编号 8 (2025)

In this article the author has analysed a unique historical and legal monument combining both normative, doctrinal and law enforcement materials – “Peira”, or the experience of the scholar and Supreme Judge of the Eastern Roman Empire Eustathios Rhomaios.

The author substantiated the conclusions that the historical roots of modern principles of legality, equality before the law, justice and humanism go back to the legal traditions of the Byzantine Empire, and the judgements of Roman scholars and practitioners (as well as the methods and techniques of interpretation and law enforcement used by them) have not lost their relevance to the present moment.

 The purpose of this article is to show that the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) preserved both the Roman court system, improving it, and the principles of judicial procedure in civil law cases outlined by Emperor Justinian I in Corpus Juris Civilis in the sixth century.

We can see it during studying the extant judicial practice of the Byzantine jurist, judge of the Supreme Imperial Court in the 11th century, Eustathios Rhomaios. It was recently republished with translation and detailed comments by the German researcher D. Simon.

Judicial experience (“Peira”) of Eustathios Rhomaios shows that he used in his practice all principles of civil procedure such as legality, equality before the law and the court, the conduct of legal proceedings within a reasonable time, the adversarial nature of the parties, and the principle of fairness. All of them are still significant in the work of the judicial system. Their presence in byzantine courts allows us to conclude about the high level of development of jurisprudence in the Eastern Roman Empire in the

11th century and beyond.

 Corruption in the judicial environment creates serious threats to the rule of law, justice and the rule of law, diminishes the authority of the judiciary, causing distrust of the court and the judicial system as a whole. Therefore, violation of anti-corruption requirements (duties, prohibitions and restrictions established by the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation” and the Federal Law “On Combating Corruption”) should imply increased responsibility of the judge. At the same time, the principles of independence, irremovability and inviolability of judges require that legislation on their responsibility meets the criteria of legal certainty and consistency, and the application of sanctions is carried out within the framework of a fair public independent trial and is based on the principles of individualization of punishment, proportionality of liability measures to the severity and consequences of the offense committed. According to the author of the article, the legislation on the responsibility of judges for corruption offenses, as well as the practice of its application, do not fully meet these requirements.

The analysis of the legal nature of judges’ liability for violation of anti-corruption legislation was carried out by the author in order to substantiate the need to establish appropriate procedures in legislation for its application for various types of corruption violations, as well as to consolidate the guarantees provided to judges held accountable. Research objectives: to identify the problems of legislative regulation of judges’ liability for corruption offenses that are not crimes; based on the practice of the qualification boards of judges, demonstrate the problems of applying anti-corruption legislation; formulate proposals aimed at solving these problems.

The main research method was the general scientific dialectical method of cognition, in which universal scientific methods were used: analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, formal logical and systemic. Comparative legal, formal legal methods, the method of legal modeling, etc. are used as private scientific methods.

The result of the research is the proposals made by the author, the implementation of which will improve the effectiveness of procedures for holding judges accountable for violations of anti-corruption legislation, ensure fairness and predictability of decisions made against judges and, ultimately, will guarantee judicial independence.

 The article is devoted to the study of the phenomenon of procedural mobility in the context of court consideration of cases on the protection of housing rights of civil servants and members of their families. Procedural mobility refers to a change in the procedural status of a subject during legal proceedings, for example, in the event of the death of a civil servant, when a family member can become a legal successor in the case. The article analyzes the norms of substantive law governing the provision of housing guarantees to civil servants and members of their families, as well as the conditions of succession.

The opinions of leading proceduralists on the procedure for procedural succession are considered. The author comes to the conclusion that when the plaintiff in housing disputes of civil servants retires in the event of his death, judicial proceedings, as a general rule, are not suspended, since a singular legal succession takes place.

The article also raises the issue of gaps in the legislation regarding succession in the event of the death of an employee under circumstances not related to official duties. It is proposed to apply the analogy of the law, regardless of the conditions of death, and to regulate this issue legislatively.

 Judicial protection of electoral rights has always occupied a separate place in Russian procedural legislation. The electoral process is characterized by its transience and stage-by-stage nature, with this in mind, the law provides for special requirements for subjects of the right to apply to the court for protection of electoral rights, as well as for deadlines for such treatment. This article is devoted to discussing these issues through illustrating them with examples from court practice.

The author analyzes the positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the issues of specific requirements for the subject of the right to appeal to the court and the time limits for such appeal in cases of protection of electoral rights, formulated both in the relevant resolution of the Plenum and in resolving specific administrative cases, as well as the legal approaches of courts when considering administrative cases related to electoral conflicts.

The purpose and objective of the research is to study the legal approaches of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

The legislative consolidation of criminal responsibility for deliberately false denunciation remains an urgent theoretical, legal and practical problem in need of doctrinal coverage. The second premise of the study is the contradictory practice of considering criminal cases of knowingly false denunciation of the commission of a violent sexual crime and its compliance with the principles of criminal law and the rules of sentencing.

The objectives are: the investigation of deliberately false denunciation with the specifics of the accusation of a violent sexual crime; the study of judicial approaches to the practice of sentencing. To achieve these goals, it is necessary to solve a number of tasks: to investigate the motives and goals of a deliberately false denunciation, the content of a deliberately false accusation, etc. from the standpoint of differentiation of criminal responsibility and significance for sentencing.

From the standpoint of a dialectical approach to the content and essence of any social phenomenon, the author addresses the problematic aspects of deliberately false denunciation, taking into account the specifics of the accusation of a violent sexual offense, as well as the practice of solving criminal cases. The research methods are systematic, logical, comparative and proper – legal.

It is concluded that there is an imbalance between the degree of public danger of deliberately false denunciation of a violent sexual crime, taking into account the motives and goals of the act, and contradictory judicial practice, which is often indifferent to the signs that increase the public danger of the act. There is a lack of proper differentiation of responsibility for the act in question.

It is argued that the law enforcement officer’s vague response to knowingly false accusations of a sexually violent crime is confirmed by the absence of his influence on the dynamics of these crimes.

The conclusion is drawn about the need for a systematic approach to the legal assessment of deliberately false denunciation of the commission of a violent sexual crime and responsibility for it.

 The legal doctrine does not allow debate as to the legal nature of confiscation of property. The legal literature formulates approaches that determine the confiscation of property as a type of additional punishment, an independent measure of criminal liability, a criminal procedural means, a security measure and others, which requires scientific understanding.

The main purpose of the study is to determine the legal nature of confiscation of property and to limit the scope of its application from related legal institutions. This goal led to the setting of the following tasks: on the basis of an analysis of the positions presented in the doctrine, a study of the principle of implementation of the measure under consideration, including, in the context of the possible application of related legal consequences, to develop essential signs of confiscation of property.

The methodological basis of the study is the universal dialectical method of scientific knowledge, which made it possible to study the subject of research in relation to other legal phenomena, as well as general scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy) and private scientific methods of cognition (formal-legal, comparative-legal).

Essential signs of confiscation of property are proposed, revealing its legal nature: provision by force of state coercion, implementation outside the framework of criminal liability, the presence of a non-punitive property, a limited area of influence on property status, application as the main means of resolving criminal law conflict.

The definition of confiscation of property was formulated and a conclusion was made on the compliance of the current formal status of confiscation of property as another measure of a criminal law nature with its essential characteristics.