Appealing against Decisions on Reimbursement of Procedural Costs Made in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation

The legality and validity of the decisions of the investigator, inquirer and the prosecutor on the payment  of the amounts related to procedural costs remain problematic due to the absence in the law of a mechanism  ensuring the judicial procedure for their appeal.  

In order to fill this gap, the author studies the possibilities of introducing a procedure similar to the one enshrined  in Art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The paper analyzes the positions of the  Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-P dated May 13, 2021. It concerns the  victims’ appeal against the decisions of the investigator and the head of the investigative body regarding the  reimbursement of expenses for a representative. Some examples of judicial practice for resolving other disputes  related to the reimbursement of procedural costs are also analyzed.  

It is concluded that the right of a person claiming to receive the amounts provided for in Part 2 of Art. 131 of the  Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation against a judicial appeal made at his request is universal  and does not depend either on his status in a criminal case, or on the type of the indicated amounts, or on the  body or official that made the contested decision.  

Taking into account the practice of applying other norms on appealing against decisions of the investigating  bodies, it was proposed to introduce Art. 125.2. The author formulate its content given the characteristics of the  participants in the proceedings and the powers of the court to resolve the complaint.

1. Belkin A. R. UPK RF: otmenit’ nel’zya popravit’? : v 2 t. 2-e izd., ispr. i dop. — M. : Yurajt, 2017. — T. 1 : Obshchaya chast’. — 287 s.

2. Gordejchik S. A. Zloupotreblenie advokatami pravom na oplatu ih uslug iz federal’nogo byudzheta pri rassmotrenii ugolovnyh del v sude // Advokatskaya praktika. — 2019. — № 3. — S. 7–9.

3. Dikarev I. S. Pravo sub"ektov, vedushchih ugolovnyj process, na prinesenie hodatajstv v poryadke nadzora // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2011. — № 1. — S. 58–64.

4. Zyuzina E. M. Realizaciya prava na voznagrazhdenie za zashchitu po naznacheniyu // Sajt Advokatskoj palaty Voronezhskoj oblasti. — URL: https://advpalata.vrn.ru/blogi/realizaciya_prava_na_voznagrazhdenie_za_sawpit_po_naznacheniyu/ (data obrashcheniya: 27.07.2021).

5. Kronov E. V. Obzhalovanie zashchitnikom dejstvij i reshenij organa predvaritel’nogo rassledovaniya kak sposob uchastiya v dokazyvanii po ugolovnomu delu // Advokat. — 2008. — № 11. — S. 12–24.

6. Kurs ugolovnogo processa / pod red. d. yu. n., prof. L. V. Golovko ; Moskovskij gos. un-t imeni M. V. Lomonosova, yuridicheskij fak., kaf. ugolovnogo processa, pravosudiya i prokurorskogo nadzora. — 3-e izd., ispr. i dop. — M. : Statut, 2021. — 1328 s.

7. Morozova Yu. A. Kak advokatu obzhalovat’ neoplatu truda po ugolovnomu delu // Ugolovnyj process. — 2021. — № 6. — S. 78–83.

8. Pavlovskij O. B. Sudejskoe normotvorchestvo: metod realizacii osnovopolozhenij ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva // Rossijskaya yusticiya. — 2006. — № 3. — S. 26–28.

9. Sidorova V. A. Sudebnye izderzhki v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve : avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — L., 1987. — 23 s.

10. Sopneva E. V., Procenko A. A. Vzglyad sledovatelya na nekotorye voprosy vyplat advokatu, uchastvuyushchemu v ugolovnom dele po naznacheniyu // Yurist"-pravoved". — 2020. — № 1 (93). — S. 104–109.

11. Uvarov S. Yu. Spornye voprosy pri vzyskanii processual’nyh izderzhek // Ugolovnyj process. — 2019. — № 7. — S. 70–75.

12. Ugolovnyj process : uchebnik / A. V. Smirnov, K. B. Kalinovskij ; pod obshch. red. A. V. Smirnova. — 5-e izd., pererab. — M. : Norma: Infra-M, 2013. — 767 s.