CC BY
77118
LEGAL SCIENCES / <<Ш1ШетУМ~^©УГМа1>#6Ш)),2(0]9
URL: http://www.consultant.ru (дата обращения: 17.03.2019).
11. Постановление ВЦИК, СНК РСФСР от 25 ноября 1935 г. «Об изменении действующего законодательства РСФСР о мерах борьбы с преступностью среди несовершеннолетних, с детской беспризорностью и безнадзорностью» // Собрание узаконений РСФСР. 1936. № 1. Ст. 1; Справочно-правовая система «КонсультантПлюс» [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.consultant.ru (дата обращения: 17.03.2019).
12. Приказ Наркома Внутренних дел СССР от 16 июля 1939 г. № 0221 «С объявлением положения об изоляторах ОТК НКВД для несовершеннолетних» // Дети ГУЛАГа. 1918 - 1956. Под. ред. акад. А.Н. Яковлева; сост. С.С. Виленский и др. М.: МФД, 2002. 631 с.
13. Постановление СНК СССР от 23 января
1942 г. № 75 «Об устройстве детей, оставшихся без родителей» // Собрание постановлений Правительства СССР. 1942. № 2. Ст. 26; Справочно-правовая система «КонсультантПлюс» [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.consultant.ru (дата обращения: 17.03.2019).
14. Постановление СНК СССР от 15 июня
1943 г. № 659 «Об усилении мер борьбы с детской беспризорностью, безнадзорностью и хулиганством» // Постановления Совета Народных Комиссаров СССР за июнь 1943 г. 1943; Справочно-пра-вовая система «КонсультантПлюс» [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.consultant.ru (дата обращения: 17.03.2019).
15. Постановление Совета Министров РСФСР от 04 октября 1957 г. № 1099 «О мерах улучшения работы среди детей вне школы и предупреждения детской безнадзорности» // Библиотека нормативно-правовых актов Союза Советских Социалистических Республик [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.libussr.ru (дата обращения: 19.03.2019).
UDC 340.5; 347.9
16. Закон СССР от 21 декабря 1958 «Об утверждении Основ уголовного законодательства Союза ССР и союзных республик» // Ведомости ВС СССР. 1958. № 1. Ст. 6; Справочно-правовая система «КонсультантПлюс» [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http ://www. consultant.ru (дата обращения: 17.03.2019).
17. Указ Президиума ВС РСФСР от 03 июня 1967 г. «Об утверждении Положения о комиссиях по делам несовершеннолетних» (утратил силу на основании Федерального закона от 27.06.2018. № 170-ФЗ) // Свод законов РСФСР. Том 8; Справочно-правовая система «КонсультантПлюс» [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.consultant.ru (дата обращения: 17.03.2019).
18. Указ Президиума ВС СССР от 15 февраля 1977 № 5266-IX «Об основных обязанностях и правах инспекций по делам несовершеннолетних, приемников-распределителей для несовершеннолетних и специальных учебно-воспитательных учреждений по предупреждению безнадзорности и правонарушений несовершеннолетних» // Ведомости ВС СССР. 1977. № 8. Ст. 138; Справочно-правовая система «КонсультантПлюс» [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.consultant.ru (дата обращения: 17.03.2019).
19. Блясова И.Ю., «Состояние профилактики преступности и правонарушений несовершеннолетних в советский период» // Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. 2012. № 1 (222). С. 54-59; Научная электронная библиотека «Киберленинка» [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https ://cyberleninka. ru (дата обращения: 19.03.2019).
20. Коновалова И., «К вопросу о преступности несовершеннолетних в советский период».
21. Люблинский П.И., «Борьба с преступностью в детском и юношеском возрасте (социально-правовые очерки)». М.: Юридическое издательство НКЮ СССР. 1923. 300 с.
Колесников Б. Н. Аспирант Киевского университета права
НАН Украины DOI: 10.24411/2520-6990-2019-10135 СТАТУС РЕШЕНИЙ НАИВЫСШЕЙ СУДЕБНОЙ ИНСТАНЦИИ В УКРАИНЕ И НЕКОТОРЫХ СТРАНАХ ЕВРОПЫ.
Kolesnikov B.
post-graduate of Kyiv's university of law of the Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine
LEGAL STATUS OF THE HIGHEST COURT'S DECISIONS IN UKRAINE AND SOME
COUNTRIES OF EUROPE.
Аннотация.
В статье уделено внимание юридической силе решений наивысшей судебной инстанции Украины и некоторых стран Европы, для сравнения текущей ситуации в обозначенном контексте. Проанализированы нормативно-правовые акты, а также мнения ученых и юристов. Сделаны выводы, которые можно использовать при дальнейшем изучении силы решений апелляционной инстанции.
Abstract.
