employee from 01.01.2019 until now
Russian Federation
UDK 34 Право. Юридические науки
GRNTI 10.79 Уголовно-процессуальное право (уголовный процесс)
The article deals with the term «cases of urgency» which is applied in criminal procedure legislation of Russia. The content of this term is not defined in Criminal Procedure Code. For this reason in some law-enforcement situations investigators faces an issue if this particular case is a case of urgency or not. In the article the author tries to determine the essence of the term «cases of urgency» through interpretation of legal rules and analysis of investigative and court practice. Historical experience of term’s application was also considered. In the article special attention is paid to the grounds of contestation of the results of investigative measures, which were conducted in cases of urgency without court decision or in night time. Courts’ opinions regarding their legality were analyzed. On author’s opinion neither the definition of «case of urgency» nor its list should be formalized in law. Instead the author proposes focusing on standards of urgency elaborated by court practice taking into account the opinion of Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation. Also the problem of reasonability of investigative measures conducting in case of urgency without court decision in criminal cases of less and middle grade is raised. Based on research the author offers recommendations for practitioners which help them to determine if any particular situation is a case of urgency or not.
urgent cases, investigative measures, procedure measures, legal discretion of investigator, inner conviction
1. Maslov A. V., Shavin M. Yu. Pravovaya reglamentaciya ugolovnogo presledovaniya po Ustavu ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva 1864 goda // Central'nyy nauchnyy vestnik. – 2018. – T. 3. – № 5 (46). – S. 26–28.
2. Stel'mah V. Yu. Aktual'nye voprosy proizvodstva sledstvennyh deystviy bez sudebnogo resheniya v sluchayah, ne terpyaschih otlagatel'stva // Yurist'-Pravoved'. – 2015. – № 5 (72). – S. 63–68.
3. Suslo E. A. K voprosu zakonnosti proizvodstva obyska v zhilische v sluchayah, ne terpyaschih otlagatel'stva // Aktual'nye voprosy bor'by s prestupleniyami. – 2015. – № 4. – S. 34–36.
4. Osipov A. V. Normativnaya model' isklyuchitel'nyh sluchaev, pri kotoryh proizvodstvo sledstvennyh deystviy ne terpit otlagatel'stva // Izvestiya AltGU. – 2012. – № 2-2 (74). – S. 124–128.
5. Rossinskiy S. B. Nuzhen li predvaritel'nyy sudebnyy kontrol' za proizvodstvom sledstvennyh deystviy v zhilische? // Rossiyskiy sud'ya. – 2009. – № 8. – S. 15–22.
6. Manova N. S. «Situaciya, ne terpyaschaya otlagatel'stva» kak ocenochnaya kategoriya v zakonodatel'stve i praktike ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva // Legal Concept. – 2019. – T. 18. – № 2. – S. 42–48.
7. Baev O. Ya. Usmotrenie sledovatelya ob «isklyuchitel'nosti» situacii // Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. – 2010. – № 2 (9). – Seriya: Pravo. – S. 271–282.
8. Kol'churin I. V. O soderzhanii ponyatiya «chastnaya zhizn'» v rossiyskom konstitucionnom i ugolovnom prave / Yuridicheskie nauki: problemy i perspektivy : materialy Mezhdunarodnoy nauchnoy konferencii (g. Perm', mart 2012 g.). – Perm': Merkuriy, 2012. – S. 120–121.
9. Konovalov N. A. Chto takoe sluchai, ne terpyaschie otlagatel'stva, v ugolovnom processe? // Nauka i praktika. – 2014. – № 4 (61). – S. 41–44.
10. Kazachek E. Yu. Voprosy dopustimosti dokazatel'stv, poluchennyh v sluchayah, ne terpyaschih otlagatel'stva (po materialam sudebno-sledstvennoy praktiki) // Izvestiya Tul'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomicheskie i yuridicheskie nauki. – 2018. – № 4-2. – S. 141–146.
