Preview

Russian Law Journal

Advanced search

Controversy over Issue Preclusion in Russia’s Criminal Procedure: Can Common Law Offer a Solution?

https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2015-3-4-102-123

Full Text:

Abstract

Even though Russia’s new Code of Criminal Procedure of 2001 had from the very beginning contained the article titled ‘Preclusive Effects,’ it was not until a decision by the Constitutional Court of 2008 that the doctrine of issue preclusion was, in its proper sense, reinstated in Russian criminal law, barring facts definitively established in a civil trial from relitigation in criminal proceedings. Despite heavy criticism that came down on the Constitutional Court for what was seen by law enforcement agents as unwarranted judicial activism, the Russian Parliament soon amended the article in line with the interpretation offered by the Court. This, however, did not end the controversy as critics raised a valid point: an automatic transfer of facts from civil proceedings with a priori more lenient requirements of proof is likely to distort outcomes, harming defendants, the prosecution, and, ultimately, societal interests. This article will turn for apotential solution to common law, which has been able to avoid this problem by clearly distinguishing between different standards of proof applicable in civil v. criminal litigations. It will be shown, using the United States as an example, how courts can effectively use issue preclusion to pursue a number of legitimate objectives, such as consistency of judgments and judicial economy, with due account for the interests of parties in proceedings. At the same time, issue preclusion appears an inappropriate and ineffective means to combat arbitrariness of the judiciary – the end which Russia’s Constitutional Court and law makers arguably had in mind when introducing the doctrine into Russian law.

About the Author

Yury Rovnov
National Research University – Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation

Master’s Student in International Law,

17 Malaya Ordynka str., Moscow, 119017



References

1. Garapon, Antoine, & Papadopoulos, Ioannis. Juger en Amérique et en France 123 (Odile Jacob 2003).

2. Sinai, Yuval. Reconsidering Res Judicata: A Comparative Perspective, 21 Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L. 353, 360–62 (2011), available at <http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=djcil> (accessed Dec. 8, 2015).

3. Skoblikov, Pyotr A. Issue Preclusion under Contemporary Russian Law: A New Interpretation, 19(1) European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 60–63, 67 (2011), available at <http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/157181711x553960?crawler=true> (accessed Dec. 8, 2015). doi:10.1163/157181711X553960

4. Азарёнок Н.В. Обусловленность преюдиции в российском уголовном процессе // Журнал российского права. 2013. № 8. С. 109–110 [Azaryonok N.V. Obuslovlennost’ preyuditsii v rossiiskom ugolovnom protsesse // Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava. 2013. No. 8. S. 109–110 [Nikolay V. Azaryonok, Justifiability of Issue Preclusion in the Russian Criminal Procedure, 2013(8) Journal of Russian Law 109–10]].

5. Будылин С.Л. Внутреннее убеждение или баланс вероятностей? Стандарты доказывания в России и за рубежом // Вестник ВАС РФ. 2014. № 3. С. 30, 30 (сн. 20), 50–51 [Budylin S.L. Vnutrennee ubezhdenie ili balans veroyatnostei? Standarty dokazyvaniya v Rossii i za rubezhom // Vestnik VAS RF. 2014. No. 3. S. 30, 30 (sn. 20), 50–51 [Sergey L. Budylin, Inner Conviction or Balance of Probabilities? Standards of Proof in Russia and Abroad, 2014(3) Supreme Commercial Court Review 30, 30 (fn. 20), 50–51]].

6. Будылин С.Л. Внутреннее убеждение или баланс вероятностей? Стандарты доказывания в России и за рубежом // Вестник ВАС РФ. 2014. № 4. С. 39, 42 [Budylin S.L. Vnutrennee ubezhdenie ili balans veroyatnostei? Standarty dokazyvaniya v Rossii i za rubezhom // Vestnik VAS RF. 2014. No. 4. S. 39, 42 [Sergey L. Budylin, Inner Conviction or Balance of Probabilities? Standards of Proof in Russia and Abroad, 2014(4) Supreme Commercial Court Review 39, 42]].

7. Кипнис Н.М. Надзорное производство: «вещь в себе» или «вещь для нас»? // Права человека. Практика Европейского суда по правам человека. 2007. № 3. С. 48 [Kipnis N.M. Nadzornoe proizvodstvo: ‘veshch’ v sebe’ ili ‘veshch’ dlya nas’? // Prava cheloveka. Praktika Evropeiskogo suda po pravam cheloveka. 2007. No. 3. S. 48 [Nikolay M. Kipnis, Writ of Certiorari in Russian Law: A Thing in Itself or a Thing for Us?, 2007(3) Human Rights. Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights 48]].

8. Резник Г.М. Стандарты доказанности имежотраслевая преюдиция [Reznik G.M. Standarty dokazannosti i mezhotraslevaya preyuditsiya [Genri M. Reznik, Standard of Proof and Inter-Branch Issue Preclusion]], International Union of Assistance to Justice (Jan. 7, 2011), <http://www.iuaj.net/node/625> (accessed Dec. 8, 2015).

9. Султанов А.Р. Вопросы межотраслевой преюдиции // Адвокат. 2011. № 6. С. 36 [Sultanov A.R. Voprosy mezhotraslevoi preyuditsii // Advokat. 2011. No. 6. S. 36 [Aidar R. Sultanov, Inter-Branch Issue Preclusion Revisited, 2011(6) Advocate 36]].


For citation:


Rovnov Y. Controversy over Issue Preclusion in Russia’s Criminal Procedure: Can Common Law Offer a Solution?. Russian Law Journal. 2015;3(4):102-123. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2015-3-4-102-123

Views: 1036


ISSN 2309-8678 (Print)
ISSN 2312-3605 (Online)