This article deals with legal force of the highest court's decisions in Ukraine and some European countries, for to compare present situation in the matter of issue. Here were analyzed some legal acts and assertions of
/ legal sciences
119
researchers and lawyers, and made conclusions that could be used in further research of legal force of courts's of appeal decisions.
Ключевые слова: Верховный Суд, прецедент, обязывающее решение, рекомендательное решение. Key words: Supreme Court, precedent, mandatory decision, recommended decision.
Introduction.
The last judicial reform brought a lot of new both for judiciary system and for lawyers, because of quantity of changes made by government, some of which still raising questions about their effectiveness. One of them was liquidation of Supreme Court of Ukraine that was quite effective. In result of mentioned above the judicial system of Ukraine is now consists of three court instances, which makes it look like the one in France, Germany (civil cases) and United Kingdom (with differences, such as the structure of courts of first instance, the possibility to make an appeal to the Supreme Court etc.). But the main issue here is: was that alteration good for Ukraine, not as country potential future member of European Union, but as country with its own unique features? Karpacheva N., the ex-ombudsman of Ukraine, in her speeches mentioned multiple times that when she was talking to other countries representatives, they grew their attention on enacting laws not «for others», but for regulating exclusively your countries' society and according to this make laws that would be effective either for Ukraine and it's citizens.
This article's purpose is to compare the Supreme Court's decisions status in Ukraine and some European countries (France, Germany and United Kingdom, before Brexit succeeded).
Main text.
First we should clarify Supreme Court's (hereunder — «SC») decisions status of Ukraine. That refers to the «Law about judiciary and judges status» [1], which stipulates:
— para. 5-6 art. 13: «conclusions concerning law usage, which are in SC's decisions, are mandatory for all the government structures, that use appropriate legislature act in their activity; these conclusions must also be used by lower courts in their activity».
— p.6-7 para.2 art. 36: «provides the unity in usage of law by different specialization courts in way determined in procedure law is provided by SC; the methodological information in a matter of law usage for courts of first instance and for courts of appeal is provided by SC».
Para.2 art.416 of the Code of civil procedure of Ukraine states that: «in decision made by chamber, united chamber or Grand Chamber of Supreme Court there should be a conclusion about the use of law in right way and with misusing of which agreed the panel of judges, chamber, united chamber, that gave the case for reviewing to chamber, united chamber or Grand Chamber» [17].
In view of the above we can say about a possibility of usage of legal position (a court's conclusion about rightful use of law or, as all called it, a court decision) rendered by SC either in courts of first instance or courts of appeal. Same concerns the conclusions made by the Grand Chamber of SC. And the issue is raising from abovementioned, because of not infrequently
lower courts don't include the text of used SC's decision in the text of it's own decision or simply just don't take it into account (more rarely). Resulting the sought about partially ineffectiveness of legal provisions mentioned above (which may be result of time lacking which doesn't allow judges to spend more time on case and quality of decision, or big amount of decisions of SC etc.).
The Highest court's decisions usage is widespread not only in Ukraine but also in a number of other countries, including those that has romano-germanic (civil) law system (mainly France and Germany, despite that officially the highest court's decisions are not obligatory, provision of what is absent either in Civil procedure codes [2, 3], Courts Constitution Act of Germany [4], Code of Judicial Organization of France [12] or other legislative documents, that has provisions concerning judiciary activity).
But, despite abovementioned, practically in France and Germany the decisions of the highest court have partly mandatory power for lower courts. Yet they cannot be called full precedent, which is used in common law system (precedent law system). J. Komarek states that precedent's goal is to decide specific life situation, and civil law system — abstract definitions, thus widespread usage of law and, as the result, prevalent usage of SC's decisions (legal positions). Also, he shares Zenati's opinion in the issue that the main purpose of Court of Cassation of France (hereunder — «CC of France») is not dispute resolution but revision the correctness of usage of law by judges and check the subjugation of judges to the law [6]. Mentioned opinions also supported by P. Ranjard, who stands on reviewing made by CC France and Federal Supreme Court of Germany (hereunder — «FSC of Germany») in respect only to the law used by judges of lower courts in the case [11], however not reviewing the facts of the case (the presumption of properly determination of all the facts of the case in first instance courts and courts of appeal (in Germany must be good grounds for reviewing the facts by a court of appeal [16]), as it is not only stipulated in art. L411-2 of Code of Judicial Organization of France [12] and art.513 Civil procedure code of Germany [3], but was emphasized by A. Bailly and X. Haranger [13].
