Investigative Jurisdiction Rules at the Stage of Initiating a Criminal Case: Scope of Validity

The paper is devoted to the analysis of the debatable question of whether the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation on investigative jurisdiction, including substantive jurisdiction, apply to the stage of initiating a criminal case, including the issuance of a decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case, or whether they apply exclusively to the stage of preliminary investigation. It is shown that the jurisdiction of various bodies of preliminary investigation is established by law (Articles 150-152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation) not only for the preliminary investigation stage, but also for procedural activities at the stage of initiating a criminal case in terms of making a final decision (decision to initiate a criminal case or a decision to refusal to initiate criminal proceedings). The issuance of a final decision solely in compliance with the requirements of jurisdiction is a condition for the legality of such decisions. At the same time, the previous stages of the stage of initiating a criminal case – the receipt and registration of reports of a crime, the verification of such reports – can also be carried out by other bodies of preliminary investigation: the reception and registration of reports of a crime by any law enforcement agency provides access to justice, and the decision to send the materials of the verification to investigative jurisdiction is issued taking into account the results of this check, when data will be collected to determine the state body authorized to initiate a criminal case and conduct a preliminary investigation.

1. Antonovich E. K. Osobennosti prinyatiya resheniy pri postuplenii zaprosov inostrannykh gosudarstv ob ugolovnom presledovanii ili vozbuzhdenii ugolovnogo dela // Mezhdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnaya yustitsiya. — 2017. — № 5. — S. 12–15.

2. Guseva I. I., Zubkov V. N. Problemnye aspekty vozbuzhdeniya ugolovnykh del «chuzhoy» podsledstvennosti // Modern Science. — 2021. — № 5-1. — S. 201–205.

3. Dikarev I. S. Podsledstvennost v ugolovnom protsesse: voprosy teorii i zakonodatelnoy reglamentatsii // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. — 2020. — № 4. — S. 113–125. — DOI: 10.12737/jrl.2020.046.

4. Stelmakh V. Yu. Problemy zakonodatelnoy reglamentatsii podsledstvennosti. Razreshenie sporov o podsledstvennosti // Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal. — 2020. — № 3 (132). — S. 77–90.

5. Tabolina K. A. Nadzor prokurora za vozbuzhdeniem i rassledovaniem ugolovnykh del / pod red. L. N. Maslennikovoy. — M.: Norma, 2020. — 318 s.

6. Fedosov A. E. Napravlenie soobshcheniy o prestupleniyakh po podsledstvennosti // Zakonnost. — 2018. — № 8. — S. 29–31.