Some Procedural Aspects of Deprivation of Immunity from Criminal Prosecution

The paper examines certain aspects of deprivation of immunity from criminal prosecution. Considering the procedures for bringing to criminal responsibility persons in respect of whom a special procedure for criminal proceedings has been established by law, the author concludes that the initiation of a criminal case by the head of a higher investigative body does not constitute a deprivation of immunity. In this regard, it is proposed to abandon this procedure and initiate a criminal case in the usual manner, namely by the preliminary investigation body, which has jurisdiction over the case. Analyzing the circle of participants in the procedure for the deprivation of immunity, the author argues that the subjects appealing to the highest bodies of state power (and such bodies themselves) rendering the decision on the deprivation of immunity are not ordinary participants in criminal proceedings. They rather carry out constitutional and legal activities, the results and decisions of which are implemented in the criminal procedure. Exploring the grounds for giving consent to bring a person to criminal liability, the author draws attention to the different approach of the legislator to different categories of persons and proposes to unify the regulatory framework. The public authority must establish two circumstances: the presence of elements of a crime and the absence of a connection between the criminal prosecution and the person’s public law activities.

1. Gavrilova E. A. Osobennosti ugolovnogo presledovaniya advokata // Advokatskaya praktika. — 2020. — № 4. — S. 33–36.

2. Golovachuk O. S., Proshlyakov A. D. Sootnoshenie norm UPK Rossii, federal’nyh konstitucionnyh i federal’nyh zakonov pri primenenii mer ugolovno-processual’nogo prinuzhdeniya k licam, ukazannym v stat’e 447 UPK // Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika. — 2018. — № 5. — S. 8–13.

3. Dabizha T. G. Osobennosti procedury privlecheniya advokata k otvetstvennosti // Advokat. — 2012. — № 9. — S. 11–19.

4. Zubakin V. Yu. Ugolovno-pravovye immunitety kak element proyavleniya neravenstva pered zakonom v sisteme ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti // Rossijskij sledovatel’. — 2006. — № 10. — S. 19–20.

5. Kovtun N. N., Yarcev R. V. Osobyj poryadok vozbuzhdeniya ugolovnogo dela v otnoshenii special’nyh sub"ektov ili ih privlecheniya v kachestve obvinyaemyh (glava 52 UPK RF) // Ugolovnoe sudoproizvodstvo. — 2008. — № 1. — S. 5–12.

6. Konovalova L. G. Immunitet deputata zakonodatel’nogo (predstavitel’nogo) organa gosudarstvennoj vlasti sub"ekta RF // Rossijskij yuridicheskij zhurnal. — 2010. — № 6. — S. 15–24.

7. Mereckij N. E., Alekhin D. V. Pravovoe regulirovanie uchastiya otdel’nyh kategorij lic v ugolovnom processe // Rossijskij sledovatel’. — 2011. — № 15. — S. 24–27.

8. Ovchinnikov O. A., Trishkin S. V. Pravovye i social’nye aspekty, okazyvayushchie vliyanie na korrupcionnuyu situaciyu v Rossii // Administrativnoe pravo i process. — 2012. — № 5. — S. 7–11.

9. Romanenko N. V. O soglasii na presledovanie neprikosnovennyh lic za sovershenie prestuplenij i administrativnyh pravonarushenij // Zhurnal rossijskogo prava. — 2017. — № 5. — S. 105–110.

10. Stel’mah V. Yu. Kriterii nadeleniya lic immunitetami ot ugolovnogo presledovaniya i pravovaya priroda soglasiya organa gosudarstvennoj vlasti na lishenie immuniteta // Pravo i politika. — 2019. — № 12. — S. 72–81.

11. Fedotov I. S. Aktual’nye aspekty obespecheniya processual’nogo immuniteta special’nyh sub"ektov pri rassledovanii prestuplenij // Rossijskaya yusticiya. — 2017. — № 3. — S. 66–68.

12. Citovich L. V., Nikishov A. B. K voprosu o vidah i strukture ugolovno-processual’nyh norm // Rossijskaya yusticiya. — 2019. — № 2. — S. 34–37.

13. Shavin V. A. Principy advokatury // Advokatskaya praktika. — 2018. — № 2. — S. 6–14.

14. Shatalov A. S. Special’nye sub"ekty v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve Rossii: poryadok ugolovnogo presledovaniya // Zhurnal rossijskogo prava. — 2016. — № 1. — S. 128–138.