Rossijskoe pravosudie

The article is devoted to the scientific development of the problem of consideration and resolution of labor cases by courts. The purpose of the work is to study the historical experience of considering and resolving labor cases in civil proceedings by special labor sessions of people’s courts during the New economic policy period on the basis of comparative historical and formal legal research methods, scientific principles of objectivity and historicism. The creation of special labor sessions of people’s courts was motivated by the need for those who resolved disputes to have special knowledge and skills to consider labor cases, and also correlated with the focus on accessibility of justice for workers and the course towards optimizing legal proceedings.

The article traces changes in the normative regulation of the activities of labor sessions, identifies the role of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR in filling gaps in the law, and analyzes the problems of jurisdiction and jurisdiction of labor cases. Based on the analysis of judicial practice materials (primarily the rulings of the Civil Cassation Board of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR), the peculiarities of the civil process when considering labor disputes during the New economic policy period are revealed: in the subject composition (thus, representatives of trade unions could be representatives of their members), in matters of evidence and proof, due to the initiative of the court and the specifics of the cases.

The subject of the study is social relations in the field of the use of digital technologies in the administration of justice.

The purpose of the study is to identify and describe the positive and negative effects of the use of information technology in the administration of justice in their interrelation and interdependence. The hypothesis of the study assumes the existence of a set of interrelated and interdependent effects of the use of digital technologies that affect the administration of justice in different ways (positively and negatively).

The categorical and symbolic method “hexagram” is applied. The most significant positive effects of the use of digital technologies in the administration of justice are: realization of the human rights; access to justice; optimization of the work of the court. The most significant negative effects of the use of digital technologies in the administration of justice are: digital inequality, risks of information security violation, the risk of losing the individualization of court decisions.

The obtained result can be used in the selection of priority areas for the implementation of digital technologies in the administration of justice, as well as in the planning of this activity, prevention of risks of violation of human rights or principles of justice in connection with the use of digital technologies.

Subjects of evidentiary activity when assessing evidence in civil and economic disputes, like any person, are faced with certain biases (distortions). One of these biases is cognitive distortions.

Purpose of the work: based on the analysis of doctrinal sources in the field of psychology and law, to identify what distortions the subjects of procedural relations encounter and how they influence the legal decision made.

Brief conclusions. The author identified the following ten cognitive distortions that influence the decisions made by participants in the process: “confirmation bias”, “extreme decision aversion”, “black and white thinking”, “projective distortion”, “framing”, “priming effect”, “anchor heuristic”, “planning fallacy”, “availability heuristic”, “hindsight”. Accordingly, when assessing evidence and exercising procedural rights, you should analyze your actions and the activities of other entities for the impact of the indicated distortions on them. This will lead to improvement of the procedure for adopting a legal and justified judicial act.

The article is dedicated to the research of the correctness and validity of the legislative regulation of implication to a socially dangerous act. The authors note that one of the currently existing theoretical and practical problems is the presence in law enforcement practice of cases of attraction persons to criminal responsibility for implication to a socially dangerous act in the absence of a direct indication of this in the current Russian criminal legislation.

The purpose of the research was to identify problems existing in theory and law enforcement practice, and to propose ways to solve them.

When writing the article, methods such as analysis, synthesis, and generalization were used.

Based on the analysis carried out, the authors concluded that unjustified disregard in law enforcement practice when bringing to criminal responsibility in the case of the implication of a mandatory predicate offense due to the direct indication of the criminal law. The article points to the need to develop rules for the qualification of touched acts in these situations, depending on the fact of awareness or ignorance of the touched person in relation to circumstances excluding criminal liability of the person who committed a predicate crime due to age or insanity. The authors noted that attraction to responsibility for implication a socially dangerous act of an insane person or a person who has not reached the age of criminal responsibility, if the touched person was aware of this, contradicts the principle of legality. At the same time, in a situation where the touched person was mistaken about the nature of the main socially dangerous act, he is liable for touching. In this case, it is necessary to qualify the deed according to the rules of factual error – according to part 3 of Article 30 and one of the parts of Article 316 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The institute of termination of criminal cases (criminal prosecution) on non-rehabilitating grounds has long raised questions in the theory of criminal procedure regarding its legitimacy. Many authors see a significant logical contradiction between this institute and the principle of presumption of innocence, which is essential for protecting human rights. However, this issue cannot be resolved by declaring the question of guilt in cases terminated on these grounds as “open”, or by simply replacing the term “finding of guilt” with the term “ascertaining of guilt”.

It is proposed to address this issue within the framework of legal interpretation of the concept and essence of presumptions, including the presumption of innocence. By providing that the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty in accordance with the law and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force, the presumption of innocence applies only to a specific situation where the criminal process ends with a guilty verdict. However, it operates more broadly outside of this situation – as a mechanism for distributing the burden of proof between the parties in the process, which is used only until it is no longer necessary, that is, when the process of proving guilt is not completed by any final decision in the criminal case (not just a guilty verdict), and only until that moment can it be stated that the accused is considered innocent.

Among such decisions are procedural decisions to terminate a criminal case (prosecution) on non-rehabilitating grounds, in which the investigator, taking into account the above, ascertain the person’s guilt in committing a crime and informs them of this.

The conduct of a special military operation has led to changes in many spheres of life of Russian society. A natural consequence of these processes was the reform of certain branches and institutions of legislation, including the provisions of criminal law. The separate law providing for the specifics of criminal liability of participants in a special military operation has been replaced by relevant legal norms. Currently, special grounds for exemption from criminal liability and punishment are provided for this category of persons who have committed crimes. Due to the novelty of such legislative prescriptions, there is a need to conduct a legal analysis of the norms provided for in Articles 781 and 802 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

These novelties of the Russian criminal legislation are subject to theoretical understanding, on the basis of which ways to increase the effectiveness of criminal law regulations on exemption from criminal liability and punishment of participants in a special military operation are to be developed.

As a result of the conducted criminal law study of the norms establishing the grounds and conditions for exemption from criminal liability and punishment of participants in a special military operation, their socio-legal essence was determined, their relationship with related norms and institutions was revealed, recommendations and explanations on the application of these norms were formulated, as well as potential directions for improving criminal legislation were outlined in this area. In particular, the reasonableness of clarifying the analyzed norms among the persons to whom the application of the relevant provisions is permissible is justified.

The article contains an analysis of the problem of the implementation in the legal system of the Eurasian Economic Union of the right of legal entities and entrepreneurs to apply to the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union.

The purpose of the study is to establish the specifics of the treatment of legal entities and entrepreneurs in the EAEU Court by analyzing errors in the treatment and suggesting options for their correction, if the errors are correctable. To achieve the purpose of the study, the following tasks were solved: to identify the features of applying to legal entities and entrepreneurs to the EAEU Court; to analyze the mistakes they make when applying to the EAEU Court, identify the causes and propose options for eliminating errors.

The study used problem-theoretical and formal-logical research methods, the method of analysis.

During the analysis of the practice of the EAEU Court, it was found that the main reason for the shortcomings of statements to the EAEU Court is the failure of applicants to take into account clear provisions of the EAEU law norms establishing the conditions and procedure for applying to the EAEU Court, the practice of the EAEU Court. The elimination of this cause is possible through research, education and training for the formation of legal awareness and legal culture of legal entities and entrepreneurs.