No 7 (2025)

The idea of the incompatibility of judicial activity as an independent institution of judicial power has not received due justification in Russian science on judicial activity. The problem of determining the types of activity, including paid ones, which a judge is allowed to engage in or, on the contrary, is not well studied in Russian science, and scientific works on this topic are few. Meanwhile, the issues of incompatibility of judicial activity with any other types of paid activity, with the exception of those expressly permitted by federal law, seem to be very sensitive both in relation to active judges and to retired judges.
Purpose of the work: to substantiate the idea of the incompatibility of judicial activity as a standard for organizing judicial activity and an element of judicial status, on the basis of which to disclose its content, determine the proportionality of prohibitions on carrying out other paid activities in relation to active judges and retired judges, and characterize the models of legal regulation of the labor activity of the latter in foreign legislation.
The methodological base is made up of traditional techniques and methods of scientific knowledge (dialectical, historical and legal, system analysis, comparative legal, etc.).
The following conclusions were made. The requirement of incompatibility of judicial work with other types of activities that bring remuneration is an important institutional tool that expands the content and guarantees of independence and impartiality of judges. The content of incompatibility in the labor law context is the prohibition of judges to occupy certain positions or engage in certain professional activities for remuneration. 
The problems associated with the work of judges after retirement and the scope of restrictions applicable to them are debatable and are relevant in many countries. The paper highlights the main approaches to the legal regulation of the career of retired judges, the nature and completeness of the restrictions applied to them related to the requirement of incompatibility, which have developed in foreign practice. The proposals for improving the Russian model of legal regulation of the careers of retired judges are substantiated in terms of removing excessive restrictions and prohibitions concerning permitted paid activities.

The creation of a new model for organizing archival business in technologically developing courts of Russia is carried out in the context of the intersection of powers of authorized state bodies, go­vernment bodies at various levels, federal government institutions created by the Russian Federation and government agencies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as local government bodies. The purpose of the undertaken research is to identify problems in organizing archival storage of decisions of the courts of first instance - decisions according to which cases were resolved on the merits during civil proceedings. These judicial acts are documents of permanent storage and are included in the Archive Fund of the Russian Federation. 
Currently, problems that could not be clearly resolved in the content of paper document flow have received additional context in connection with the use of new forms of creation, transmission and storage of judicial information within the framework of platform solutions. At the same time, the key issues of cooperation in this area are: the ability of the created digital environment to level out the annual increasing needs for archival storage space, as well as the parameters for organizing the storage and use of electronic archival documents, including documents in electronic form.
The implementation of the research objectives was facilitated by systemic, structural-functional and comparative methods of scientific knowledge.
Proposals have been formulated to improve the organizational support for the activities of courts through the development and conclusion of a set of Agreements (agreements) on cooperation, both between Rosarkhiv and the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and between interested structures in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in order to establish unified rules of interaction when transferring documents to permanent storage in state (municipal) archives. 

The article examines the theoretical and legal foundations of prosecutorial supervision in the field of budget legislation. The prosecutor’s offices are considered as special subjects of State activity, whose function is to ensure the rule of law in various areas of legal relations. 
The study defines the criteria for distinguishing between prosecutorial supervision and state control. A dual understanding of state financial control is substantiated, depending on the scope and content of its subject. The understanding of public prosecutor’s supervision in the budgetary sphere as a special state activity that is not included in the system of state financial control is substantiated. As a result of the analysis, specific features characterizing the prosecutor’s supervision of compliance with budget legislation have been identified. The problems of legal regulation of prosecutorial supervision in the budgetary sphere are analyzed, which consist in the absence of clear legislative criteria for distinguishing the competence of the prosecutor’s office and subjects of state financial control, as well as in the absence of organizational and methodological provisions concerning such a specific area of supervision as the budgetary process.

The timely resolution of the dispute between the parties is one of the signs that determine the effectiveness of justice. The necessity of qualification by the court of disputed legal relations and elimination of the dispute of the parties is substantiated. It is noted that due to the lack of legislative consolidation of the concept of the subject of the claim and a common understanding of the limits of the claims, the use by the court of a different method of protecting the right than chosen by the plaintiff, as a result of the court’s qualification of disputed legal relations, may lead to the cancellation of the court decision. The changes made to the legal regulation of the content of the settlement agreement were positively assessed, and questions were raised that require further research.

