Specificity of constitutional control under Art. 115 of the RF Code of Criminal Procedure

This article analyzes the decisions of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the seizure of property as of an interim measure. There is a problem of interbranch seizure that involves other issues: the balance of private and public interests, specialization of lawyers, etc. The author makes the conclusion that in the analysis of Art. 115 Code of Criminal Procedure the Constitutional Court has detected the gaps in the current legislation. Russia applies the continental (Romance-Germanic) law, which means basing on the general rules expressed in the law. The antipode of the Romance-Germanic legal system is the Anglo-Saxon law basing on the law enforcement practices (precedents). Theoretical postulates of the diametrically opposite legal systems are simple and absolutely logical "on paper". Their effective implementation requires institutes that by their nature belong to the elements "borrowed" from the opposing system. In Russia, such borrowing implies the problem of classifying / non-classifying decrees and resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Constitutional Court) as the sources of criminal procedural law. Basing on Art. 3 of the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", the powers of the Constitutional Court include: • verification of the constitutionality of the law applied or to be applied in a particular criminal case on the basis of complaints of violations of human rights and freedoms and the needs of the courts; • clarification of the need to change the federal law (in other words, to bring the norm in line with the Russian Constitution), when making a decision on unconstitutionality.

Keywords

Authors

References