Abstract
Introduction: the article analyses contradictions between the legislature and courts arising in the process of development and implementation of criminal policy. The analysis is particularly focused on the causes, content, public presentation of these contradictions and the mechanism of their resolution. Purpose: to explain why, given the inevitability and objectivity of these contradictions, they are not publicly exposed and the parties involved in them avoid their public discussion. Methods: description, interpretation, classification, statistical analysis, documentary analysis based on the methodological principles of dialectics and the theoretical advances of political and sociological jurisprudence. Results: the article substantiates the presence of three groups of contradictions between the legislature and courts, which stem from the nature of these branches of government, the results of their activities and personal characteristics of political actors; it demonstrates the content of contradictions emerging in the process of creating, interpreting and applying criminal law; the study proves that the legislature and courts ‘politely evade’ public displaying of these contradictions and transfer their resolution from the political sphere to the sphere of law; it shows the role of constitutional justice bodies in resolving the contradictions; the articles offers an explanation of the current situation providing such reasons behind it as the courts’ perception of their role in society, the dominance of the legalist type of legal thinking and the firmly established type of decision-making by courts which is based on the conclusions of the formal theory. Conclusions: the evasion of courts and the legislature from the public resolution of contradictions in the field of shaping and implementation of criminal policy indicates two alternatives in the development of political design: either a crisis of the theory of separation of powers in the part that focuses on the contradictions between the branches of government and the formation of a new theoretical concept that relies on the synergy of actions of various public authorities; or, alternatively, that building an effective ‘vertical of power’ suppresses and destroys the doctrine of separation of powers. The article substantiates that any ‘polite evasion’ from public demonstration and resolution of contradictions between the legislature and courts has its limits, beyond which courts lose the quality of an independent and self-sufficient authority.
Highlights
Establishment of legal liability for abuse of rights is among the problems of modern civil law that are supposed to be complex both in terms of theory and practice [22, p. 701; 29]
Summarizing the study of issues related to the criminal-legal concretization of the constitutional principles of liability for abuse of rights, it seems possible to draw several main conclusions: able at: http://www.ksrf.ru/ru/Decision/Pages/default.aspx; Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No 2055-OOn the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of the citizen Igor Valerievich Korolev on violation of his constitutional rights by Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federationof September 25, 2014
2 Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No 1503-OOn the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of the citizen Evgeny Sergeevich Kort on the violation of his constitutional rights by Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federationof July 18, 2017
Summary
С. Конституционные основы уголовной ответственности за злоупотребление правами и свободами // Вестник Пермского университета. КОНСТИТУЦИОННЫЕ ОСНОВЫ УГОЛОВНОЙ ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТИ ЗА ЗЛОУПОТРЕБЛЕНИЕ ПРАВАМИ И СВОБОДАМИ. Уголовная ответстве нность за злоупотребление правом обладает спецификой, которая существенно отлич ает ее от иных криминализационных процессов. Цель: конституционно-правовой и уголовно-правовой анализ теоретических основ конструирования оснований уголовной ответственности за злоупотребление правом. Результаты: установлено, что злоупотребление правом охватывает собой и ситуации использования права во вред, и ситуации выхода субъекта за пределы предоставленного ему права. Следует различать два вида злоупотребления правом: 1. Злоупотребление правом со стороны официальных представителей государства. 2. Злоупотребление правом со стороны частных лиц. Выводы: никакое злоупотребление правом не может вле чь уголовной ответственности в случае,.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.