Indemnification in the system of institute of rehabilitation and legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

Topicality of the research is caused by gaps and contradictions in a standard regulation of institute of rehabilitation in criminal legal proceedings of Russia (Chapter 18 of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), and by serious collisions in practice of realization of this institute that are actually negating its powerful social and legal value. The analysis of constitutional justice acts and final decisions of the courts of general jurisdiction on the results of consideration of requirements of interested persons about indemnification (recovery of compensation for harm) caused by illegal criminal prosecution led the author to the following conclusions. The subject of the above collision involves, firstly, cardinal distinction of approaches of the Russian doctrine, acts of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and court practice in defining the very core of legal expenses on the representative in cases when a private person initiates criminal proceedings. Behind the latter the character of legitimate procedural costs is, as a rule, denied owing to what they are regarded as the harm done to the person in consequence of illegal criminal prosecution, that is subject to compensation in the order provided for in Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. While analyzing the legal grounds of compensation of this type of material expenses of a rehabilitated person, the author proves an inaccuracy of both legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the developing practice of similar compensation. It is stated that since we speak about the compensation connected with illegal criminal prosecution, it is necessary to apply special norms of the institute of rehabilitation (Chapter 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), but not the provisions of law defining the structure of procedural costs in a given case. Secondly, the question of the order and the size of reimbursement to a rehabilitated person, who paid for rendering a qualified legal aid, proves to be a contentious one. Critically estimating the legal positions of the supreme body of constitutional justice and acts of the highest judicial authorities of Russia, the author refuses flatly to recognize the legitimacy of the order in which courts subjectively and very cardinally reduce the size of the sums of compensations based on subjectively understood "justice" and "proportionality". A practical and scientific importance of the author's conclusions is that legal substantiation of the author's approaches to settlement of the above collisions, firstly, allows removing artificial contradictions in understanding of the essence and social purpose of the institute of rehabilitation in criminal procedure of Russia. Secondly, the same approaches can and have to be accepted as a basis for possible explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and for a procedural form of acts of administration of justice, the subject of which is a material component of the institute of rehabilitation and ensuring the maximum judicial protection of interested persons.

Keywords

Authors

References