Suchergebnisse

Las Naciones Unidas impone a todos los gobiernos garantizar los derechos a una audiencia pública justa por un tribunal competente, lo que está consagrado en la cláusula 1 del artículo 6 del Convenio para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos y las Libertades Fundamentales. El Pacto de Derechos Civiles y Políticos requiere que los gobiernos presten la más seria atención a los asuntos de jurisdicción. Este artículo analiza cambios legislativos realizados desde finales de 2001, tendencias inherentes a períodos del desarrollo de Rusia, el sistema judicial de la República de Croacia y la jurisdicción del tribunal de primera instancia. El artículo aborda disposiciones inherentes a los procedimientos judiciales de los tribunales municipales en forma de procedimientos simplificados y condiciones de su aplicación.

The above analysis of the development of judicial system of Saudi Arabia allows authors reflecting the dynamics of the judiciary hierarchy. Particular attention is focused on the jurisdiction of the courts of first instance. The Law on the Justice System of Saudi Arabia (2007) excluded single consideration of petty crimes by kadi. Hence, their consideration was completely transferred to the courts of first instance in a collegiate composition of three kadis. In most countries of the world, consideration of petty crimes has been transferred to the jurisdiction of world courts or magistrates' courts. Therefore, the authors recommend the legislator of Saudi Arabia to return to the system of courts of summary jurisdiction, which provide the consideration of petty criminal cases under simplified legal proceedings.

The international documents oblige the Russian legislator to pay substantial attention to the issues of jurisdiction. These requirements are stipulated in paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, etc. The essence of these requirements is to provide the states with guarantees of the right to a fair public consideration of the case without any delay by a competent court.The issues of the court competence in the criminal cases in Russia are regulated in Article 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The significance of meeting the requirements of this article is in the fact that if there are some violations of the rules stipulated in Article 31, it automatically leads to a sentence cancellation. The sign of territorial jurisdiction, as a rule, is not violated, but there are not only the issues, but also the facts of violations and sentence cancellation concerning a compliance with the requirements of subject jurisdiction, i.e. which court should consider a particular criminal case in vertical direction. In such cases, the entire procedure starts again, of course, this is a nuisance for everyone. However, the arbitrary transfer of criminal cases from court to court is not allowed. In particular, no one can be deprived of the right to his case consideration by that court, to the jurisdiction of which it is attributed by law. This rule seems to be simple, but it should be impeccably observed.

The above analysis of the development of judicial system of Saudi Arabia allows authors reflecting the dynamics of the judiciary hierarchy. Particular attention is focused on the jurisdiction of the courts of first instance. The Law on the Justice System of Saudi Arabia (2007) excluded single consideration of petty crimes by kadi. Hence, their consideration was completely transferred to the courts of first instance in a collegiate composition of three kadis. In most countries of the world, consideration of petty crimes has been transferred to the jurisdiction of world courts or magistrates' courts. Therefore, the authors recommend the legislator of Saudi Arabia to return to the system of courts of summary jurisdiction, which provide the consideration of petty criminal cases under simplified legal proceedings.

The international documents oblige the Russian legislator to pay substantial attention to the issues of jurisdiction. These requirements are stipulated in paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, etc. The essence of these requirements is to provide the states with guarantees of the right to a fair public consideration of the case without any delay by a competent court.The issues of the court competence in the criminal cases in Russia are regulated in Article 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The significance of meeting the requirements of this article is in the fact that if there are some violations of the rules stipulated in Article 31, it automatically leads to a sentence cancellation. The sign of territorial jurisdiction, as a rule, is not violated, but there are not only the issues, but also the facts of violations and sentence cancellation concerning a compliance with the requirements of subject jurisdiction, i.e. which court should consider a particular criminal case in vertical direction. In such cases, the entire procedure starts again, of course, this is a nuisance for everyone. However, the arbitrary transfer of criminal cases from court to court is not allowed. In particular, no one can be deprived of the right to his case consideration by that court, to the jurisdiction of which it is attributed by law. This rule seems to be simple, but it should be impeccably observed.

The United Nations obliges the national legislator to pay particular attention to issues of jurisdiction through the International Documents. These obligations are specified in clause 1 of Article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in clause 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is the duty of states to guarantee rights to a fair public hearing by a competent court without delay. Jurisdiction issues, i.e. competencies of criminal courts in the Russian Federation, are regulated by Article 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The rules of this article are of great importance. Thus, the fulfillment of the requirements of Article 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation consists in the fact that if the rules of this article are violated, this automatically leads to the sentence cancellation and the re-examination of the criminal case. Similar serious attention is paid to the legislator of the Republic of Estonia. The legal system of this country is part of the Romano-German legal family, having peculiar differences. In order to alleviate the workload of the courts of first instance, offenses were singled out in the Criminal Code as an independent form of punishment, and the simplified (summary) proceedings were also stipulated for application.

The article presents three periods from the history of the legal system of Turkey, the knowledge of which will allow for objective scientific research. Indeed, each period has contributed to the development of the judicial system. Of particular importance will be the attitude of the legislator to the justice of the peace in criminal matters with a maximum sentence of up to 1 year in prison. The latter since 2014 were abolished and their load was redistributed to a higher authority. France did likewise, which also rejected justice of the peace.

In addition, this study addresses the issues of the accelerated process, which was either introduced or canceled. In Russia, a simplified legal procedure has been successfully applied. Most European countries apply simplified the legal procedure to criminal offenses for which the maximum sanction of punishment is up to five years in prison. In Turkey, a simplified legal procedure was applied to criminal offenses with a maximum sentence of up to 2 years in prison. Despite a small sanction and tendencies in other countries to introduce simplified procedures, the Turkish legislator refused this practice.

The legislator of Armenia is actively working on the planned implementation of the UN International Document requirements. In particular, to ensure guarantees of citizen rights to a fair public hearing by a competent court without delay and red tape. This follows from the article 14, paragraph 1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The legal system of Armenia is the part of the Romano-German legal family, but with distinctive features. In our opinion, in order to alleviate the workload of the trial courts, the Article 19 of the Criminal Code of the RA “Categories of Crimes” needs to have misconduct as an independent form. For the same purpose, it is necessary to provide for simplified (total) production in the CPC of this country, which, unfortunately, is absent in current legislation. For developments in these areas, you can analyze the article 15 of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The jurisdiction of criminal courts in Russia is regulated by the article 31 of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Violation of this article rules leads to the annulment of the sentence and a criminal case re-examination.