Author

Kornakova S.V., Shcherbakov V.A.

Title of article

VALIDITYANDMOTIVATIONOFTHECOURT VERDICT:
CRITERIA FOR DIFFERENTIATION OF CONCEPTS

Section

Section 7. Criminalрrocedural review

Issue, year

2 (44) 2018

Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of such requirements applied to the court decision, as validity and motivation. Scientists often mix these categories. Basing on the etymological and lexical analysis of the concepts of “validity” and “motivation”, the criteria for their differentiation are proposed. Motivation is a kind of validity, where a specifying feature is the indication of the motive
for choosing the variant of the action. It is emphasized that the concept of “motivation” should beused only if it is necessary to justify the reasons for choosing the decision that implies the validity
of the action following it. Accordingly, the requirement of motivation is imposed on the process of judicial choice of the variant of the decision, but the requirement of validity is imposed on the result
of the choice – the sentence passed. Basing on this fact, the author substantiates the justification of the position of the legislator when formulating the provisions of Part 4 of Article 7 of the criminal
Procedure code of the Russian Federation, the list of which does not include the court sentence, as well as Article 297 of the criminal Procedure code of the Russian Federation which does not include
such element of the sentence as motivation. It is concluded that the lawfulness, validity, motivation and justice are the requirements applied to the court verdict, the implementation of which provides the final
decision on the criminal case with the properties of legality, validity and justice.

Keywords

court verdict; criminal procedure decision; validity; motivation; requirements to the sentence.

References

1. Litvintseva N.Yu. Zakonnost’ pri proizvodstve po ugolovnomu delu [Legality in the proceedings in the criminal case]. Sibirskie ugolovno-protsessual’nye i kriminalisticheskie chteniya – Siberian Criminal Procedural and Criminalistic Readings, 2016, no. 6 (14), pp. 31-39.
2. Kostovskaya N.V. Protsessual’naya sushchnost’ resheniya suda pervoy instantsii po ugolovnomu delu [The procedural essence of the decision of the court of first instance in the criminal case]. Vestnik OGU – Bulletin of the OGU, 2010, no. 3 (109), pp. 71-77.

3. Popova I.P. Trebovaniya, pred”yavlyaemye k prigovoru, kak aktu pravosudiya v rossiyskom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Requirements for the sentence, as an act of justice in the Russian criminal proceedings]. Deyatel’nost’ pravookhranitel’nykh organov v sovremennykh usloviyakh [The activities of law enforcement in
modern conditions]. Irkutsk, East-Siberian Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2015. Pp. 219-224.

4. Rinchinov B.A. Proizvodstvo po ugolovnym delam v sude apellyatsionnoy instantsii v period sudebnopravovoy reform. Kand. Diss. [Criminal proceedings in the court of appellate instance during the judicial and legal reform. Cand. Diss.]. Moscow, 2013. 256 p.
5. Aleksandrova O.Yu. Sootnoshenie svoystv prigovora i trebovaniy, pred”yavlyaemykh k nemu [The ratio of the properties of the sentence and the requirements imposed on it]. Vestnik Sibirskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii – Bulletin of the Siberian Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2011, no. 1 (9), pp. 43-51. 6. Davletov A.A. [i dr.] Ugolovnyy protsess [The Criminal Process]. Ekaterinburg, Ural University Publishing House, 1992. 312 p.

7. Bunina A.V. Prigovor suda kak akt pravosudiya. Ego svoystva. Avtoref. Kand. Diss. [The verdict of the court as an act of justice. Its properties. Autoabstract Cand. Diss.]. Chelyabinsk, 2005. 26 p.
8. Enikeev M.I. Terminologicheskiy slovar’ [Terminological dictionary]. Obshchaya i sotsial’naya psikhologiya [General and social psychology: a textbook for high schools]. Moscow, NORMA Publ., 2002. 624 p.

9. Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. Tolkovyy slovar’ russkogo yazyka [Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow, Azbukovnik Publ., 1997. 944 p.

10. Jeri D., Jeri J. Collins Dictionary Sociology. HarperCollins Publishers, 1995. 543 р.

11. Mikhaylovskiy I.V. Osnovnye printsipy organizatsii ugolovnogo suda [Basic principles of the organization of a criminal court]. Tomsk, Typo-lithography of P.I. Makushin, 1905. 342 p.

12. Tarasov A.A., Sharipova A.R. Sudeyskoe usmotrenie i motivirovannost’ prigovora [Judicial discretion and
motivation of the verdict]. Vestnik SamGU – Bulletin of the Samara State University, 2014, no. 1/2 (122), pp. 206-211.

13. Printsipy sovremennogo rossiyskogo ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva [Principles of modern Russian criminal procedure]. Moscow, Yurlitinform Publ., 2015. 384 p.

14. Meretukov G.M. Obosnovannost’ prigovora suda [Justification of the sentence of the court]. Obshchestvo
i pravo – Society and law, 2012, no. 1, pp. 190-194.

15. Sukhanova N.N. Postanovlenie opravdatel’nogo prigovora v rossiyskom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Avtoref. Kand. Diss. [The verdict of acquittal in Russian criminal proceedings. Autoabstract Cand. Diss.]. Irkutsk, 2008. 24 p.

16. Chaykovskaya M.A. Kharakteristika prigovora: svoystva ili trebovaniya [Characteristics of the sentence: properties or requirements]. Aktual’nye problemy rossiyskogo prava – Actual problems of Russian law, 2012, no. 1, pp. 256-262.

17. Ostapenko I.A. Prigovor kak itogovoe reshenie po ugolovnomu delu. Avtoref. Kand. Diss. [The verdict as a final decision on the criminal case. Autoabstract Cand. Diss.]. Vladimir, 2007. 21 p.