Procedural liability and its types

Procedural legal responsibility is the subject of research by many civilians. Today, there are two approaches to understanding it. The first involves a narrow consideration of procedural responsibility in the framework of the jurisdictional process. When using the second approach, the concept is revealed in a broader sense.

The relevance of the issue

Domestic authors pay very close attention to procedures, process, norms, forms and relations, not reducing them to the jurisdictional sphere of interaction. Currently, scientists are increasingly interested in non-judicial types of relationships. Their formation also presupposes the existence of certain procedures, the violation of which entails an appropriate reaction in the form of procedural responsibility. Its mechanisms are implemented by authorized bodies and employees. Procedural liability for violation of the procedural rules that mediate the execution of dispositions and sanctions of substantive provisions in different sectors, it can be punitive-punitive and restorative.

Verification of the constitutionality of the Federal Law

This procedure is carried out for various reasons. The authorized body for verification is the COP. According to the legal positions of the Court, the constitutional rules governing the status of the State Duma stipulate the need for the Rules of Procedure of the lower house to specify the decision-making process, personal voting when approving projects sequentially in all readings. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the recognition of the act as incompatible with the Constitution. The loss of force by law, which was adopted in violation of the requirements, can be considered as the constitutional and procedural responsibility of all persons involved in lawmaking - members of both chambers of the Federal Assembly and the President.

Opinion L.S. Zhakaeva

In her dissertation, the author tried to justify the implementation of the constitutional process as a relatively isolated structural unit of the system. At the same time, Zhakayeva came to several, not always correct conclusions. The author recognizes the unity of constitutional law in terms of its content. The norms may refer to procedural legal institutions. At the same time, intra-industry distinction will be rather arbitrary. In constitutional law, the author believes, there is no single process. It contains only institutions with a procedural character. In particular, the author singles out separately the development and adoption of constitutional provisions, the introduction of amendments to them, the election, legislative processes, and legal proceedings. As a result, Zhakayev comes to the following conclusion. She rightly believes that there are no reasons for isolating constitutional procedural provisions into a separate independent industry. Accordingly, the idea of ​​creating a Code, according to the author, is not feasible. Along with this, Zhakayeva argues that there is no constitutional law procedural liability. The author explains his position by the fact that sanctions are not fixed in his norms. One could well agree with this opinion if in practice violations of various constitutional provisions were not allowed. In particular, we are talking about the rules governing lawmaking and suffrage. Violations, meanwhile, are. Accordingly, they apply and procedural measures. In this case, they are of a restorative nature.

Conditions for the implementation of sentences

As grounds for procedural liability advocated violation.It involves non-compliance by the subject of the rules of a particular procedure. Grounds for procedural liability, like a specific sanction, are drawn up by the decision of the authorized body. Assuming a violation, a presumption of guilt actually takes place. This means that awareness, intent in the actions of the subject are assumed by default. In this regard, the competent person or body fixing the violation is not charged with proving guilt. At the same time, the violator has the right to present evidence of his innocence. This, in turn, may entail a change in the implementation of liability measures.

Legal proceedings

Procedural liability It is an instrument of state coercion. Its content is aimed at restoring the proper course of legal proceedings, eliminating any obstacles, opportunities to influence the court or participants in the hearing. Procedural liability may serve as a punishment for unlawful conduct during the proceedings.

Features of the application of sanctions in the framework of constitutional proceedings

Liability measures may include a fine, removal from the hearing room, warning. The rules of conduct at the meeting are provided for by Article 54 of the Federal Law on the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. According to the norm, persons who are present in the hall must respect the court, the procedures adopted therein, obey the orders given by the presiding person, and observe the schedule of the hearing. An entity that violates the established rules and does not respond to comments may be removed from the proceedings after a warning. The presiding judge has the right to eliminate the audience present at the hearing. If it violates the order, it interferes with the normal course of the proceedings. The removal of the public is carried out after warning and in agreement with the other members of the Court. The fine for violation of the rules of conduct can reach 10 minimum wages. As article 58 of the above FKZ points out, the presiding judge gives the floor to the participants and judges, interrupts the appearance of the parties to the case and third parties if they relate to aspects not related to the proceedings. In the event of unauthorized violation of the sequence of explanations, double failure to comply with the requirements, the use of offensive / rude expressions, the proclamation of appeals and allegations punishable by law, subjects may be deprived of the word.

Code of Civil Procedure

Civil procedural liability applies to all persons involved in legal proceedings. They primarily include the plaintiff and defendant, as well as their representatives. In addition to them, the trial involves an expert, witnesses, persons assisting in the administration of justice, executors of decisions. Procedural liability, according to the Code of Civil Procedure, applies to the audience present at the meeting.

Fines

Their size affects procedural basis of legal liabilityapplied in the framework of legal proceedings. Penalties may be charged for:

1. Failure to notify an employee or citizen who is not able to provide the evidence required by the court, including, within the time period established by the court, about this fact for reasons considered disrespectful.
2. Failure by the employees to provide the required evidence in proceedings arising in connection with public legal relations.
3. Violation of prohibitions imposed as a measure to secure a claim.
4. The absence of a specialist, expert, or witness at a meeting for disrespectful reasons.
5. Evasion of the translator from attending the proceedings or the proper performance of the duties assigned to him.
6. Non-reporting by authorized employees of the measures taken by a private court order.
7. The absence of a representative of the state authority, territorial structure of self-government or an official, the presence of which is mandatory, for consideration of a case arising from public relations.

