Journal headings
"Legal sciences"

Annotation: Over the past 10 years, the institution of jurors in Russia has undergone significant changes. According to the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in 2022 courts of general jurisdiction with the participation of jurors considered 1096 criminal cases. The article highlights the problems of proceedings in court with the participation of jurors and also explores possible ways to solve these problems by amending the criminal procedure legislation. The purpose of the study is to highlight the problems of a theoretical, organizational, legal and law enforcement nature related to the production of a criminal case in court with the participation of jurors, to suggest promising ways to solve these problems. The methodological basis of the study was the formal legal method, comparative legal method, as well as general scientific methods of cognition.

Annotation: The relevance of the topic under consideration lies in the desire to neutralize some of the problems that arise when collecting debts on alimony obligations, due to the increasing total debt and an increase in the number of enforcement proceedings for the recovery of alimony. The tasks of the study are a brief overview of the legislative regulation of the assignment of alimony and the process of their recovery, identification of problematic aspects on this topic. The purpose of the study is to highlight the problematic aspects of the forced recovery of alimony, with suggestions for their possible elimination. Methodological basis: formal legal method, comparative legal method, as well as general scientific methods of cognition. The article discusses some of the problems that arise when collecting debts on alimony obligations. The regulatory framework governing the procedure for paying alimony, as well as the procedure for the activities of the Federal Bailiff Service of Russia in this area is analyzed. Some factors that have both positive and negative impact on the recovery were studied. Recommendations and possible ways of resolving the existing problematic situations are given, namely, amendments to the current legislation in order to tighten the regime of entry into the territory of the Russian Federation of persons who are debtors of alimony obligations.

Annotation: The article deals with the problems of bringing to administrative responsibility for committing petty hooliganism, provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Taking into account the variety of forms of manifestation of petty hooliganism, the problems associated with the presence of many evaluative concepts as part of this administrative offense are revealed. It is noted that currently the concept and content of “obscene language” is not formulated in the legislation, there is no definition of a public place, which allows the law enforcement officer to determine whether the composition of this offense is present in the acts of persons independently, at his own discretion and convictions. The study also revealed other problems associated with this administrative offense, for example, such as the lack of a differentiated approach to sentencing. The study was conducted using scientific sources, judicial practice, as well as the draft Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Based on the analysis, recommendations are made aimed at improving the qualification of the composition of an administrative offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

Annotation: The article is devoted to the need to preserve fundamental approaches to the problem of subjects of civil proceedings based on the nature and presence of legal interest, but with the necessary rethinking of the current state of legislation and the needs of practice. The issue on the subjects of civil proceedings is of decisive importance for effective judicial protection. The insufficiency of legal regulation of persons participating in the case is shown. The definition of the parties given in the theory back in the last century does not correspond to the current state of practice, especially in cases where the subject of judicial protection is the rights and interests of minors, whose status is not at all defined in the law. The necessity of clarifying the status and name of the person acting in the interests of the group when filing a class action is substantiated. Attention is drawn to the fact that the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation does not single out a group of subjects that contribute to the administration of justice. On the basis of new approaches to the problem of legal interest, arguments are given in favor of changing the status of a representative in court. The article aims to identify the most problematic moments in the legal regulation of subjects of civil procedural legal relations in order to improve judicial protection.

Annotation: The subject of the study – the norms of law, provisions of literature on the pleadings and the last word of the defendant. The purpose of the study is to identify the theoretical and legal features of the parties’ pleadings and the last word of the defendant. General scientific and special methods of scientific knowledge form the methodological basis of the research. Conclusions on the article are: the debate of the parties is formed from the speeches of the prosecutor and the defender; the issue on the order of speech is resolved by the court, but the prosecutor is always the first, and the defendant, his defender, is the last; at the stage of the debate of the parties, inadmissible evidence and those not presented in court proceedings cannot be mentioned. In this regard, Part 5 of Article 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation should specify that the presiding judge has the right to stop persons participating in the debate, including in cases when they cite evidence not considered at the court session. The defendant (his/her defender) has the right of the last remark. Following the debate of the parties, the defendant may exercise the right to the last word. At this stage, he/she cannot be asked questions, nor is the duration limited.