Suchergebnisse

In the present article authors analyze in detail organizational and legal bases of the courts of general jurisdiction in Russian Federation operation and functioning from different points of view. Authors explains major changes that occurred in Russian Federation in the past years and presents new technologies implementation in to the court operation process and outlines some related organizational and legal questions. Authors analyze questions of the state automated system of Russian Federation "Justice" implementation and functioning, present reasons for it's creation and full functioning. Opinions of specialists, barristers and solicitors are presented, authors correspond above opinions to the personal scientifically based researches and present results of analyses to readers. As a conclusion authors present personal advices on the changes in current legislation of Russian Federation that would positively affect the system of courts of Russian Federation in whole and Courts of General Jurisdiction in Russian Federation specifically and would assist as an Instrument of Human Rights and Freedoms Protection in Russian Federation. © IDOSI Publications, 2013.

The basis for constructing scientific models of constitutional and legal status of judges should put the following provisions: First, constitutional and legal status of judges should not be considered outside the context of the constitutional powers of man and citizen, meaning and scope of rights, fundamental freedoms and duties enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine, which is the foundation, foundation special legal status of judges;Secondly, the Law of Ukraine "On the Judicial System" has given judges the status of official state (judicial) authorities, indicating the need to take into account the peculiarities of the legal status of this category of persons in determining the structure and nature of the legal elements of constitutional and legal status of judges.Thus, the constitutional and legal status of judges of courts of general jurisdiction is the system of general, fundamental principles by which the Constitution and other laws determined the actual position of judge in the state and society. In other words, the constitutional and legal status of judges of courts of general jurisdiction, including rules of the Constitution and other sources of constitutional law and requires further research to disclose the content and nature of this legal category.An important aspect of the study of constitutional and legal status of judges of courts of general jurisdiction is to analyze its structure. As for the structure of constitutional and legal status of the subjects of constitutional and legal relations, among the lawyers there is no unity of opinion on the range of its main components. Thus, proponents of a narrow approach to include such elements only rights and obligations, sometimes competent subjects of constitutional law and consider this phenomenon as one of the main means of influencing the constitutional right to social relations. For example, a lawyer VY splinter sees the most important feature of the legal status of the subjects of constitutional law is that they integrate the rights and obligations of entities that meet their social role in the mechanism of democracy, reflecting the common purpose, unity law as a member of the constitutional relationship, that is, combining different types of subjects of this branch of law in the whole system. ; Розглянуті основні визначення конституційно-правового статусу суддів судів загальної юрисдикції. Зроблені висновки та пропозиції щодо удосконалення правового регулювання в цій сфері.

The Federal Republic of Germany has one of the most stable criminal procedure laws in Europe. The German Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) was adopted in 1887 and is now applied as amended on April 7, 1987. It reflects the general ideas of the democratic reforms of criminal procedure that took part in the 19th century. Witness' status in the German CCP is described in Chapter 6 'Witnesses' of Book 1 'General Provisions'. The Witness chapter contain the terms setting out: a witness's rights and obligations, procedure of interrogation of witnesses and certain categories of persons (federal President, MPs and ministers), a witness's oath, compensation as well as legal counsel. One of the main differences of the German law from that of Ukraine is that in the German CCP witness' status is described in a separate chapter specifying their rights and obligations, while in the Ukrainian CCP these are included in 'Other Participants of Criminal Proceedings'. The German CCP does not focus on the definition of a witness as much as in the Ukrainian CCP – this is what makes German CCP really specific as it contains no definitions of the terms used therein. Therefore, the legislator enabled to develop them in the criminal procedural doctrine and jurisprudence. In Germany, 'witness' is most commonly defined by the reference to the definition that was made up by the Supreme Court of the German Empire: 'A witness is the person who, without taking any other procedural position, should inform the judge about the facts such person perceived.' Looking at the German testimony concept we can say that it was created in old times together with the legal process itself, and evolved under the influence of a variety of circumstances, mainly due to the transition from one type of criminal procedure to another. ; Стаття присвячена правовому становищу свідка у Кримінально-процесуальному кодексі Федеративної Республіки Німеччини (далі - КПК ФРН). Автор досліджує основні норми КПК ФРН, які регулюють права та обов'язки свідка. Сформульовано відповідні пропозиції щодо вдосконалення чинного Кримінального процесуального кодексу України (далі - КПК України).

In the article critical view on the reform of procedural legislation is presented. The issue about the criteria on the basis of which the plaintiffs and the court solve the question about the procedural order of adjustment is viewed; the conclusion about the absence of appropriate criteria is made. The consequences of misqualification of procedural order are viewed: rejecting of acceptance of legal claim or the termination of proceedings in case resulting in the unconditional refusing in the defense of right. The newest judicial practice that gave rise to the tendency of successive breakdowns of courts in hearing of cases as well as in the process of Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation is analyzed. The addition of norms about the refusal in accepting (administrative) bill of complaint and on termination of proceedings in case of proactive position of court is suggested. ; В статье представлен критический взгляд на реформу процессуального законодательства. Изучается вопрос о критериях, на основании которых истцами и судом решается вопрос о процессуальном порядке рассмотрения спора, сделан вывод об отсутствии надлежащего критерия. Рассматриваются последствия неверного определения процессуального порядка: отказ в принятии искового заявления или прекращение производства по делу, влекущие безоговорочный отказ в защите права. Анализируется новейшая судебная практика, породившая тенденцию последовательного отказа судами в рассмотрении дел и в порядке КАС РФ, и ГПК РФ. Предлагается дополнение норм об отказе в принятии (административного) искового заявления и о прекращении производства по делу проактивной позицией суда.

726Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Customary international law — Commonly recognized principles and norms of international law — Definition and content — Norms recognized as mandatory by international community as whole — Principle of universal respect for human rights — Principle of fair implementation of international obligations — International treaties of Russian Federation — Application by courts — Treaties having direct effect in Russian Federation — Treaties to which Russian Federation consenting to be bound having precedence over laws of Russian Federation — Treaties requiring implementation in Russian Federation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 and Protocols — Commonly recognized principles and norms of international law and treaties being component part of legal system of Russian Federation — Article 15(4) of Constitution of Russian Federation — Federal Law No 101-FZ of 15 July 1995 on International Treaties of the Russian Federation — Commitment to principle of fair implementation of international obligations — Application of international law in Russian Federation — Clarifications to ensure correct and uniform applicationTreaties — Function — Definition — Interpretation — Application — Effect — Treaties having direct effect — Official publication of treaties — Consent to be bound by treaty — Entry into force — Treaties to which Russian Federation consenting to be bound having precedence over laws of Russian Federation — Treaties requiring implementation — Treaties obliging States to make certain offences punishable under national law — Criminal Code of Russian Federation — Federal Law No 101-FZ of 15 July 1995 on International Treaties of the Russian Federation — Constitution of Russian Federation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969State succession — Treaties — Russian Federation and USSR — Treaties signed by USSR constituent part of legal system of Russian Federation727Human rights — Rights and liberties of man — Rights in conformity with commonly recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation having direct effect in jurisdiction of Russian Federation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 and Protocols — Entry into force in Russian Federation — Federal Law on Ratification of 30 March 1998 — Interpretation and application — European Court of Human Rights — Articles 17(1) and 18 of Constitution of Russian Federation — The law of the Russian Federation

This Article draws on my legislative and judicial background to focus both on the tendency of the courts to exceed their core constitutional role and the implications of such judicial activism. This article contend that modern courts of general jurisdiction are too often embroiled in sociopolitical controversies best left to the political branches of government. Part I addresses the concept of judicial restraint in our constitutional system and the need to define the core powers of the judicial branch of government. Part II discusses principles of judicial restraint in the federal courts. Part III, using the example of Washington State where the judiciary enjoys broad jurisdiction typical of most state court systems,3 analyzes judicial restraint principles in a general jurisdiction court system. Part IV examines several recent Washington cases exploring these principles. Finally, because courts must confine themselves to their appropriate sphere of action, in Part V I will propose a new, overarching principle of justiciability for courts of general jurisdiction, incorporating principles of judicial restraint.

AbstractIn a common-law jurisdiction, "Supreme Court" is not always the name of a court of final appeal. There are 41 Supreme Courts and Supreme Courts of Judicature with general original jurisdiction. They cover 60 political units. In addition to general original jurisdiction, some of those courts have general appellate jurisdiction. There is a number of political units in which a second appellate consideration is possible.This article provides information about Supreme Courts and Supreme Courts of Judicature with general original jurisdiction. It includes a list with the names of the political units served by Supreme Courts or by Supreme Courts of Judicature with general original jurisdiction; a statement whether a Supreme Court or a Supreme Court of Judicature of a political unit has both general original jurisdiction and general appellate jurisdiction, or only general original jurisdiction; and further information.The goal of this article is to inform librarians, lawyers, solicitors, and barristers about the many court systems in the common-law world, in which the court of general original jurisdiction is named "Supreme Court" or "Supreme Court of Judicature." Those courts are found in diverse political units, including Australian states and territories, Belize, Brunei, Canadian provinces and territories, Gibraltar, and Samoa. The oldest among them is the Supreme Court of New York, founded more than 300 years ago.

The transition period (2014) did not see a significant improvement of the transparency of the reformed general jurisdiction court system in 2015. Apparently, the former 'general' courts did not even seek to achieve the degree of transparency of the 'pre-reform' economic courts. The unified Supreme Court did not inherit the policy of ensuring the transparency of courts subordinate to the liquidated Supreme Economic Court, neither in terms of the availability of general information about courts' activities, nor court rulings in the public domain. There was some progress in the public awareness of courts' activities last year, though, but the most sensitive information is still only disclosed in case of a stir among the public. Trends: • The transparency of the courts of general jurisdiction is fragmentary without any visible common plan; • Public disclosure is predominantly 'reactive', rather than 'proactive', despite the presence of the courts on the Internet; • A small number of court rulings is released to the public domain, thus nothing suggests that there will be more of them in the foreseeable future; • Information about 'political' trials usually comes in response to discourses on social networking websites and in the web-based media.

The article is devoted to the special role of courts of general jurisdiction in the mechanism of state intervention in local self-government. This "interference" in the activities of local governments is carried out mainly by courts of general jurisdiction, especially if they examine cases arising from administrative legal relations. Prior to the adoption of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, these public relations were regulated by civil procedure law. The author offers his own version of the systematization and classification of forms of judicial control over the activities of municipalities.

The issue of dual certificate issuance in Indonesia is a classic problem that remains unresolved, and one of the issues is whether the resolution of such cases falls under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court (Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara) or the general court. This research aims to thoroughly examine this issue. The research method used in this study is normative juridical, utilizing secondary data. The research results indicate that dual certificate cases in Indonesia constitute wrongful acts committed by government bodies or officials (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad). As such, these cases cannot be adjudicated in the general courts. Therefore, if such cases have already been filed in the general courts, they must be transferred to the Administrative Court by the provisions of the legal regulations. Hence, dual certificate cases fall under the absolute jurisdiction of the Administrative Court.