[ad_1]
As usual, the proposal mixes up all the shortcomings of the judicial system, they pass them on to the citizens. The arguments are simple – the workload on justices of the peace has grown incredibly and there is no point in increasing the staff of justices of the peace. They declare that they are still not fully staffed and the material and technical base is low, but at the same time they call for extrajudicial collection. Now they want a citizen to be able to appeal within 30 days, and then the judicial order returns.
On the whole, it is correct, but in our country, as usual, execution is scary, because in 30 days a citizen may not even know what was recovered from him until the execution begins, or he may find out about it in three months or six months. Formally, the courts will indicate the expiration of the appeal period. If this is not the case, and this deadline is adopted and the courts delve into the proper notifications, when an individual finds out that he is wanted, then I do not see anything wrong with that. Anyone who wants to challenge will have the same opportunity as now canceling the court order. But the problem is that they usually find out about it when bailiffs write off money from the bank or when a person tries to go abroad.
There is more frightening news in this same decision. There, the collegium was in the plans – to introduce a restriction on the cassation appeal of sentences in criminal cases. Now the mechanism is such that we have recently created courts of appeal and this has a favorable effect on judicial practice, because the courts are not connected. Even the current statistics of appeal and cassation appeals are better than the old order. The defense will appeal the verdict on appeal. The court can examine the evidence, and then continuous cassation. This means that all cassation appeals are considered by a constitutional court. As a rule, he is in another subject of the federation and in general has nothing to do with the courts that passed the verdict. Due to the workload, the Supreme Court says: “Since now only 16% go to cassation, bypassing the appeal, they want to limit this possibility.” In fact, this limits the right to appeal.
As far as I understand, a person who has not appealed the verdict will have the right to a cassation appeal. Again, we will reduce this to the fact that even the ability to achieve objective consideration will be limited. An appeal does not always correct mistakes. This limitation looks somehow scary. I don’t know how it will be in the bill. Well, in the first case, they were recovered, the person found out and challenged in court, and the verdict was passed by the district court in Moscow, then there are decisions of the defense or the person does not want to appeal, and then he goes to the cassation, where he can file a complaint within six months. And if he missed the deadline for the appeal, then they want to make it impossible to file a cassation appeal.
Anyway, someone decides to appeal in part of a civil claim. These are very far-fetched arguments – to refuse the appeal, because he did not use his right. These amendments look like good, in step with the times, they say, the load needs to be reduced and almost the computer mind will consider cases, but this is all from the realm of fantasy. Everyone understands at what stage we are in criminal proceedings. Not all sentences are justified by the courts of first instance and everywhere there are restrictions on appeal.
[ad_2]
Source link
