The limits of action of prejudice in criminal procedural legislation of European countries

N. Senchenko
{"title":"The limits of action of prejudice in criminal procedural legislation of European countries","authors":"N. Senchenko","doi":"10.24144/2788-6018.2024.02.118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The peculiarities of the normative fixation of prejudice in the criminal procedural legislation of Austria, Germany and France and the limits of its effect are examined in the article. Prejudice affects the increase in the responsibility of judges, as it contributes to making legal and well-founded decisions that concern not only the rights and interests of the parties to a particular proceeding, which depends on the facts established in this decision, and in the future they may affect the observance of the rights and interests of others persons. It is argued that the concept of prejudice is not provided in the criminal procedural law of these countries, but, apparently, the decisions of courts and other bodies are recognized during the consideration of criminal cases by the courts of Austria, Germany and France without evidence. This emphasizes the authority and significance of the decisions of the court and other bodies, despite the fact that the legislation of these countries attaches great importance to the freedom of assessment of evidence and make decisions by the court based on the internal conviction of the judges. It was determined that the criminal procedural legislation of Austria, Germany and France recognizes the prejudicial significance of the circumstances established by the verdict and other court decision, as well as acts of criminal prosecution bodies during the consideration of a criminal case. At the same time, the probative force of such decisions is absolute for the court considering the criminal case, until they are recognized as illegal by a higher court. Unlike the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Criminal Procedure Codes of Austria, Germany and France recognize the circumstances established by a verdict or other court decision, as well as acts of criminal prosecution bodies, without evidence, only by the court, the prosecutor and other criminal prosecution bodies are not endowed with such a right. In the Criminal Procedure Code, the specified state verdicts and acts of criminal prosecution bodies are evidence, their evidentiary force is absolute, which greatly facilitates the use of prejudice in criminal proceedings. Taking into account the positive legislative experience of these countries, it is proposed to include the verdict, which has gained legal force, adopted within the framework of civil, arbitration or administrative proceedings, among the other documents specified in Part 2 of Article 99 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":227965,"journal":{"name":"Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence","volume":" 1109","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2024.02.118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The peculiarities of the normative fixation of prejudice in the criminal procedural legislation of Austria, Germany and France and the limits of its effect are examined in the article. Prejudice affects the increase in the responsibility of judges, as it contributes to making legal and well-founded decisions that concern not only the rights and interests of the parties to a particular proceeding, which depends on the facts established in this decision, and in the future they may affect the observance of the rights and interests of others persons. It is argued that the concept of prejudice is not provided in the criminal procedural law of these countries, but, apparently, the decisions of courts and other bodies are recognized during the consideration of criminal cases by the courts of Austria, Germany and France without evidence. This emphasizes the authority and significance of the decisions of the court and other bodies, despite the fact that the legislation of these countries attaches great importance to the freedom of assessment of evidence and make decisions by the court based on the internal conviction of the judges. It was determined that the criminal procedural legislation of Austria, Germany and France recognizes the prejudicial significance of the circumstances established by the verdict and other court decision, as well as acts of criminal prosecution bodies during the consideration of a criminal case. At the same time, the probative force of such decisions is absolute for the court considering the criminal case, until they are recognized as illegal by a higher court. Unlike the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Criminal Procedure Codes of Austria, Germany and France recognize the circumstances established by a verdict or other court decision, as well as acts of criminal prosecution bodies, without evidence, only by the court, the prosecutor and other criminal prosecution bodies are not endowed with such a right. In the Criminal Procedure Code, the specified state verdicts and acts of criminal prosecution bodies are evidence, their evidentiary force is absolute, which greatly facilitates the use of prejudice in criminal proceedings. Taking into account the positive legislative experience of these countries, it is proposed to include the verdict, which has gained legal force, adopted within the framework of civil, arbitration or administrative proceedings, among the other documents specified in Part 2 of Article 99 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲国家刑事诉讼法中偏见诉讼的界限
本条研究了奥地利、德国和法国刑事诉讼立法中偏见的规范性固定的特殊性及其效力的限度。偏见影响到法官责任的增加,因为它有助于做出合法且有理有据的判决,这些判决不仅关系到某一诉讼程序中当事人的权利和利益(这取决于该判决中确定的事实),而且将来可能会影响到其他人权利和利益的遵守。有观点认为,这些国家的刑事诉讼法中并没有规定损害的概念,但显然,在奥地利、德国和法国的法院审理刑事案件时,法院和其他机构的决定是在没有证据的情况下得到承认的。这就强调了法院和其他机构的决定的权威性和重要性,尽管这些国家的立法非常重视评估证据的自由,并由法院根据法官的内部信念做出决定。据确定,奥地利、德国和法国的刑事诉讼法承认判决和其他法院裁决所确定的情况以及刑事检控机构在审理刑事案件期间的行为具有预断意义。同时,这些裁决对审理刑事案件的法院具有绝对的证明力,直到上级法院认定其为非法为止。与乌克兰《刑事诉讼法典》不同,奥地利、德国和法国的《刑事诉讼法典》只承认法院的判决或其他法院决定所确定的情况,以及刑事起诉机构在没有证据的情况下的行为,检察官和其他刑事起诉机构不被赋予这种权利。在《刑事诉讼法》中,明确规定的国家判决和刑事检察机关的行为都是证据,其证据效力是绝对的,这极大地便利了偏见在刑事诉讼中的运用。考虑到这些国家的积极立法经验,建议将在民事、仲裁或行政诉讼框架内通过的已获得法律效力的判决纳入《乌克兰刑事诉讼法典》第99条第2部分规定的其他文件中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Independence of judges as a constitutional principle and deontological basis of the judicial profession Corruption risks during public procurement in the conditions of military status The state of scientific development of the problems of criminal liability for gender-based violence in the context of armed conflict (martial law) in Ukraine in 2019-2022 Internal threats to the national security of Ukraine Financial assets in the system of financial legal relations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1