审前调查中怀疑报告的上诉

N. Glynska, D. Klepka
{"title":"审前调查中怀疑报告的上诉","authors":"N. Glynska, D. Klepka","doi":"10.17721/2413-5372.2019.4/17-32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the most important criminal procedural decisions is the notice of suspicion which is essential both for the criminal proceeding as a whole and for the person to whom this message is made. Therefore, compliance with the legality and validity of the notice of suspicion is important in the general mechanism of effective solution of the tasks of criminal proceedings, in particular, regarding appealing the notice of suspicion during the pre-trial detention investigation.\n\nOn bases of the case-law analysis, a number of issues have been highlighted in connection with the appeal of report of suspicion during the pre-trial investigation.\n\nThe purpose of the article is to cover the gaps and conflicts of the current criminal procedural legislation in the regulation of appealing the report of suspicion during the pre-trial investigation.\n\nThe authors summarized the case law on consideration of complaints about suspected reports during the pre-trial investigation, which allowed to identify 3 variants of interpretation by the investigating judges of the «suspicion report» as a subject of appeal: 1. the subject of the appeal is only the procedure for the report of suspicion; 2. the subject of the appeal is only the report of suspicion as a procedural decision; 3. The subject of the appeal is the written report of suspicion as a procedural decision and the procedure for the implementation of the report of suspicion. It is justified that the third approach is correct. The authors support the view of the complex nature of the notion of suspicion. Particular attention is paid to the issue of challenging the validity of the suspicion report. In the article the practice of investigating judges who refuse to open proceedings on a complaint about the validity of a suspected report is evaluated critically. On the basis of the practice of ECtHR, the authors conclude that the validity of a suspicion report may be may be the subject of an appeal during the pre-trial investigation in view of the insufficiency of the evidence on which it is based. In addition, it is concluded that the appeal of the suspicion report is ineffective after two months from the bottom of the report of the suspected in crime and one month after the report of the suspected in offense.\n\nOn the basis of the conducted research, the authors proposed to amend the current CPC in order to improve the regulatory framework for appealing the suspected report during the pre-trial investigation.","PeriodicalId":399656,"journal":{"name":"Herald of criminal justice","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Appeal of report of suspicion during the pre-trial investigation\",\"authors\":\"N. Glynska, D. Klepka\",\"doi\":\"10.17721/2413-5372.2019.4/17-32\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the most important criminal procedural decisions is the notice of suspicion which is essential both for the criminal proceeding as a whole and for the person to whom this message is made. Therefore, compliance with the legality and validity of the notice of suspicion is important in the general mechanism of effective solution of the tasks of criminal proceedings, in particular, regarding appealing the notice of suspicion during the pre-trial detention investigation.\\n\\nOn bases of the case-law analysis, a number of issues have been highlighted in connection with the appeal of report of suspicion during the pre-trial investigation.\\n\\nThe purpose of the article is to cover the gaps and conflicts of the current criminal procedural legislation in the regulation of appealing the report of suspicion during the pre-trial investigation.\\n\\nThe authors summarized the case law on consideration of complaints about suspected reports during the pre-trial investigation, which allowed to identify 3 variants of interpretation by the investigating judges of the «suspicion report» as a subject of appeal: 1. the subject of the appeal is only the procedure for the report of suspicion; 2. the subject of the appeal is only the report of suspicion as a procedural decision; 3. The subject of the appeal is the written report of suspicion as a procedural decision and the procedure for the implementation of the report of suspicion. It is justified that the third approach is correct. The authors support the view of the complex nature of the notion of suspicion. Particular attention is paid to the issue of challenging the validity of the suspicion report. In the article the practice of investigating judges who refuse to open proceedings on a complaint about the validity of a suspected report is evaluated critically. On the basis of the practice of ECtHR, the authors conclude that the validity of a suspicion report may be may be the subject of an appeal during the pre-trial investigation in view of the insufficiency of the evidence on which it is based. In addition, it is concluded that the appeal of the suspicion report is ineffective after two months from the bottom of the report of the suspected in crime and one month after the report of the suspected in offense.