Articles

Currently, the provisions of the principle of justice in criminal law establish the requirement of proportionality of the punishment imposed to the crime committed and the personality of the perpetrator, as well as the prohibition of double responsibility for the same act. This legislative understanding of the principle of justice was formed in the course of a long historical development. Representatives of doctrine and subjects of law-making activity formulated various aspects of the criminal law principle of justice in order to determine the actual meaning of this principle and to establish its limits. In the article a complex analysis of views on the category of justice in criminal law is made, the history of development of the Russian criminal legislation in terms of regulation of various aspects of the principle of justice is investigated. The author comes to the conclusion that the classical doctrine connects the category of criminal justice with punishment and includes the requirements of proportionality of punishment to the crime and the personality of the perpetrator. At the same time, in different historical periods there were different views on the content of the principle of justice: the idea of proportionality received different content, and punishment was built on different grounds (either on the theory of retribution and punishment for the deed, or on the theory of expediency).

The implementation of criminal policy in the field of protection of traditional Russian spiritual and moral values requires improvement of the methodological bases of the axiological interpretation of objects of criminal-legal protection, including answers to the questions: why this or that object should be protected, what exactly is the protected interest or benefit, what is its valuable content for society. Such interpretation is called upon to reveal the true component of the protected legal benefits based on the cultural and civilizational features of the Russian society and the state. The meaning of the axiological interpretation of objects of criminal-legal protection is to identify, on the basis of traditional Russian spiritual and moral values, such content of human rights and freedoms (which in themselves are recognized as the highest constitutional value), which would contribute to the disclosure of human potential in society in the interests of harmonious and safe coexistence of all people, while avoiding the extremes set by universalism and relativism, individualism and statism, demonstrating a fair balance of the interests of an individual and the state, freedom and security, opportunities and responsibility. If any possibility of human behavior runs counter to traditional values, it cannot be perceived as a component of the content of rights and freedoms, and therefore cannot claim the status of a legally protected good.

The implementation of criminal policy in the field of protection of traditional Russian spiritual and moral values requires improvement of the methodological bases of the axiological interpretation of objects of criminal-legal protection, including answers to the questions: why this or that object should be protected, what exactly is the protected interest or benefit, what is its valuable content for society. Such interpretation is called upon to reveal the true component of the protected legal benefits based on the cultural and civilizational features of the Russian society and the state. The meaning of the axiological interpretation of objects of criminal-legal protection is to identify, on the basis of traditional Russian spiritual and moral values, such content of human rights and freedoms (which in themselves are recognized as the highest constitutional value), which would contribute to the disclosure of human potential in society in the interests of harmonious and safe coexistence of all people, while avoiding the extremes set by universalism and relativism, individualism and statism, demonstrating a fair balance of the interests of an individual and the state, freedom and security, opportunities and responsibility. If any possibility of human behavior runs counter to traditional values, it cannot be perceived as a component of the content of rights and freedoms, and therefore cannot claim the status of a legally protected good.

This paper explores the development of disclosure of evidence and unused material in the Anglo-American criminal procedure by discussing the rights, duties and powers of its main actors — the prosecution, the defense and the court. Initially, the concepts of the dispute between the parties and trial by surprise entail the presumption of non-disclosure which stays in force until the XIXth century. Innovations of that time assign to the disclosure the function of providing the accused with the prosecution materials. The next step towards the refutation of the presumption is taken during the reforms of the 2nd half of the XXth century when the duties of the defendant are introduced by limiting the privilege against self-incrimination. The author concludes that English and American law-making bodies are expanding the scope of mandatory pretrial disclosure by both parties, expecting early access to case data to encourage the defendant to promptly plead guilty, the prosecutor to drop the charges and the court to dismiss the case. Together with guilty pleas, it marginalizes criminal trials. However, impediments to speeding up the process, such as the absence of an institutionalized category of criminal case files as well as the lack of criminal defense lawyers, still persist.

