Abstract

The article explores the meaning of the principle of the compensation in full upon the occurrence of a tortious liability in comparison with the content of the principle of compensation in full for harm caused to a citizen during the implementation of the criminal procedure. In this regard, the author investigates recent judicial practice on criminal proceedings cases relating to compensation for material damage and moral harm with full and partial rehabilitation, and shows the absence of unity of interpretation of the elements of the material damage, compensated on general grounds of delictual liability (Art. 1064 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and on special grounds (Art. 1070 of the RF Civil Code and Art. 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code). The analysis of judicial practice on this category of cases provides reasoning for the conclusion that the compensation for damage to property, paid off to the rehabilitated person is much smaller than the damage compensated under tort obligations (Art. 1064 CC RF). The author shows lack of unity in the approach to determining the amount of compensation for moral injury at full and partial rehabilitation; reveals the notion of "amount" and "size" of the recoverable damage as different legal categories; and justifies the application of the concept of "amount of compensation" and "size of compensation". The generalization of the recent judicial practice and the investigation of judicial practices of the past years, which concern tried in criminal proceedings cases related to the compensation for damage to property, compensation for moral harm suggests that in practice, the principle of full reparation for harm done by the criminal proceedings does not occur. The analysis of the current Criminal Procedure Code and the Civil Procedure legislation on compensation for damage to property, moral harm compensation, reinstatement of labour, housing, pension and other rights of rehabilitated citizen testifies the duality of the existing order for restitution of property and personal non-property rights of this category of citizens; and suggests ways to improve the existing order of compensation and the restoration of the violated rights of the victim. It is proposed that a unified judicial limitation order be implemented.

Highlights

  • ОБЪЕМ, РАЗМЕР И ПОРЯДОК ВОЗМЕЩЕНИЯ ВРЕДА, ПРИЧИНЕННОГО ПРИ ОСУЩЕСТВЛЕНИИ УГОЛОВНО-ПРОЦЕССУАЛЬНОЙ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ

  • Исходя из правовой позиции Конституционного Суда РФ4, право на возмещение причиненного вреда в результате незаконного уголовного преследования имеют лица как при полной, так и при частичной реабилитации

  • Что под объемом возмещения вреда, причиненного при осуществлении уголовно-процессуальной деятельности, следует понимать прежде всего возмещение имущественного вреда (положительный вред, неполученные доходы), т.е.

Read more

Summary

Introduction

ОБЪЕМ, РАЗМЕР И ПОРЯДОК ВОЗМЕЩЕНИЯ ВРЕДА, ПРИЧИНЕННОГО ПРИ ОСУЩЕСТВЛЕНИИ УГОЛОВНО-ПРОЦЕССУАЛЬНОЙ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ Исходя из правовой позиции Конституционного Суда РФ4, право на возмещение причиненного вреда в результате незаконного уголовного преследования имеют лица как при полной, так и при частичной реабилитации

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call