Articles

The article is devoted to the change in the legal status of landed estate of the Polish gentry in nine western provinces of the Russian Empire in the 19th century. The author draws on extensive regulatory and legal material and archival documents illustrating the reasons for the adoption of exemptions from the general guidelines on ownership and mortgage for the gentry, whose representatives received Russian citizenship after the “Kingdom of Poland” joining Russia in 1815. After two uprisings in the thirties and sixties of the XIXth century, persons of Polish nationality were recognized as unreliable subjects. A restriction of rights was introduced upon this strata to maintain order in the border lands of the Russian Empire. In this regard, the concept of “a person of Polish origin” was introduced into the legal acts, which did not apply to Catholics in general, but only to Poles and those Western natives who acquired Polish nationality. Thus, persons of Polish nationality constituted a group of subjects identified on a national basis, which was also associated with a confessional one. The analysis of the materials allows concluding that the supremacy of the interests of the state, expressed in the infringement of the rights of a social group identified as unreliable, was an effective method of state building and part of the strategy for protecting the interests of the Russian Empire.

The article makes a reasoned analysis of damages’ legal nature, provides arguments against the most common point of view in the academic and educational literature that damages are a measure of civil liability of a universal nature, which implies the establishment of the composition of a civil offense. The point of view that damages are unfavorable sanction for non-compliance with the obligation is criticized. An attempt is made to bring together damages as an economic category (negative balance as a result of summing up mutual claims of the parties to the legal relationship) and damages as a legal notion (damages as a way of civil law protection from negative property consequences of one of the parties based on existence of duty). The author adheres to a broader concept of risk distribution: negative consequences imposed on non-beneficiary of the victim’s estate may be based on not only defendant’s unlawful actions or inaction, but also on other grounds provided for by law, contract or principles of law, this makes it possible to expand the scope of application of this institution and explains the numerous examples of damages available in the legislation in the absence of an offense and grounds for the application of liability measures.

The question of finding the best option for ensuring the rights of persons against whom criminal prosecution is actually carried out has a long history, one way or another arises in many legal orders. Over the entire period of discussion of this problem, various mechanisms for its resolution were formulated, some of which were implemented at the legislative level and brought a significant positive effect. However, despite the variability of specific approaches, the task of properly guaranteeing the rights of criminally prosecuted persons is not removed from the agenda. Moreover, following the development of criminal procedure institutions, the improvement of forms and methods of combating crime, a complex of contradictions associated with the observance of the rights of alleged offenders also evolves. Thus, one can note the cyclical nature of the existing discussions, the degree of which rises from time to time. The Russian criminal procedure doctrine is currently in the phase of active discussion of this issue. In this regard, within the framework of the article, an attempt was made to evaluate the existing proposals, to understand why numerous ideas do not achieve a positive result, and in the end to answer the question of the advisability of continuing scientific research in this area.

This article, based on the achieved level of development of the theory and practice of prosecutorial supervision, which has proved its position in legal reality as an independent branch of law and a field of scientific knowledge, examines the current aspects of the improving of the legal regulation of the activity of the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation as the most important state–legal institution. It is recommended that, among the sources of information necessary for this purpose, specifically refer to the results of historical and legal analysis of the evolution of the formation of legislation on the prosecutor’s office, materials of scientific research, legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on cases of examining the constitutionality of laws, both directly related to the activity of the prosecutor’s office, and other regulations related to its professional activity. The article highlights, within acceptable limits, the provisions essential for ensuring, according to the authors, proper legal regulation of the position, significance and content of the purpose and types of tasks on which the completeness, certainty and efficiency of the final results of the prosecutor’s office depend. In line with the provisions of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation” № 1-FKZ, March 14, 2020, the considerations on the legislative solution of the problem of the functions of the prosecutor’s office, possible counter-arguments addressed to the potential opponents of the multifunctional nature of the Russian prosecutor’s office are outlined. The article pays some attention to the issues of legal regulation of the powers of prosecutors, service in the prosecutor’s office

The constitutional reform that took place in 2020 affected many aspects of public and social life. One of these aspects was the functioning judicial system in the Russian Federation. In particular, the unified federal judicial system has lost one of its elements — the constitutional (statutory) courts of the subjects. It seems that such legislative transformations can be considered as a kind of finale of the history of regional constitutional control in the Russian Federation, which was discussed for quite a long time in the domestic legal doctrine. However, the format chosen by the federal legislator for the abolition of regional constitutional courts was actually aimed at transforming rather than eliminating the existing system, which is confirmed by the mention in the text of the relevant law of bodies completely new to the domestic system of public power — constitutional (charter) councils under the legislative body of the subject of the Russian Federation. The article provides a critical analysis of the transformation of the regional system of constitutional control, in particular, draws attention to two key problems: 1) inconsistency of the federal legislator in the organization of a new (reorganization of the old) system of regional constitutional control; 2) low interest of the regions in the development and strengthening of their own autonomous system of regional control. In conclusion, the author’s analysis of the current regional practice of the activities of regional constitutional (charter) councils is proposed.

For the development of Russian constitutional law, international anticorruption standards are of great interest, which are beginning to spread their influence on the ideas of national governments about modern requirements for regulating power relations. A good example of a traditional topic for constitutional law, which is affected by the anticorruption conventions of the United Nations and the documents of the “soft law” of the Council of Europe, are the issues of electoral law. Specialized international legal standards that try to curb corrupt practices during the electoral process have been developing since the early 2000s. The most well-known group of such standards is related to guaranteeing transparency in the financing of election campaigns and political parties. This article examines the Russian experience of implementing Part 3 of Article 7 of the 2003 UN Convention against Corruption through participation in a specially created “Mechanism for reviewing the implementation of the Convention”, and also analyzes the specifics of implementing the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe “On Common Rules for combating corruption in the financing of political Parties and election campaigns” 2003 through the mechanisms of GRECO — A special organization of the Council of Europe, designed to monitor the progress of States in improving national legislation in the spirit of pan-European anti-corruption ideals. Despite Russia’s formal withdrawal from the Council of Europe in 2022, the European anti-corruption conventions and mechanisms of this international organization continue to be an interesting object for study.