Features of contracts for electric power supply, purchase and sale (supply) of it are discussed in the paper. A comparison of these contracts is made. The persons granted with the rights and responsibilities to enter into these contracts are identified. It is noted that the legislation on the electric power industry is inconsistent in distinguishing between contracts for electric power supply, on one side, and purchase and sale contracts, on the other. For instance, it is permitted to enter into electric power supply contracts, in particular, for guaranteeing suppliers which are acknowledged as energy sales organizations but not energy supply organizations. As a result, a person who does not have the necessary technical devices, i. e. a connected network to the consumer’s (customer’s) networks, engages electric grid organization to provide electric power transmission services to the consumer. Electric power transmission services are provided upon concluding sales and purchase agreements. They are provided on the basis of a contract for the provision of electric power transmission services. This contract is considered to be consistent with the concept of such contracts. The absence of a sign of a connected network under an energy supply contract is an optional exception to the general rules and it negates the specified division of contracts for the electric power supply. The article examines the legal issues of energy supply and purchase and sale contracts. It is noted that the legislative regulation of contracts for the supply of electric power requires improvement, incl. in order to eliminate contradictions in it.

Does reliance and its violation affect law? At first glance, the correlation between the concepts of “law” and “ reliance” is in the same category of questions as the correlation with the concepts of “morality” and “morals” — that is, it is more of a theoretical fabrication and affects the metaphysical essence of law, having a modest practical significance. Meanwhile, the category of reliance has a somewhat different position. Reliance, of course, also has a high meaning, as well as moral and morality, because being a universal value has an important significance for the regulation of relations. As a possible regulator of relations between people, reliance can supplant law or on the contrary strengthen it. However, in a more applied nature, reliance can have a much greater significance and seriously affect legal relations, changing them or serving as a reason for their emergence. On the one hand, a breach of reliance can be a reason for refracting the operation of the law, changing its operation contrary to basic perceptions. On the other hand, in other situations, breach of reliance serves as a basis for compensation of losses of the victim. This article aims to demonstrate how and in what cases a breach of reliance can be the cause of legal consequences in the Russian legal order.

The article analyzes changes in legislation on the establishment of public easements and evaluates the legal effects that arise in connection with this. It is noted that the possibility of “re-registration” of other existing rights for a public easement should be considered as the right of the interested subject and is implemented on the basis of a complex legal structure. Particular attention is paid to the possibility of further dissemination of the legal structure of public easements, the emergence of new types of them in conditions when the theory of the content and application of this structure is just emerging. It is concluded that the possibility of the existence of various public easements inevitably raises the need for additional (special) requirements to justify their establishment. It is concluded that it is advisable to double-check the normatively established “justifications” for public easements. A proposal has been made to formulate universal rules for justifying these easements, including the presence of a need recognized by the legislator to use the land (land plots) of another person, but not having a subjective right to do so at the time of filing the application and an objective opportunity to comply with the principle of the least burdensome use of the land plot. Currently, public hearings when establishing these easements are not held, but in order to strengthen public control and ensure the rights of citizens and organizations, it is advisable to introduce them. Providing subjects of natural monopolies with the opportunity to formalize a public easement in a simplified manner is appropriate to consider as a special benefit (preference), which gives grounds for special verification of the actual achievement of the expected social and economic effects.

Through the prism of comparison with the rules of civil procedure, topical issues of appointment of an examination by a notary in order to provide evidence are considered. The problem of the scope of application of procedural legislation to notarial actions to provide evidence is revealed. Since the introduction of this notarial act in the 1930s, its legal regulation has not changed substantially. As before, the current legislative model provides for the direct application of procedural rules on the provision of evidence by the court, but does not specify which procedural rules should apply when providing evidence by a notary. Special attention is paid to the problems of the conditions for the appointment of an examination, challenging the appointment of an examination as a perfect notarial act. Possible contradictions that arise between interested parties during the appointment of an examination by a notary have been identified. An extended interpretation of the provisions of art. 103 Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Russian Federation on the notary, leads in practice to a statement of challenges to the notary, conflicts between the applicant and interested parties on the candidacy of an expert (expert institution), the wording of questions to the expert, ambiguities with the legal force of the notary’s decision on the appointment of an examination. Clarifications to the current legislation on the notary are proposed, based on the separation of legal regulation of notarial and judicial support of evidence, as well as the appointment of an examination by a notary as an independent notarial action to certify indisputable facts.