Document from CIS Legislation database © 2003-2022 SojuzPravoInform LLC

On behalf of the Russian Federation

RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

of May 19, 2022 No. 20-P

On the case of check of constitutionality of Item 3 parts one of Article 24 and part two of Article 27 of the Code of penal procedure of the Russian Federation in connection with the claim of the citizen A. V. Novkunsky

Constitutional court of the Russian Federation as a part of the Chairman V. D. Zorkin, judges K. V. Aranovsky, G. A. Gadzhiyev, L. M. Zharkova, S. M. Kazantsev, S. D. Knyazev, A. N. Kokotov, L. O. Krasavchikova, S. P. Mavrin, N. V. Melnikov,

being guided by Article 125 (the part Item "and" 4) Constitutions of the Russian Federation, Item 3 parts one, parts three and the fourth Article 3, Article part one 21, Articles 36, 47.1, 74, 86, 96, 97 and 99 Federal constitutional Laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation",

considered in meeting without carrying out hearing case on check of constitutionality of Item 3 parts one of Article 24 and part two of article 27 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Reason for consideration of the case was the claim of the citizen A. V. Novkunsky. The basis to consideration of the case was the found uncertainty in question of whether there correspond the Constitutions of the Russian Federation disputed by the applicant of legislative provision.

Having heard the message of the judge-speaker N. V. Melnikov, having researched the submitted documents and other materials, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

established:

1. According to Item 3 parts one of article 24 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation criminal case cannot be brought, and the brought criminal case is subject to the termination in case of the expiration of prescriptive limits of criminal prosecution.

According to part two of article 27 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation the termination of criminal prosecution on the basis, stipulated in Item 3 parts one of article 24 of this Code, is not allowed if the suspect or the person accused objects to it; in that case criminal proceeding continues regularly.

1.1. The resolution of the investigator of July 31, 2019 against the applicant on this case - the citizen A. V. Novkunsky dismisses criminal case on the basis, stipulated in Item 3 parts one of article 24 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, i.e. in connection with the expiration of prescriptive limits of criminal prosecution, taking into account its statement of July 31, 2019 for consent to the termination of criminal case on the specified basis.

On March 5, 2020 the called resolution is repealed by the head of investigating body. The similar decrees of the investigator on the termination of criminal case issued afterwards of March 6, 2020 and of April 21, 2020 are also repealed by the head of investigating body as illegal and unreasonable.

On August 31, 2020 the decree on the termination of criminal case concerning the applicant in connection with lapse of time is again issued.

On this resolution A.V. Novkunsky according to the procedure of article 125 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation filed a lawsuit the claim in which he expressed disagreement with the termination of criminal case based on Item 3 parts one of article 24 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and specified that he on etiology and in connection with desire to stop concerning himself any actions from the staff of the Investigative Committee and police stipulated himself in crime execution. On December 18, 2020 the judge of the Syzran city court of the Samara region refused grievance settlement, having referred to the fact that in the criminal case file there is written consent A.V. Novkunsky of July 31, 2019 on the termination of criminal case in connection with lapse of time of criminal prosecution constituted in the presence of the defender.

Courts of higher instances agreed with the specified decision (the appeal resolution of the Samara regional court of February 12, 2021; the judge's ruling of the Sixth court of cassation of the general jurisdiction of May 28, 2021 about refusal in transfer of the writ of appeal for consideration in judicial session of court of cassation instance) which including specified that arguments that the applicant wishes continuation of preliminary inquiry, are unconvincing as case papers do not contain data on withdrawal of the statement for consent to the termination of criminal case submitted A. V. Novkunsky on July 31, 2019 on the basis, stipulated in Item 3 parts one of article 24 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. By the judge's ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of September 15, 2021 transfer of the writ of appeal for consideration in judicial session of court of cassation instance it is also refused.

1.2. The constitutional court of the Russian Federation as the supreme judicial authority of the constitutional control in the Russian Federation performs judicial authority independently and independently by means of the constitutional legal proceedings for the purpose of protection of bases of the constitutional system, basic rights and freedoms of man and citizen, ensuring supremacy and direct operation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in all territory of the Russian Federation (article 1 of the Federal constitutional Law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation"), and therefore, resolving case, protects constitutional rights not only the applicant, but also the uncertain group of people to which the challenged normative provisions can be applied.

As appears from article 36 of the Federal constitutional Law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, taking cognizance of the claim to violation of constitutional rights and freedoms of the citizen, recognizes that as availability of proper occasion - the claim meeting the requirements of this Federal constitutional Law, and availability of the basis for consideration of the case - such Russian Federation stated by the Constitutional Court uncertainty in question of constitutionality of the challenged provisions which elimination is within its exclusive competence.

Warning!!!

This is not a full text of document! Document shown in Demo mode!

If you have active License, please Login, or get License for Full Access.

With Full access you can get: full text of document, original text of document in Russian, attachments (if exist) and see History and Statistics of your work.

Get License for Full Access Now

Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info

Effectively work with search system

Database include more 50000 documents. You can find needed documents using search system. For effective work you can mix any on documents parameters: country, documents type, date range, teams or tags.
More about search system

Get help

If you cannot find the required document, or you do not know where to begin, go to Help section.

In this section, we’ve tried to describe in detail the features and capabilities of the system, as well as the most effective techniques for working with the database.

You also may open the section Frequently asked questions. This section provides answers to questions set by users.

Search engine created by SojuzPravoInform LLC. UI/UX design by Intelliants.