Vol 9, No 1 (2023)

13 декабря 2022 года в Самарском университете состоялся научно-практический круглый стол «Антикоррупционные чтения – 2022», связанный с актуальной проблемой современного мира и приуроченный к Международному дню борьбы с коррупцией – 9 декабря. Организатором мероприятия выступил юридический институт Самарского университета при участии Самарского регионального отделения общероссийской общественной организации «Ассоциация юристов России».

The article deals with the issue of correlation between regional and federal lawmaking as an object of theoretical understanding. The relevance of the topic in modern conditions is substantiated. The problems of identifying the plurality of principles of regional lawmaking, their relationship with the principles of lawmaking at the level of formation of federal legislation are analyzed. The author substantiates the position according to which the unity of the national legal system and the two-level systems of legislation presuppose the unity of the principles of lawmaking. The law-making of the subjects is the specifics of Russia as a federal state. The article presents the positions of researchers on the role of delegated regional lawmaking and advanced regional lawmaking. The practical experience of advanced regional lawmaking in the context of the spread of coronavirus infection COVID-19 is summarized. The actual task of the study is to determine the regional lawmaking, its role and place in the unified legal system of the Russian Federation.

This article raises the problem of the lack of regulation in the Russian criminal procedure legislation of the participation of persons with disabilities. It is proposed to replace the terminology used in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation «persons with physical and mental disabilities» with «persons with disabilities», extending it not only to suspects, accused, but also to participants in criminal proceedings in general who fall under its signs. The necessity of allocating this category of participants is justified, based on the fact that they are limited in their ability to exercise their rights and perform the duties provided to them by law, and endow them with a special procedural status. Attention is drawn to the need to implement this, including on the basis of the provisions of international legal documents and the modern doctrine of the legal social state. It is proposed to use the compensatory approach developed by the author to solve the identified problems. It is noted that in a number of states such an approach finds its implementation, which allows using their experience to improve the Russian criminal procedure legislation.

The article is devoted to understanding the essence and consideration of the system of means of criminal procedural proof, that is, useful assets to be used to establish circumstances relevant to a criminal case, substantiate the positions of the parties and law enforcement decisions. In this regard, the priority of the narrow doctrinal approach to understanding the means of proof is argued, and its inherent roughness is revealed. The paramount importance of evidence is noted as the most important means of criminal procedural proof, based on the perception of material and ideal traces-images of objective reality. Along with this, the role of formal means of proof is revealed: presumptions, prejudicial, well-known, notorious and other facts. Particular attention is paid to the so called subjective means of proof: well-known and legal knowledge, legal awareness, legal understanding, legal culture, sense of professional responsibility, morality, conscience, professional and life experience. And, finally, it is suggested that there is another group of useful resources – the so-called reference and auxiliary means of proof.

An attempt has been made to assess the content and implementation of the adversarial principle in the criminal process from the standpoint of comparing specific norms and institutions with their sectoral counterparts in other procedural sectors. It is proposed to replace the ideologically saturated discussion about the benefits and harms of competitiveness for the criminal process with an assessment of the state of its specific institutions. It was revealed that a number of institutions of the criminal process have a non-competitive nature, among them are preventive measures, the return of the criminal case by the court to the prosecutor, monetary recovery, forensic examination, termination of the criminal case in connection with the reconciliation of the parties, appeal and cassation appeal, review of the case on newly opened and new circumstances, etc. Separate borrowings of norms from arbitration, civil and administrative proceedings, which are of a pronounced adversarial nature, are proposed to correct the identified problems of the criminal process.

This article is the result of a study of the concept of «strategic autonomy of the EU», its meaning in the supranational activities of an international regional organization. The relevance of the article is due to the fact that in the Russian and foreign scientific literature this concept is actively studied in the absence of its unified understanding. The concept of «strategic autonomy of the EU» is used in the specific actions of an international organization based on its own capabilities. This means cooperation with other subjects of international law in achieving European goals, while maintaining the possibility for autonomous actions. The purpose of the publication is to define the concept of «strategic autonomy» in relation to neighborhood policy. The article uses such general scientific research methods as generalization, analysis and synthesis, concretization. As a result of the analysis of scientific publications, the authors came to the conclusion that strategic autonomy should be understood as the EU goal, covering all external actions of an international regional organization.

The article analyzes topical issues of interaction between the President of the Russian Federation and the upper house of the Russian parliament within the framework of the system of separation of powers, taking into account the changes introduced by the Law of the Russian Federation on the amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation as of March 14, 2020 № 1-FKZ. The author focuses on the expansion of the personnel powers of the Federation Council, as well as changing the procedure for its formation. The idea is substantiated that amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation contribute to the improvement of the system of checks and balances, including by strengthening the role of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. The powers of the President, arising from the difference in the constitutional functions of the head of state and parliament, basically and most importantly do not compete with the powers of a representative body. The Constitution makes a clear distinction between their powers, based on the principle of separation of powers. At the same time, the powers of the President in the sphere of relations with the parliament allow us to consider the head of state as an indispensable participant in the legislative process. The author proposes a number of changes aimed at improving relations between the President and the Federation Council in the exercise of their statutory powers.