刑事诉讼中有效裁定重新审查的法律性质

Inese Baikovska
{"title":"刑事诉讼中有效裁定重新审查的法律性质","authors":"Inese Baikovska","doi":"10.17770/ACJ.V3I84.3659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, the author examines recent developments of the existing criminal procedure legislation with regard to the fresh examination of valid judicial decisions. According to the principle of legal certainty (res judicata), no appeal may lie from a decision that has already entered into force in a criminal case. However, if such a decision proves to be unlawful, the right of persons to a fair trial and a fair final judgment should be regarded as a priority with respect to the principle of legal certainty and legal means should be found for fresh examination or review.The goal of this article is to examine the legal framework and role in criminal proceedings of the following two legal institutions: the re-opening of criminal proceedings due to newly discovered circumstances and the fresh examination of valid decisions due to serious breaches of substantive or procedural law.The tasks of this article are to investigate the fresh examination of valid decisions as defined in the Criminal Procedure Law, opinions provided by legal researchers and relevant case-law. As a result of the research, conclusions are formulated with regard to the legal significance of the fresh examination of valid decisions, and specific suggestions are provided for the improvement of the existing legal framework.The research is based on the analysis of legislation, court decisions, conclusions and opinions. For this article, the author has examined interrelations and differences of the procedural framework according to analytic and synthetic methods and benchmarked specific provisions against other laws based on the comparative method. The methods of grammatical, systemic and teleological interpretation have also been applied in analysing specific legislation and determining the spirit and purpose of laws.","PeriodicalId":190864,"journal":{"name":"Administrative and Criminal Justice","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"LEGAL NATURE OF THE EXAMINATION DE NOVO OF VALID RULINGS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS\",\"authors\":\"Inese Baikovska\",\"doi\":\"10.17770/ACJ.V3I84.3659\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, the author examines recent developments of the existing criminal procedure legislation with regard to the fresh examination of valid judicial decisions. According to the principle of legal certainty (res judicata), no appeal may lie from a decision that has already entered into force in a criminal case. However, if such a decision proves to be unlawful, the right of persons to a fair trial and a fair final judgment should be regarded as a priority with respect to the principle of legal certainty and legal means should be found for fresh examination or review.The goal of this article is to examine the legal framework and role in criminal proceedings of the following two legal institutions: the re-opening of criminal proceedings due to newly discovered circumstances and the fresh examination of valid decisions due to serious breaches of substantive or procedural law.The tasks of this article are to investigate the fresh examination of valid decisions as defined in the Criminal Procedure Law, opinions provided by legal researchers and relevant case-law. As a result of the research, conclusions are formulated with regard to the legal significance of the fresh examination of valid decisions, and specific suggestions are provided for the improvement of the existing legal framework.The research is based on the analysis of legislation, court decisions, conclusions and opinions. For this article, the author has examined interrelations and differences of the procedural framework according to analytic and synthetic methods and benchmarked specific provisions against other laws based on the comparative method. The methods of grammatical, systemic and teleological interpretation have also been applied in analysing specific legislation and determining the spirit and purpose of laws.\",\"PeriodicalId\":190864,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administrative and Criminal Justice\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administrative and Criminal Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17770/ACJ.V3I84.3659\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative and Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17770/ACJ.V3I84.3659","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中,作者审查了现行刑事诉讼立法在重新审查有效司法判决方面的最新发展。根据法律确定性原则(既判权原则),在刑事案件中不得对已经生效的决定提出上诉。但是,如果这种决定证明是非法的,则应根据法律确定性原则,将个人获得公平审判和公正最后判决的权利视为优先事项,并应寻找法律手段进行新的审查或复审。本文的目的是审查以下两个法律机构在刑事诉讼中的法律框架和作用:由于新发现的情况而重新开始刑事诉讼和由于严重违反实体法或程序法而重新审查有效的决定。本文的任务是探讨刑事诉讼法中对有效决定的重新审查,法律研究者提供的意见和相关判例法。研究的结果是,就重新审查有效决定的法律意义拟订了结论,并为改进现有法律框架提出了具体建议。这项研究是基于对立法、法院判决、结论和意见的分析。在本文中,笔者采用分析和综合的方法考察了程序框架的相互关系和差异,并采用比较法对其他法律的具体规定进行了基准。在分析具体立法和确定法律的精神和目的时,也运用了语法解释、系统解释和目的论解释的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
LEGAL NATURE OF THE EXAMINATION DE NOVO OF VALID RULINGS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
In this article, the author examines recent developments of the existing criminal procedure legislation with regard to the fresh examination of valid judicial decisions. According to the principle of legal certainty (res judicata), no appeal may lie from a decision that has already entered into force in a criminal case. However, if such a decision proves to be unlawful, the right of persons to a fair trial and a fair final judgment should be regarded as a priority with respect to the principle of legal certainty and legal means should be found for fresh examination or review.The goal of this article is to examine the legal framework and role in criminal proceedings of the following two legal institutions: the re-opening of criminal proceedings due to newly discovered circumstances and the fresh examination of valid decisions due to serious breaches of substantive or procedural law.The tasks of this article are to investigate the fresh examination of valid decisions as defined in the Criminal Procedure Law, opinions provided by legal researchers and relevant case-law. As a result of the research, conclusions are formulated with regard to the legal significance of the fresh examination of valid decisions, and specific suggestions are provided for the improvement of the existing legal framework.The research is based on the analysis of legislation, court decisions, conclusions and opinions. For this article, the author has examined interrelations and differences of the procedural framework according to analytic and synthetic methods and benchmarked specific provisions against other laws based on the comparative method. The methods of grammatical, systemic and teleological interpretation have also been applied in analysing specific legislation and determining the spirit and purpose of laws.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信