One of the most common ways to satisfy the need for housing is the use of residential premises on the basis of contracts mediating the paid use of property. At the same time, the current legislation provides for a special type of contract – a residential lease agreement, which is aimed at regulating relations arising from the temporary use of residential premises. At the same time, questions arise in the doctrine and law enforcement practice regarding the distinction between a residential lease agreement and a rental agreement.
The purpose of this article is to identify the features of a residential lease agreement that allow it to be distinguished from a rental agreement. Achieving the goal is conditioned by setting the following tasks: to determine the features of a commercial lease agreement for residential premises, to identify the relationship between a lease agreement and a rental agreement, to determine the possibility of subsidiary application of the rules on rent to relations on the rental of residential premises.
The article was prepared using general scientific methods (systemic, logical) and special legal methods (comparative-legal, formal-legal). The authors come to the conclusion that it is necessary to distinguish between a lease agreement and a commercial lease agreement for residential premises, despite their similar legal nature, they have a number of fundamental differences. A commercial lease agreement for residential premises is distinguished in connection with a special object – residential premises, as well as the content, which involves granting a greater volume of rights to the tenant, which are due to the special significance of residential premises for a person. It is concluded that the application of the rules on the lease agreement as general to relations arising from the commercial lease agreement is unacceptable, however, by analogy of the law, individual rules on lease may be applied if this does not contradict the essence of the lease agreement.

The work is devoted to the analysis of the objective side and qualification of assault with intent to rob, committed by a group of persons by prior agreement, when the accomplices had previously agreed on theft or robbery, but one of them went beyond the agreement and committed assault with intent to rob (excess), while others, without using violence, continued the theft or robbery. The introduction of the work provides a description of the objective side of the aforementioned assault with intent to rob, committed by a group of persons by prior agreement (pt. 2 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996) and sets the task of clarifying the latter for the purposes of proper qualification.
The work used the theoretical provisions on complicity in a crime, fixed in the norms of Chapter 7 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the provisions of paragraph 2 of Art. 14.1 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 2002 No. 29 to solve the problem of describing the objective side of the named assault with intent to rob, committed by a group of persons by prior agreement. For this purpose, the methods of empirical research and theoretical knowledge were used in the work.
The objective side of the above-mentioned assault with intent to rob, committed by a group of persons by prior agreement, is violence on the part of one accomplice during his excess (assault with intent to rob) and the use of this violence by other accomplices – but only in the form of awareness (observation) of its application to a living victim and the continuation of the theft of property. Only under such circumstances is it possible to qualify the actions of all accomplices as assault with intent to rob committed by a group of persons by prior agreement (under pt. 2 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
The present study can be used in the practice of applying the norm of pt. 2 of Art. 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on assault with intent to rob, committed by a group of persons by prior agreement. The study may be the basis for the development of the concept of “using violence”, which in reality was committed by only one of the accomplices. The study can be used in a radically different way – to exclude the possibility of joining an assault with intent to rob without any violent actions. This will simplify the qualification of accomplices based only on their actual joint violent actions. Especially in the situation under study, when the accomplices of the theft (robbery) had a preliminary conspiracy only to steal (robbery), then one of them committed an assault with intent to rob (excess), and the rest saw this violence (but did not use any violence themselves), only continued to steal property.

The article deals with the actual problem of the implementation of some rights of convicts sentenced to imprisonment, with serving a sentence in a correctional colony, left in a pre-trial detention center or transferred to it to participate in investigative actions or court proceedings. The norms of penal enforcement and criminal procedure legislation in the implementation of some rights of this category of convicts differ in the procedure and conditions for their implementation, require concretization and definition priority of the branch of legislation in their application.
The methodological basis of this work consists of general scientific methods (analysis, abstraction, deduction, induction, synthesis, generalization) and special scientific methods (comparative-legal, formal-legal).
A comparative characteristic of the application of the norms of the penal legislation, as well as the norms of the Federal Law “On the detention of suspects and accused of committing crimes” in the exercise of the rights to a long visit and material and living support of those sentenced to imprisonment, left or transferred to a pre-trial detention center to participate in investigative actions and trials, is carried out. Analysis of judicial practice related to the implementation of such rights, made it possible to identify trends towards the priority of application of the norms of criminal executive or procedural legislation.
The author has come to the conclusion that persons sentenced to imprisonment who have been left or transferred to a pre-trial detention center to participate in investigative actions and court proceedings have a dual legal status. As persons sentenced to imprisonment by a court sentence, they are subject to the legal status regulated by the norms of the penal legislation. Then they are subject to the Federal Law “On the Detention of Suspects and Accused of Committing Crimes”, as well as criminal procedure legislation. Consequently, they become the owners of the second legal provision – criminal procedure. 
The implementation of some rights and legitimate interests of convicts is associated with the emergence of a conflict of legal norms of criminal executive and criminal procedure legislation, requires concretization and determination of the priority of the branch of legislation in their application.