Thus, we can say about existing of two types of precedent. The first one has a standard meaning, which is the main feature of common law system. The second one is a precedent in context of civil law system, which has it's own features (for example it's goal is not it's use in the very same case, but in broad amount of disputes (by the way of not detailed reasoning of a decision); it won't revise the facts of a case, focusing instead on reviewing on properly usage of law; it has no mandatory power, but rather is recommended (except some occurrences) etc.). Additionally, we should think about the question: what is the meaning of existence of
120
LEGAL SCIENCES / <<€©LL©qUQUM~J©U©MaL>>#6©©),2©19
the highest court if conclusions provided by it cannot be used in situations alike the one taking place in an appropriate decision? In our opinion — there is not, thus, despite the law system of a country — the highest court's decisions would be always the ones that have to be taken into account in a process of resolution of a case.
Also, to be mentioned J. Komarek draw his attention on the fact that CC of France, by the way of rendering decisions which include variable interpretations of law provisions, is able to partly comply with law making function [6] (so the legislative function is still parliament's prerogative). In addition, he mentions the example when CC's of France decision has obligatory power for lower courts (if a case is reviewing by General Assembly of CC of France). P. Cavalieros notices that principles of common law developed in France more than 30 years ago, and lawyer F. Berton straightforwardly states that CC's France decisions are precedents [10]. Additionally, A. Bailly and X. Haranger notice about the existence of precedent feature in France [13].
Concerning Germany, J.P. Dawson mentioned the issue of 'the extent to which courts should be bound by high court decisions' and noted that the debate on whether Germany should have a system of following previous decisions had a contradictory character because according to him Germany already had a precedent system working order [6]. Ch. Gomille emphisized on the possibility of German courts to create new rule (decision in which legal conclusion is beyond recognized rules of legal methodology), thus having the result of disrespecting the basic law principle of separation of power [7]. Prof. J. Meyer determined the FSC of Germany as the one that can create precedents [8], and J. Risse, H.-J. Schramke stated that lower courts usually follow a case law developed in high court's decisions despite non-using the precedent concept in Germany [14].
In addition, before asserting about the absence of precedent power of the highest court's decisions, we should look on it through psychological point of view. Means that man tries to avoid a conflict with a person who has higher position in society (employee and employer, who has influence on work relations with employee). And if one's admonished by employer or even fired by him- another would analyze the situation and would make conclusions of how he shouldn't act. Same with courts — the lower court's judges are obliged to analyze decisions of the highest courts for avoiding mistakes, unlawful decisions, wrongful actions etc. As the result — avoidance of conflicts caused by unknowing of legal practice provided by SCs, but also for keeping their status and chair. Thus, SC's decisions not just provide rightful law usage, but give a possibility for government and people by the way of application to higher courts to detect the judges, who neglect their duty to provide justiceful and/or lawful dispute resolution, that is impossible without permanent improving of knowledge and abilities by judges, which includes the obligation to be in «trends of legal practice».
Concerning United Kingdom (hereunder — «UK») — it's simple, all the decisions of Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of UK are precedents without exceptions, thus they're mandatory for lower courts (also a decision of lower court may be determined as precedent if it's added in a law report) and comprises of two varieties:
— precedents that create new legal provisions (as the first new precedent in a matter of issue including the one that overrules the previous one);
— decisions that are rendered in a context of a precedent that already exists or declarative precedents (affirms the power of already existed precedent) [15].
Yet precedent has an important negative feature — until the new precedent arises, judges will have to use the old one, even if they don't agree with it. However, from another point of view such effect holds judges from often change of legal practice.
In the end we must mention that highest court's decisions aren't applicable to already settled disputes because if it would — there would have arisen the breach of legal certainty principle issue.
Thus, from abovementioned, we can make several conclusions:
1) every law system has its own definition of precedent, which practically always taking place, but depending on law system it has obligatory or recommended power. The distinction is also in reasoning of court's decisions. In common law system its very detailed, in contrast to civil law system where reasoning usually doesn't provide the details focusing on rendering conclusion that can be used in varieties of disputes.
2) The highest court's decisions have important role and influence either on lower and higher courts, not matter whether it's recognized by the law or not.
3) Judges have the additionally obligation to permanently analyze the highest court's decisions (which, considering the amount of them, is quite an issue), because if not — their value as professionals soon would become much lower in certain years of such inaction, but also lowering the reputation of courts.
4) Despite the indisputable, in our opinion, advantage of common law system over civil law system yet it has some disadvantages resulted in minor speed of law adaptation to a needs of society's realms, comparatively to civil law system. But in Ukraine's context the mentioned feature would be very useful for improving legal practice unity, courts reputation and give the needed time for judges for their adaptation to the changes mentioned in the beginning.
References:
1. Law «About judiciary and judges status», be current as of 13.03.2019; Law 02.06.2016 №№1402-VIII. URL: https://zakon. rada. gov.ua/laws/show/1402-19.
2. Code of Civil Procedure of France, as amended on 13.03.2019; Code, 1976. URL: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsession id=41D7E95060F5DF388DF97523DC993D66.tplgfr3 2s_3?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070716&dateTexte =20190305.
