organov ili koordinatsiya ikh deyatel'nosti // Zakonnost'. – 2012. – ¹ 4. – S. 28-33. 13. SZ RF. – 2008. – ¹ 52 (ch. 1). – St. 6249 (s posled. izmeneniyami). 14. Vinokurov A.Yu. Polnomochiya prokurora po nadzoru za ispolneniem zakonov // Za-konnost'. – 2006. – ¹ 8. 15. Vinokurov A.Yu. K voprosu o sovershenstvovanii pravovogo regulirovaniya nad-zornoi i inoi deyatel'nosti prokurorov // Aktual'nye voprosy rossiiskogo prava: sb. nauch. statei. – M.: MosGU, 2010. – Vyp. 17. – S. 16. 16. Zakonnost'. – 2011. – ¹ 12. 17. SPS «Konsul'tantPlyus». 18. Zakonnost'. – 2008. – ¹ 3 (s posled. izmeneniyami). 19. Obraztsy dokumentov prokurorskoi praktiki: prakt. posobie /pod obshch. red. A.E. Buksmana i O.S. Kapinus. – M.: Yurait, 2014. – S. 35-36. 20. Bondarenko V.A., Ershova V.A. Zakonnost' osparivaniya predstavleniya prokurora // Zakonnost'. – 2014. – ¹ 6. – S. 9-12; Glukhov E.A. O vozmozhnosti osparivaniya aktov pro-kurorskogo reagirovaniya // Pravo v Vooruzhennykh Silakh. – 2014. – ¹ 3. – S. 99-109 i dr. |
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
