pravoПравоприменениеLaw Enforcement Review2542-15142658-4050Dostoevsky Omsk State University10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(1).174-190pravo-607Research ArticleПРИМЕНЕНИЕ НОРМ ПРАВА СУДЕБНЫМИ ОРГАНАМИTHE LAW ENFORCEMENT BY THE JUDGESПротиворечия судебно-уголовной политикиContradictions of judicial criminal policyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1100-9310ПудовочкинЮ. Е.PudovochkinYu. E.

Пудовочкин Юрий Евгеньевич – доктор юридических наук, профессор, главный научный сотрудник – руководитель направления уголовно-правовых исследований Центра исследований проблем правосудия, SPIN-код РИНЦ: 5775-0242; AuthorID: 416470.

117418, Москва, ул. Новочеремушкинская, 69

Yury E. Pudovochkin – Doctor of Law, Professor, Chief Researcher – Head, Department of Criminal Law Research, Center for the Study of Justice Problems, RSCI SPIN-code: 5775-0242; AuthorID: 416470.

69, Novocheremushkinskaya ul., Moscow, 117418

11081975@list.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1656-2529БабаевМ. М.BabayevM. M.

Бабаев Михаил Матвеевич – доктор юридических наук, профессор, заслуженный деятель науки Российской Федерации, главный научный сотрудник направления уголовно-правовых исследований Центра исследований проблем правосудия, SPIN-код РИНЦ: 4238-1889; AuthorID: 77172.

117418, Москва, ул. Новочеремушкинская, 69

Mikhail M. Babayev – Doctor of Law, Professor, Honoured Scientist of the Russian Federation, Chief Researcher, Department of Criminal Law Research, Center for the Study of Justice Problems, RSCI SPIN-code: 4238-1889; AuthorID: 77172.

69, Novocheremushkinskaya ul., Moscow, 117418

babaevmm@yandex.ruРоссийский государственный университет правосудияРоссияRussian State University of JusticeRussian Federation20222403202261174190Copyright © Пудовочкин Ю.Е., Бабаев М.М., 20222022Пудовочкин Ю.Е., Бабаев М.М.Pudovochkin Y.E., Babayev M.M.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://enforcement.omsu.ru/jour/article/view/607

Рассматриваются противоречия судебного уровня реализации уголовной политики, которые складываются в сфере функционирования международных и национальных судов различных уровней при толковании, оценке и применении правовых норм. Предлагается классификация этих противоречий на основе уровня, вида судопроизводства и источника возникновения, которая помогает лучше понять механизм функционирования судебной системы, роль судов в обеспечении верховенства права. Принимая во внимание диалектическую природу противоречий, доказывается, что механизм их преодоления должен включать в себя как организационные решения в части разграничения компетенции судов, так и идейно-нормативные решения, обеспечивающие компромисс судебных позиций ради достижения общей цели соблюдения прав человека при разрешении уголовно-правового конфликта.

The subject of the study is the criminal policy in the context of contradictions in the functioning of the courts.

The purpose of the study is to investigate, which contradictions of criminal policy are generated by a multi-level system of courts, and which mechanisms for overcoming them in order to optimize criminal policy could be found out.

The methodology

The methodology. In modern conditions of diversification of methodological approaches to organizing and conducting political-legal research, it is important not to discard, but to rethink and rediscover the epistemological possibilities of the methods of classical science, especially the method of dialectical analysis.

The main results and scope of the study. The use of the category "dialectical contradiction" for the purpose of studying the problems of the functioning of the courts in terms of the interpretation and application of criminal law provisions opens up new possibilities in the study of criminal and judicial policy, as well as determining the prospects for its development. In the study, the law enforcement contradictions of criminal policy refer to the relations between courts of various types and levels that develop in the course of their functioning and reflect the opposite approaches of law enforcement bodies to the interpretation and application of criminal legislation. Considering the level and type of legal proceedings, these contradictions can be summarized in the following groups: (a) between national and international courts; (b) between superior courts of the national legal system; (c) between the courts of various instances of the system of courts of general jurisdiction.

The contradictions between national and international courts, emerging in the field of protection of human rights and freedoms, are an objective source of development of judicial practice and policy. The resolution of these contradictions is based on the consensus of various courts and compromise. If the position of the European Court of Human Rights does not contradict the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the state adjusts its legal practice in the direction set by the authoritative international instance by means of: (a) direct application of national legislation with due regard for the ECHR’s legal positions; (b) the application of national legislation in its constitutional interpretation by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which does not differ from the decisions and positions of the ECHR; (c) amending national legal acts in pursuance of ECHR judgments. In exceptional cases, when the position of the European Court touches upon issues of the country's constitutional identity, the contradiction between the international and national legal order is resolved by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the basis of the priority of constitutional norms.

