Comparative Analysis of the Institutions of Monetary Recovery and Court Fines in Criminal, Arbitrazh, Civil and Administrative Proceedings

The purpose of the paper is to identify differences in the normative fixing of the universal procedural institution of a court fine (monetary penalty) that are not justified by industry specifics. The method of comparative law was the determining method of research. The paper compares the titles, structures, sizes, grounds, subject composition, the procedure for considering and appealing the imposition of procedural sanctions under the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The wording «court fine» in the criminal procedure and other types of procedures denotes completely different concepts. The application of a monetary penalty is limited to an excessively narrow list of subjects. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation provides for a low and undifferentiated size of the sanction; the issue of the possibility of appeal has not been resolved. The author proposes to borrow relevant solutions to these issues from the compared institutions of other procedural branches. The author substantiates the necessity of convergence of universal institutions of criminal procedural, civil procedural, arbitrazh procedural and administrative procedural law, as well as the belonging of the institute of procedural responsibility to the number of universal ones.

1. Bulatov B. B. Gosudarstvennoe prinuzhdenie v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve : monografiya. — Omsk : Omskaya akademiya MVD Rossii, 2003. — 320 s.

2. Voroncova I. V. Problemy privlecheniya k otvetstvennosti za nesoblyudenie poryadka v zale sudebnogo zasedaniya i proyavlenie neuvazheniya k sudu // Sovremennoe pravo. — 2019. — № 11. — S. 73–76.

3. Maslennikova L. N. Glava 14. Inye mery processual’nogo prinuzhdeniya // Kommentarij k Ugolovnoprocessual’nomu kodeksu Rossijskoj Federacii / otv. red. D. N. Kozak, E. B. Mizulina. — M. : Yurist», 2002. — S. 258–270.

4. Mihajlov V. A. Stat’ya 117. Denezhnoe vzyskanie // Kommentarij k Ugolovno-processual’nomu kodeksu Rossijskoj Federacii / pod obshch. red. V. V. Mozyakova. — M. : Ekzamen XXI, 2002. — S. 267–268.

5. Lipinskij D. A., Musatkina A. A., Chuklova E. V. Processual’naya otvetstvennost’ i bezotvetstvennost’, processual’naya i nacional’naya bezopasnost’: problemy sootnosheniya i sistemnyh svyazej // Vestnik grazhdanskogo processa. — 2020. — № 4. — S. 149–166.

6. Tarasov A. A. Ugolovno-processual’naya komparativistika i problema tochnosti perevoda yuridicheskih terminov // Zakony Rossii. — 2016. — № 11. — S. 87–91.

7. Tutynin I. B. Vidy narushenij, vlekushchie primenenie denezhnogo vzyskaniya kak mery ugolovnoprocessual’nogo prinuzhdeniya // Rossijskaya yusticiya. — 2017. — № 6. — S. 57–60.