Art. 90 CCP RF: application features

The facts established by the verdict, decision,approved in the civil, administrative or arbitral proceedings and entered into force, are recognized without additional verification. This rule establishes Art. 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In criminal cases the circumstances fixed by the sentence,shall be taken at all times, except in cases when a decision is issued in the manner prescribed by Articles 317.7, 316 or 226.9 of the Code. The order extends to the prosecutor, investigator, investigator, officials authorized to conduct the proceedings. Such decisions and sentences should not prejudge the guilt of subjects who did not participate in the proceedings.

Art. 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with comments

Within the framework of the article under consideration,such a thing as prejudice. This definition has Latin roots. In a literal translation, it means a predetermination. Art. 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as amended) establishes the duty of authorized persons to take, without additional checks, circumstances that are recognized as decisions and sentences that have entered into force and passed in the framework of other proceedings in respect of that entity.

Important point

When applying Art. 90 CCP RF jurisprudence comes from the need to re-examine andto evaluate the evidence if the decisions contain provisions prejudging the guilt of the subjects who did not participate in the review earlier. For example, it is said that the defendant committed acts in complicity with persons not established by the investigation. The instance conducting the new proceedings against persons on the basis of whose actions such "prejudicial" decisions are made can not recognize them solely on the basis of these acts. Otherwise, these entities could not use their right to protection.

Specificity of concepts

The term "guilt", present in Art. 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can not be identified with "guilt". The first concept involves the perpetration by the subject of a specific action, including the signs of a crime. Guilt refers not only to the subjective, but also the objective side. It is incorrect to represent the position of art. 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so that a previously pronounced verdict or other decision can not prejudge only the issue of guilt (negligence, intent) of persons who have not previously participated in the proceedings, although they may presume the circumstances of the objective part of the act.

Specificity of involving subjects in production

Position Art. 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that a decree can not be prejudicedThe guilt of citizens who had not previously participated in the proceedings should be understood as follows. In relation to persons who were not involved at all in production or were involved in it, but not in the status of the accused, but, for example, as witnesses, the prejudicial force of the deed is not valid.

Overcoming the collision

One of the definitions of the COP states thatinconsistency of the final nature of the decisions that came into force, the internal convictions of the person conducting the proceedings should be resolved, guided by the constitutional principle presumption of innocence.

If a decision made within the framework of an arbitrationor civil process, speaks in favor of the subject acting in the status of the accused, recognizes the legitimacy of his conduct, then he must be considered as indicating the existence of doubts about his guilt, which can subsequently be unavoidable.

If an adverse order is usedthe prosecution as a culprit, it must be critically evaluated in conjunction with other facts. At the same time, the court can reject it, since the mechanical adherence to such a decision would act as an attempt to disprove the principle of presumption in an improper way, that is beyond the framework provided for by law and the only permissible procedure guaranteeing protection of the rights of the person against whom proceedings are conducted.

Important point

Together with this, when using the provisions of Art. 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the decision directed to a side favorable to the person will be considered as a source of irremovable doubts not immediately. To do this, it must be refuted or canceled based on newly discovered facts or on cassation / supervisory grounds. They, in turn, should be identified at the stage of criminal procedure and implemented in the manner prescribed by law.

conclusions

In fact, in the case considered above,the rule of inadmissibility of turning the situation aside, unfavorable for the subject. Guided by Art. 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the authority may reject circumstances discovered in the process of civil or arbitration proceedings, if there are unavoidable doubts.

If there are circumstances indicating that,that in connection with the proceedings, his participant committed a crime, which resulted in the adoption of an unlawful decision, provided for the possibility of conducting an independent investigation. Based on its results, a review of the decision that came into effect may be carried out.

In other words, the civilor arbitration dispute do not act as grounds for refusing to initiate criminal proceedings and to conduct an investigation in the forms prescribed by law. Officials of authorized bodies at the hearing can not accept the conclusions formulated earlier without evidence and verification, as it is literally stated in the rule in question.