At the level of the superior national courts the contradictions are represented by the differing positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the assessment and interpretation of criminal law provisions. Such contradictions can be thought of as latent until they are not revealed in constitutional proceedings. The identification and resolution of these contradictions is the most important direction of legal policy in the country; it reflects the consistent solution of the aim of constitutionalization of the criminal law.

At the level of the system of courts of general jurisdiction, the concept of "contradiction" can only be applied to those differing approaches of the courts to solving criminal cases that do not go beyond the rule of law. Contradictions arise only when, having correctly established the factual circumstances of the case, the courts disagree in the choice of the legal provision to be applied, although any such choice can be explained and motivated. These contradictions may or may not be related to the quality of criminal legislation. Therefore, the mechanism for their resolution includes not only law revision. It is important to use the capabilities of the judicial system itself to develop a consensual understanding of the textual content of the criminal law and the rules for its application.

Conclusions

Conclusions. Overcoming the contradictions of the judicial criminal policy is possible only in the process of communication and dialogue between the courts of different levels on the basis of differentiation of jurisdiction, respect for authority and independence.

Уголовная политикасудебная политикаправоприменениепротиворечия уголовной политикиразрешение противоречий уголовной политикиCriminal policyjudicial policylaw enforcementcontradictions of criminal policyresolution of contradictions of criminal policyReferencesЖалинский А. Э. Уголовная политология: становление и развитие / А. Э. Жалинский // Право и политика. – 2010. – № 5. – С. 826–834.Zhalinskiy A.E. Criminal political science: formation and development. Pravo i politika = Law and Politics, 2010, no. 5, pp. 826–834. (In Russ.).Лопашенко Н. А. Уголовная политика / Н. А. Лопашенко. – М. : Волтерс Клувер, 2009. – 608 с.Lopashenko N.A. Criminal policy. Мoscow, Wolters Kluver Publ., 2009. 608 p. (In Russ.).Побегайло Э. Ф. Концептуальные основы современной российской уголовной политики / Э. Ф. Побегайло // Российский криминологический взгляд. – 2015. – № 1. – С. 279–284.Pobegajlo E.F. Fundamental Bases of the Modern Russia Criminal Politics. Rossiiskii kriminologicheskii vzglyad = Russian Criminological Outlook, 2015, no. 1, pp. 279–284. (In Russ.).Иванюшко Д. В. Актуальные проблемы взаимоотношений Прокуратуры РФ и Следственного комитета РФ / Д. В. Иванюшко // Актуальные проблемы российского права. – 2011. – № 3. – С. 201–209.Ivanyushko D.V. The Urgent Problems of the Relations Between the Prosecutors's Office and the Investigator's Committee of Russian Federation. Aktual'nye problemy rossiiskogo prava = Actual Problems of Russian Law, 2011, no. 3, pp. 201–209. (In Russ.).Klug F. Follow or Lead? The Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights / F. Klug, H. Wildbore // European Human Rights Law Review. – 2010. – Vol. 6. – P. 621–630.Klug F., Wildbore H. Follow or Lead? The Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights. European Human Rights Law Review, 2010, vol. 6, pp. 621–630.Donald A. The UK and the European Court of Human Rights : Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 83 / A. Donald, J. Gordon, P. H. Leach. – Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2012. – 219 p.Donald A., Gordon J., Leach P.H. The UK and the European Court of Human Rights, Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 83. Equality and Human Rights Commission Publ., 2012. 219 p.Калиниченко П. А. К вопросу о коллизии между постановлениями ЕСПЧ и Конституцией России в свете позиции Конституционного Суда РФ / П. А. Калиниченко // Актуальные проблемы российского права. – 2016. – № 2 (63). – С. 42–48. – DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2016.63.2.042-048.Kalinichenko P.A. On Conflicts Between the ECTHR Judgments and the Constitution of Russia in the Light of the Russian Constitutional Court's Legal Position. Aktual'nye problemy rossiiskogo prava = Actual problems of Russian law, 2016, no. 2 (63), pp. 42–48. DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2016.63.2.042-048. (In Russ.).Осипов М. Ю. О некоторых проблемах разрешения коллизий между Конституцией РФ и решениями Европейского Суда по правам человека / М. Ю. Осипов // Актуальные проблемы российского права. – 2016. – № 2 (63). – С. 55–60. – DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2016.63.2.055-060.Osipov M.Yu. On Some Problems of Resolving "Conflicts" Between the Provisions of the Constitution of the RF and Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Aktual'nye problemy rossiiskogo prava = Actual problems of Russian law, 2016, no. 2 (63), pp. 55–60. DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2016.63.2.055-060. (In Russ.).