No 2 (2024)

Interest in the subject of the study is caused by the relative novelty of the intersectoral – criminal and criminal procedure legal institution of a judicial fine competing with other forms of relief from criminal liability in terms of both grounds and procedure. It is highly demanded in practice, but ambiguously understood in theory due to the contradictory and inconsistent legal regulation. The purpose of the study is, based on the most complete identification and systematization of defects in the legal regulation of the procedure for terminating a criminal case with the judicial fine imposition, to determine promising directions for its development. The paper considers in detail the grounds and conditions for the termination of a criminal case with the judicial fine imposition as a complex intersectoral legal institution. The author indicates the shortcomings of contradictory and inconsistent legal regulation, which destroy the integrity and consistency of criminal procedure law, complicate understanding and reduce the effectiveness of its application. The results of the study confirmed the hypothesis about the extreme illogicality of the legal regulation of the procedure for terminating a criminal case with the judicial fine imposition, about the imperfection of wording used in Art. 25¹, Cap. 51¹ of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which makes understanding difficult and reduces the effectiveness of applying the rules of law. The author proposes to define more clearly in Art. 25¹ of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation the grounds for terminating a criminal case and delimit them from the grounds for terminating a criminal case in connection with the mediation by the parties; eliminate the defective legal formulations; exclude the possibility of terminating unfinished proceedings in a criminal case by an unusual for the preliminary investigation body petition addressed to the court, as well as the procedure for its consideration not defined by law but recommended by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation according to the rules of Art. 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

The paper covers the issues of acquisition and loss of the status of a defense lawyer in a criminal case in the period of the Statute of Criminal Proceedings of 1864 (the Statute) and in the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Since the Statute was and remains an outstanding monument of domestic criminal procedure legislation, an appeal to its provisions in view of their comparison with the current legislation seems to have high theoretical significance and relevance. Moreover, the analysis of the actual legislative regulation of certain provisions of the Statute is significantly expanded in the paper by referring to the law enforcement practice of the Governing Senate, which both acted as a mechanism for the formation of uniform judicial practice and often filled in the gaps of legislative regulation. The paper presents an analysis of the grounds and conditions for the acquisition and loss by a defense lawyer of his procedural status in a historical and comparative aspect in order to determine the possibilities of improving this procedural institution in modern legislation. Within this goal, in general, a tendency has been identified towards a more detailed and elaborated procedural regulation of the acquisition and loss by a defense lawyer of his status in modern criminal procedural legislation in comparison with the provisions of the Statute. At the same time, there are examples of the opposite – the Statute regulated the possibility of the defense lawyer’s participation in a case in a conflicts defense in a much more flexible and balanced manner. In contrast to the current legislation, the Statute properly regulated the institution of replacing a defense lawyer at the client’s initiative. The Statute allowed for the possibility of a defense lawyer’s refusal to undertake the defense if there were compelling reasons, which is strenuously not allowed by current legislation, contrary to the logic of properly ensuring the right to defense. These and other aspects demonstrate the directions for improving the modern procedural regulation of the acquisition and loss of the status of a defense lawyer as suggested by the provisions of the Statute.