\\n\\nOn the basis of the conducted research, the authors proposed to amend the current CPC in order to improve the regulatory framework for appealing the suspected report during the pre-trial investigation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":399656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Herald of criminal justice\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Herald of criminal justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-5372.2019.4/17-32\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Herald of criminal justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-5372.2019.4/17-32","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

最重要的刑事诉讼决定之一是怀疑通知,这对整个刑事诉讼程序和收到该通知的人都是至关重要的。因此,在有效解决刑事诉讼任务的一般机制中,特别是在审前拘留调查期间对怀疑通知提出上诉方面,遵守怀疑通知的合法性和有效性是重要的。根据判例法分析,在审判前调查期间,与提出怀疑报告的上诉有关的一些问题得到了强调。本文的目的是弥补现行刑事诉讼立法在审前侦查过程中对举报嫌疑提出申诉的规定中的空白和冲突。提交人总结了关于在审前调查期间审议关于可疑报告的申诉的判例法,从中可以找出调查法官对作为上诉对象的“可疑报告”的三种不同解释:上诉的主题只是举报怀疑的程序;2. 上诉的主题只是作为一项程序性决定的怀疑报告;3.上诉的主题是作为程序性决定的怀疑书面报告和执行怀疑报告的程序。第三种方法是正确的,这是有道理的。作者支持怀疑概念的复杂性这一观点。特别注意的是质疑怀疑报告的有效性的问题。在这篇文章中,调查法官拒绝就有关可疑报告的有效性的投诉展开诉讼的做法受到了批判性的评价。根据欧洲人权法院的惯例,发件人的结论是,鉴于怀疑报告所依据的证据不足,在审前调查期间,怀疑报告的有效性可能是上诉的主题。另外,从犯罪嫌疑人举报的最末2个月和犯罪嫌疑人举报的第1个月开始,怀疑举报的申诉无效。在进行研究的基础上,作者建议修改现行《刑事诉讼法》,以完善审前侦查过程中对嫌疑举报提出申诉的监管框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Appeal of report of suspicion during the pre-trial investigation
One of the most important criminal procedural decisions is the notice of suspicion which is essential both for the criminal proceeding as a whole and for the person to whom this message is made. Therefore, compliance with the legality and validity of the notice of suspicion is important in the general mechanism of effective solution of the tasks of criminal proceedings, in particular, regarding appealing the notice of suspicion during the pre-trial detention investigation. On bases of the case-law analysis, a number of issues have been highlighted in connection with the appeal of report of suspicion during the pre-trial investigation. The purpose of the article is to cover the gaps and conflicts of the current criminal procedural legislation in the regulation of appealing the report of suspicion during the pre-trial investigation. The authors summarized the case law on consideration of complaints about suspected reports during the pre-trial investigation, which allowed to identify 3 variants of interpretation by the investigating judges of the «suspicion report» as a subject of appeal: 1. the subject of the appeal is only the procedure for the report of suspicion; 2. the subject of the appeal is only the report of suspicion as a procedural decision; 3. The subject of the appeal is the written report of suspicion as a procedural decision and the procedure for the implementation of the report of suspicion. It is justified that the third approach is correct. The authors support the view of the complex nature of the notion of suspicion. Particular attention is paid to the issue of challenging the validity of the suspicion report. In the article the practice of investigating judges who refuse to open proceedings on a complaint about the validity of a suspected report is evaluated critically. On the basis of the practice of ECtHR, the authors conclude that the validity of a suspicion report may be may be the subject of an appeal during the pre-trial investigation in view of the insufficiency of the evidence on which it is based. In addition, it is concluded that the appeal of the suspicion report is ineffective after two months from the bottom of the report of the suspected in crime and one month after the report of the suspected in offense. On the basis of the conducted research, the authors proposed to amend the current CPC in order to improve the regulatory framework for appealing the suspected report during the pre-trial investigation.
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