Discretionary Model of Legal Regulation of a Criminal Case and Criminal Prosecution Termination: Pro et Contra

The paper discusses the issues of choosing the most effective model of criminal proceedings termination, analyzes the proposed in the scientific literature model of refusal of the discretion of the law enforcement officer when making an appropriate procedural decision. The author, based on the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, studies the relationship between the principle of justice and the legality of procedural decisions to terminate a criminal case and criminal prosecution. The author concludes that the discretionary model of legal regulation of a criminal case and criminal prosecution termination is an effective means of achieving the purpose of criminal proceedings, allowing the law enforcement officer to make a fair decision, given the nature, degree of social danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission, information about the identity of the person who committed the crime. Refusal of the discretion of the law enforcement officer in the matter of terminating a criminal case will not only not contribute to the humanization of legislation, but will mark the victory of formalism over justice in criminal proceedings.

criminal legislation, criminal proceedings, termination of a criminal case, discretionary grounds, exemption from criminal liability, legality and fairness, humanization of criminal legislation, discretionary powers, justice, legality

1. Alikperov H. D. Novyj UK: problemy osvobozhdeniya ot ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti // Zakonnost’. — 1999. — № 4. — S. 12–14.

2. Andrusenko S. P. Antikorrupcionnaya ekspertiza v rossijskoj ugolovnoj yusticii // Zhurnal rossijskogo prava. — 2013. — № 4. — S. 51–58.

3. Afanas’ev A. Yu. Korrupcionnye riski ugolovno-processual’nogo dokazatel’stvennogo prava : monografiya / pod red. d-ra yurid. nauk, prof. A. F. Lubina. — M. : Yurlitinform, 2017. — 224 s.

4. Bulanova N. V. Prokuror v dosudebnyh stadiyah ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva Rossijskoj Federacii. — M. : Yurlitinform 2015. — 216 s.

5. Volodina L. M. Naznachenie ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva i problemy ego realizacii. — M. : Yurlitinform, 2018. — 289 s.

6. Dikarev I. S. K voprosu o diskrecionnyh osnovaniyah prekrashcheniya ugolovnogo dela (ugolovnogo presledovaniya) // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2007. — № 1.

7. Evropejskij Sud po pravam cheloveka : izbrannye resheniya : v 2 t. / red. kol.: V. A. Tumanov [i dr.]. — M. : Norma, 2000. — 841 s.

8. Kuvaldina Yu. V. Kompromiss kak sposob razresheniya ugolovno-pravovyh konfliktov v Rossii : monografiya. — 2-e izd. — M. : Yusticiya, 2016. — 251 s.

9. Lavnov M. A. Institut prekrashcheniya ugolovnogo dela v sisteme ugolovno-processual’nogo prava i pravoprimenitel’noj praktike : dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. — Saratov, 2015. — 200 s.

10. Lyango L. N. Problemy prekrashcheniya ugolovnogo dela v svyazi s primireniem s poterpevshim : dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. — Volgograd, 2000. — 219 s.

11. Petrikova S. V. Voprosy reformirovaniya zakonodatel’stva ob osvobozhdenii ot ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti v svyazi s deyatel’nym raskayaniem i primireniem s poterpevshim // Lex russica. — 2015. — № 6. — S. 48–57.

12. Skifskij I. S. Stat’ya 76 UK RF: dispozitivnyj harakter i sudejskoe usmotrenie // Rossijskij sud’ya. — 2017. — № 4. — S. 13–15.

13. Terekhov E. V. Diskrecionnye polnomochiya prokurora v sfere ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva Rossii i Avstrii : dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. — M., 2009. — 230 s.

14. Ureneva O. V. Pravo poterpevshego na milost’ pod sudebnyj kontrol’ // Rossijskij sud’ya. — 2016. — № 6. — S. 26–30