Будаев К. А. О некоторых разногласиях Европейского суда по правам человека и Конституционного суда Российской Федерации по защите прав и свобод граждан России: пути их разрешения / К. А. Будаев // Lex Russica. – 2017. – № 12 (133). – С. 95–109. – DOI: 10.17803/1729-5920.2017.133.12.095-109.Budayev K.A. On Some Disagreements Between the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Concerning the Protection of Rights and Freedoms of Russian Citizens and the Ways to Resolve Them. Lex Russica, 2017, no. 12 (133), pp. 95–109. DOI: 10.17803/1729-5920.2017.133.12.095-109. (In Russ.).Haket S. The Danish Supreme Court’s Ajos judgment (Dansk Industri): Rejecting a Consistent Interpretation and Challenging the Effect of a General Principle of EU Law in the Danish Legal Order / S. Haket // Review of European Administrative Law. – 2017. – Vol. 10. – № 1. – P. 135–151. – DOI: 10.7590/187479817X14945955772000.Haket S. The Danish Supreme Court’s Ajos judgment (Dansk Industri): Rejecting a Consistent Interpretation and Challenging the Effect of a General Principle of EU Law in the Danish Legal Order. Review of European Administrative Law, 2017, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 135–151. DOI: 10.7590/187479817X14945955772000.Kelemen D. On the Unsustainability of Constitutional Pluralism: European Supremacy and the Survival of the Eurozone / D. Kelemen // Maastricht journal of European and comparative law. – 2016. – Vol. 23, № 1. – P. 136–150. – DOI: 10.1177/1023263X1602300108.Kelemen D. On the Unsustainability of Constitutional Pluralism: European Supremacy and the Survival of the Eurozone. Maastricht journal of European and comparative law, 2016, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 136–150. DOI: 10.1177/1023263X1602300108.Fabbrini F. After the OMT Case: The Supremacy of EU Law as the Guarantee of the Equality of the Member States / F. Fabbrini // German Law Journal. – 2015. – Vol. 16, № 4. – P. 1003–1023. DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200019970.Fabbrini F. After the OMT Case: The Supremacy of EU Law as the Guarantee of the Equality of the Member States. German Law Journal, 2015, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1003–1023. DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200019970.Loughlin M. Constitutional pluralism: An oxymoron? / M. Loughlin // Global Constitutionalism. – 2014. – Vol. 3, № 1. – P. 9–30. – DOI: 10.1017/S2045381713000166.Loughlin M. Constitutional pluralism: An oxymoron? Global Constitutionalism, 2014, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 9–30. DOI: 10.1017/S2045381713000166.Maccormick N. The Maastricht-Urteil: Sovereignty Now / N. Maccormick // European Law Journal. – 1999. – Vol. 1. – P. 259–266. – DOI: 10.1111/J.1468-0386.1995.TB00031.X.Maccormick N. The Maastricht‐Urteil: Sovereignty Now. European Law Journal, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 259–266. DOI: 10.1111/J.1468-0386.1995.TB00031.X.Walker N. The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism / N. Walker // Modern Law Review. – 2002. – Vol. 65. – P. 317–356. – DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.00383.Walker N. The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism. Modern Law Review, 2002, vol. 65, pp. 317–356. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.00383.Bobić A. Constitutional Pluralism Is Not Dead: An Analysis of Interactions Between Constitutional Courts of Member States and the European Court of Justice / A. Bobić // German Law Journal. – 2017. – Vol. 18. – № 06. – P. 1395–1428. – DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200022380.Bobić A. Constitutional Pluralism Is Not Dead: An Analysis of Interactions Between Constitutional Courts of Member States and the European Court of Justice. German Law Journal, 2017, vol. 18, no. 06, pp. 1395–1428. DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200022380.Скобликов П. А. Преюдиция актов арбитражных судов в уголовном процессе: новое прочтение / П. А. Скобликов // Журнал российского права. – 2009. – № 2. – С. 69–82.Skoblikov P.A. Res judicata of arbitration courts’ acts in criminal proceedings: new reading. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2009, no. 2, pp. 69–82. (In Russ.).Колоколов Н. А. Преюдиция. Преступления в сфере экономики: факты одни, а их оценки у судов общей юрисдикции и арбитражных судов разные / Н. А. Колоколов // Юрист. – 2009. – № 6. – С. 52–66.Kolokolov N.A. Res judicata. Crimes in the economic sphere: facts are the same, but their assessments by courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts are different. Yurist = Lawyer, 2009, no. 6, pp. 52–66. (In Russ.).Чащина И. Преюдициональное значение для уголовного дела обстоятельств, установленных решением арбитражного суда / И. Чащина // Уголовное право. – 2011. – № 2. – С. 103–106.Chashchina I. The Prejudicial Meaning of Facts Substantiated by a Decision of the Court of Arbitration for a Criminal Case. Ugolovnoe pravo = Criminal Law, 2011, no. 2, pp. 103–106. (In Russ.).