Additional exposure tools

In addition to court fines, the Code of Civil Procedure provides for such measures as:

1. A warning.
2. Forced drive of witnesses, if they do not appear at the meeting for disrespectful reasons on the second call.
3. Removal from the courtroom of persons participating in the consideration of the dispute, their representatives, the present public at all times of the hearing or part thereof. The court in such cases has the right to carry out the proceedings in closed session or postpone it.

Agribusiness

Administrative procedural responsibility applied for violations similar to those for which sanctions are established by the Civil Procedure Code. The agrarian and industrial complex fixes the following methods of influence:

1. A warning.
2. Fines. Their size depends on the nature of the violation.
3. Removal from the hearing room.

Procedural legal liability extends to the parties, representatives, other participants. The latter include witnesses, a translator, representatives of local and state authorities, other entities present in the hall.

Rules for imposing sanctions on the agro-industrial complex

The procedure and grounds for the imposition of monetary penalties within the framework of the production are provided for in Sec. 11 agribusiness. As the Code indicates, fines may be imputed for:

1. Disrespectful attitude to the court.
2. Failure to fulfill the obligation to provide the required evidence for disrespectful reasons or failure to notify of the impossibility of presenting it.
3. Failure to comply with a court ruling to secure a claim.
4. Failure to appear at the hearing. We are talking not only about plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, representatives of authorized bodies of authority, translator, but also about a person who is brought to administrative responsibility.
5. Loss of an executive document.
6. Failure to comply with a court order by a bank, credit institution, or other persons.

Nuances

Analyzing the current legislation, it can be established that cases that arise from public legal relations, as well as related to violations of the Code of Administrative Offenses, are considered according to the rules established by the agro-industrial complex and the civil procedure code. In this regard, it would be incorrect to speak of administrative liability as an independent category. It is covered by the sanctions provided for in both the agro-industrial complex and the civil-industrial complex. It will act as an independent only after the completion of the formation of the relevant areas of legal proceedings.

CAO

When applying sanctions, it is necessary to clearly understand the reasons for which they are charged. Analysis of the latter is often difficult in practice. Should be delimited procedural basis of administrative responsibility and factors leading to the application of the sanctions indicated above. The problem is that the Code of Administrative Offenses imposes penalties for a variety of misconduct, including for:

1. Failure to comply with the order of the bailiff or judge.
2. Failure to take action on presentation or in particular.
3. Obstructing the appearance of a jury or lay judge.
4. Failure to comply with the legal requirements of the investigator, prosecutor, interrogating officer, employee conducting an administrative case.
5. Creating obstacles to the legitimate activities of an FSSP employee.
6. Providing deliberately false information by a witness, specialist, expert, intentionally incorrect translation.

These violations to one degree or another apply to all types of legal proceedings.

CPC

Criminal liability expressed in the compulsory undergoing of negative consequences by the violator of the procedural rules. Accordingly, sanctions may be imposed if there is a fact of non-compliance with the established requirements.It is worth saying that the question regarding the composition of the offenses for which is provided criminal liabilityremains currently controversial. The sanctions are:

1. A warning.
2. Cash collection.
3. Removal from the hall in case of violation of the rules of conduct and disobedience to the orders of the bailiff or the chairman.

Penalties, as indicated by Article 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may be imposed in case of non-fulfillment by participants of production of obligations stipulated by the procedural legislation, in accordance with Art. 118 of the Code.

Specificity of Norms

In the legal literature, the means of criminal procedural responsibility include the replacement of preventive measures with more stringent ones. For example, instead of a written undertaking not to leave the place of residence, an arrest may be imputed. In addition, it is possible:

1. Making a private court ruling on violation of prescriptions.
2. The imposition of a monetary penalty on the surety in case of his personal guarantee.
3. Circulation of treasury income made as a preventive measure if the accused or suspect fails to fulfill the obligations established for them.

At present, the issue of sanctions against the defense attorney and the prosecutor is not fully resolved if they do not comply with the orders of the presiding judge. Legislation, if there is reason, allows the replacement of these entities. A number of experts agree that this procedure can be regarded as a sanction against prosecutors and lawyers who violate the rules.

UK

In the previous Code, the procedural basis of criminal liability was not disclosed. In the theory of law, there were several approaches to solving this issue. This, in turn, gave rise to difficulties in judicial practice. Uncertainty of interpretations negatively influenced the decision-making procedure. After all, without a clear understanding of all aspects of the matter, it is impossible to make an informed decision. At the legislative level, for the first time, the basis for criminal liability was enshrined in Article 3 of the 1958 Fundamentals. In accordance with the norm, the offender is the person guilty of a crime - an act representing public danger and provided for by the Criminal Code. A person is prosecuted only by a court sentence. Accordingly, the presence in the actions of the subject of signs of a crime is the only condition for imposing punishment on him under the Criminal Code. The procedural procedure of criminal liability is currently quite clearly regulated by the CPC. The legislation establishes a number of mandatory procedures - stages of production. To be held accountable, a person must obtain suspect status. For this, in turn, there must be reasons. They are identified as part of a preliminary investigation. After receiving the status, measures of restraint are applied to the person. They are: arrest, detention, recognizance not to leave, etc. If the suspect violates the rules of conduct, the preventive measure may be toughened. Direct trial in court is carried out after the indictment (decision) has been passed and checked by the prosecutor. This procedure is designed to ensure compliance with the rights of the suspect. As a prerequisite for imputing punishment is the presence of proven guilt. This means that the prosecution must provide materials confirming the intent of the person. The suspect himself is not required to prove his innocence, although he has the right to do so.