Abstract
The subject of paper deals with the legal nature of measures of criminal procedural compulsionin the form of seizure of property.Methodological basis of the article is based on general scientific dialectical methods of cognitionof objective reality of the legal processes and phenomena that allowed us to conduct anobjective assessment of the state of legislation and law enforcement practice in the proceduralaspects of the cancellation of the seizure of property in criminal proceedings of Russia.The results and scope of it’s application. It is submitted that the cancellation of the seizureof the property (or the individual limit) is allowed only on the grounds and in the mannerprescribed by the criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation. However, the studyfound serious contradictions in the application of the relevant law. In particular, cases inwhich the question of exemption of property from arrest (exclusion from the inventory),imposed in the criminal case was resolved in a civil procedure that, in the opinion of theauthor of the publication, is extremely unacceptable.On the stated issues topics analyzes opinions of scientists who say that the dispute aboutthe release of impounded property may be allowed in civil proceedings, including pendingresolution of the criminal case on the merits. The author strongly disagrees with this positionand supports those experts who argue that the filing of a claim for exemption of propertyfrom arrest (exclusion from the inventory) the reviewed judicial act of imposing of arrestwithout recognition per se invalid. In this regard, the author cites the legal position ofthe constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, from which clearly follows that of theright of everyone to judicial protection does not imply the possibility of choice of the citizenat its discretion, techniques and procedures of judicial protection, since the features of suchjudicial protection is defined in specific Federal laws.The author analyzes and appreciates Kazakhstan's experience of legal regulation of the permissibilityof filing a civil claim for exemption of property from seizure imposed in criminalproceedings. The author notes that the new civil procedural legislation of the Republic ofKazakhstan, which came into force from 01 January 2016, clearly captures that considerationin the civil proceedings are not subject to claims for exemption of property from seizureby the criminal prosecution body.Conclusions. Necessity of amendment to article 422 of the Civil Procedure Code of Russia:this article should not apply to cases of application of measures of criminal procedural compulsionin the form of seizure of property. Among other things, the author proposed additionsto part 9 of article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia.
Highlights
Предметом научного изыскания выступает правовая природа меры уголовно-процессуального принуждения в виде наложения ареста на имущество
The author cites the legal position of the constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, from which clearly follows that of the right of everyone to judicial protection does not imply the possibility of choice of the citizen at its discretion, techniques and procedures of judicial protection, since the features of such judicial protection is defined in specific Federal laws
The author analyzes and appreciates Kazakhstan's experience of legal regulation of the permissibility of filing a civil claim for exemption of property from seizure imposed in criminal proceedings
Summary
Necessity of amendment to article 422 of the Civil Procedure Code of Russia: this article should not apply to cases of application of measures of criminal procedural compulsion in the form of seizure of property. Тем не менее правоприменительная практика знает наличествующие неотмененные судебные решения, в рамках которых суды настаивают на том, что вопрос о снятии с имущества уголовно-процессуального ареста подлежит рассмотрению в порядке гражданского судопроизводства, во-первых неверно производя толкование соответствующих норм права и, во-вторых, ссылаясь при этом на сомнительные, с нашей точки зрения, и, помимо прочего, утратившие силу разъяснения высших судебных инстанций. В силу этого акта все споры об освобождении имущества от ареста суды рассматривают по правилам искового производства независимо от того, наложен ли арест в порядке применения мер обеспечения иска, обращения взыскания на имущество должника во исполнение решения или приговора суда, наложенного в том числе в рамках предварительного расследования. Справедливости ради, заметим, что из иных проанализированных нами судебных постановлений также следовало, что суды в порядке гражданского судопроизводства неправомерно освобождали имущество из под уголовно-процессуального ареста[15] Заключение Таким образом, проведенное нами научное исследование показало, что отмена наложения ареста на имущество (либо снятие отдельных ограничений) имеет место лишь в рамках уголовного судопроизводства, а существующая судебная практика, допускающая освобождение предмета рассматриваемой нами иной меры уголовно-процессуального принуждения из-под ареста (исключение его из описи) в рамках гражданского судопроизводства, основана на неверном толковании и применении отечественного законодательства
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.