Прошляков А. Д. Пределы преюдициальной силы решений по уголовным делам при предъявлении виндикационных исков / А. Д. Прошляков, А. В. Казакова // Электронное приложение к Российскому юридическому журналу. – 2018. – № 6. – С. 16–22. – URL: http://electronic.ruzh.org/?q=ru/node/1379.Proshlyakov A.D., Kazakova A.V. The Limits of the Prejudicial Force of Decisions on Criminal Cases Upon Presentation of Vindication Suits. Elektronnoe prilozhenie k Rossiiskomu yuridicheskomu zhurnalu = Electronic supplement to “Russian Juridical Journal”, 2018, no. 6, pp. 16–22, available at: http://electronic.ruzh.org/?q=ru/node/1379. (In Russ.).Moore J. Wm. Conflict of Jurisdiction / J. Wm. Moore // Louisiana Law Review. – 1962. – Vol. 23, № 1. – P. 29–40. – URL: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol23/iss1/6/.Moore J.Wm. Conflict of Jurisdiction. Louisiana Law Review, 1962, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 29–40, available at: URL: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol23/iss1/6/.Пудовочкин Ю. Е. К вопросу о возможностях коммуникативного понимания уголовного права / Ю. Е. Пудовочкин // Современные проблемы уголовной политики : материалы V Междунар. науч.-практ. конф. – Краснодар : КрУМВД России, 2014. – Т. I. – С. 185–190.Pudovochkin Yu.E. To the question of the possibilities of communicative understanding of criminal law, in: Sovremennye problemy ugolovnoi politiki, proceeding of 5th International scientific and practical conference, vol. I, Krasnodar, Krasnodar University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia Publ., 2014, pp. 185–190. (In Russ.).Яни П. С. Устранение пробелов уголовно-правового регулирования решениями Верховного Суда / П. С. Яни // Пробелы в российском законодательстве. – 2008. – № 1. – С. 258–259.Yani P.S. Elimination of gaps in criminal law regulation by decisions of the Supreme Court. Probely v rossiiskom zakonodatel'stve = Gaps in Russian Legislation, 2008, no. 1, pp. 258–259. (In Russ.).Бабаев М. М. Динамизм и стабильность судебной практики / М. М. Бабаев, Ю. Е. Пудовочкин // Журнал российского права. – 2019. – № 7. – С. 56–64. – DOI: 10.12737/jrl.2019.7.5.Babaev M.M., Pudovochkin Yu.E. Dynamism and stability of judicial practice. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2019, no. 7, pp. 56–64. DOI: 10.12737/jrl.2019.7.5. (In Russ.).Hale M. J. Federal Questions, State Courts, and the Lockstep Doctrine / M. J. Hale // Case Western Reserve Law Review. – 2016. – Vol. 57, № 4. – P. 927–953. – URL: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol57/iss4/13.Hale M.J. Federal Questions, State Courts, and the Lockstep Doctrine. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 2016, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 927–953, available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol57/iss4/13.Peterkort C. F. Comment: The Conflict between State and Federal Constitutionality Guaranteed Rights: A Problem of the Independent Interpretation of State Constitutions / C. F. Peterkort // Case Western Reserve Law Review. – 1981. – Vol. 32, № 1. – P. 158–186. – URL: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol32/iss1/11.Peterkort C.F. Comment: The Conflict between State and Federal Constitutionality Guaranteed Rights: A Problem of the Independent Interpretation of State Constitutions. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 1981, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 158–186, available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol32/iss1/11.Bellia A. J. State Courts and the Interpretation of Federal Statutes / A. J. Bellia // Vanderbilt Law Review. – 2006. – Vol. 59, № 5. – P. 1501–1558. – URL: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/429.Bellia A.J. State Courts and the Interpretation of Federal Statutes. Vanderbilt Law Review, 2006, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 1501–1558, available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/429.Anderson J. C. The Mysterious Lockstep Doctrine and the Future of Judicial Federalism in Illinois / J. C. Anderson // Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. – 2013. – Vol, 44, № 4. – P. 965–1018. – URL: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol44/iss4/2.Anderson J.C. The Mysterious Lockstep Doctrine and the Future of Judicial Federalism in Illinois. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 2013, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 965–1018, available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol44/iss4/2.Marcus R.L. Conflicts Among Circuits and Transfers Within the Federal Judicial System / R.L. Marcus // The Yale Law Journal. – 1984. – Vol. 93. – P. 677–721. – DOI: 10.2307/796296.Marcus R.L. Conflicts Among Circuits and Transfers Within the Federal Judicial System. The Yale Law Journal, 1984, vol. 93, pp. 677–721. DOI: 10.2307/796296.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.