3. Code of Civil Procedure of Germany, as of 13.03.2019; 1950. URL: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo/BJNR005330950.html.
«c@yl@qyiym-j©yrmal»#6îi©),2@i9 / legal sciences
4. Courts Constitution Act, as amended on 13.03.2019; 1975. URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gvg/englisch_gvg.html.
5. Komarek, Jan: «Reasoning with Previous Decisions: Beyond the Doctrine of Precedence»/ Jan Komarek, 2013, American Journal of Comparative Law; LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 8/2012. URL:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2 150133&download=yes.
6. Komarek, Jan: «Judicial Lawmaking and Precedent in Supreme Courts»/ Jan Komarek, 2011, LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 4/2011. URL:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-
yearbook-of-european-legal-studies/article/precedent-
and-judicial-lawmaking-in-supreme-courts-the-court-
of-justice-compared-to-the-us-supreme-court-and-the-
french-cour-de-
cassation/3F1DAE1ADB10330A751AD44EDAF6650 6.
7. Gomille, Christian: « The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany - a "super-appellate court" in civil law cases?»/ Christian Gomille, 2013. URL: http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/cg/law/lex/rlr31/14gomi lle.pdf.
8. Meyer, Juergen: «Judicial Reform in Germany»/ Juergen Meyer, 2001. URL: http://www.fes-korea.org/media/publications/Achives/Judicial%20Re-form%20in%20Germany2001 .pdf.
9. Cavalieros, Philippe : « Litigation & Dispute Resolution: France»/ Philippe Cavalieros, 2013, Litigation & Dispute Resolution Second edition, Winston & Strawn LLP. URL: https://www.winston.com/im-ages/content/3/9/39319.pdf.
10. Berton, Françoise: «The French court system - an overview»/ Françoise Berton, 2010. URL: https://www.berton-associes.us/blog/litigation-in-france/french-court-system-overview.
11. Ranjard, Paul: «A Comparative Study between the Civil Procedures of France, Germany and China»/
121
P. Ranjard, W. Da., 2011. URL7 https://ipkey.eu/sites/default/files/legacy-ipkey-docs/7--doccentre-civil-cc3-aw4-002-comparative-study-on-civil-procedures-of-france--germany-and-china-en.pdf.
12. Code of Judicial Organization of France, 13.03.2019; 1978. URL: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do7dateTe xte=20190307&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071164 &fastReqId=1165829131&fastPos=1&oldAction=rec hCodeArticle.
13. Bailly A., Haranger X.: «Litigation and enforcement in France overview»/ Alexandre Bailly and Xavier Haranger, 2018. URL: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-502-0121 ?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Defau lt).
14. Risse J., Schramke H.-J.: «Dispute Resolution Around the World: Germany»/ Jörg Risse and HeinJürgen Schramke, Baker& McKenzie, 2011. URL: https://www.bakermckenzie.com/-/media/files/insight/publications/2016/10/dratw/dratw _germany_2011 .pdf?la=en.
15. All Answers ltd: «There are two types of precedent"/ All Answers ltd, 2019. URL: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/there-are-two-types-of-precedent-contract-law-essay.php.
16. Rütze S.l, Leufgen A., Wagner E.: «Litigation and enforcement in Germany overview»/ Stefan Rützel, Andrea Leufgen, Eric Wagner, Gleiss Lutz, 2017. URL: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-502-0728?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Defau lt)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhcp=1.
17. Code of civil procedure of Ukraine, be current as of 13.03.2019; Law 18.03.2004 № 1618-IV. URL: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1618-15/print1509656728410350.
UDC 343.3/.7
Serebrennikova A. V.
Doctor of law, Professor of criminal law and criminology Moscow state University. M. V. Lomonosov
Russia, Moscow DOI: 10.24411/2520-6990-2019-10136 MURDER BY INACTION: AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE FROM THE RUSSIAN PRACTICE.
Abstract:
The article provides an example of murder committed by inaction. The case occurred in February 2019 in the city of Kirov, when the mother left her three-year-old daughter alone in a locked apartment without water and food for a week. The author analyzes the qualification of this crime under part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal code as the murder of a minor with special cruelty.
Keywords: Russian Federation, the criminal code, qualifications, characteristics, murder, inaction.
According to Russian media reports [1], in recent months the number of criminal cases of leaving young children unsupervised in closed apartments, without food and water, with the water supply disconnected has increased, which resulted in harm to their health or even death. So, for example, "a resident of Kirov has closed the baby in the apartment, having previously shut off
the water valves to avoid flooding of neighbors. The girl was left alone for more than a week, without access to food or life-giving water. The result of the ruthless deed of the mother was the painful death of the child" [2]. Her grandmother discovered the girl's dead body when she came to congratulate her granddaughter on her birthday.
