DAMAGES RECOVERY CAUSED BY A CRIME AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: PROCEDURAL ASPECTS
https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2019.157.12.080-086
Abstract
Doctrinal study of procedural aspects of recovery of damage caused by a crime against intellectual property is of great importance both for the resolution of specific criminal cases, and for generalization and uniformity of law enforcement practice, as well as for legislative improvement of existing criminal procedure rules governing the mechanism of compensation for damage caused by crimes. However, the effectiveness of the institution is reduced due to problems of law enforcement and shortcomings of legislation. Proposals to improve the mechanisms of recovery of damage caused by crimes against intellectual property need theoretical justification based on the study of modern law enforcement practice. Courts in civil lawsuits for crimes against intellectual property often allow violations of procedural rights that remain unresolved. the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation contains a number of gaps in this part: specific cases and limits of application of norms of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation to claims in criminal cases are not specified. They could be defined in the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation through references to specific articles (parts, items) of the Civil Procedural Code. The paper is aimed at conceptualization of procedural aspects of recovery of damage caused by a crime in relation to encroachments on intellectual property objects, which implies a doctrinal justification of the need to make additions to the criminal procedure legislation.
About the Author
M. A. Soynikov
Kursk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. of Sci. (Economics), Associate Professor of the Department of Criminal Law and Procedure
ul. Radishcheva, d. 29, Kursk, Russia, 305000
References
1. Avdonkin, V. S. (2017). Polnomochiya predsedatelstvuyushchego po obespecheniyu prava poterpevshego na uchastie v sudebnom razbiratelstve ugolovnogo dela v sude pervoy instantsii [The powers of the chairman to ensure the right of the victim to participate in a criminla trial in the court of first instance]. Sudya [Judge]. No. 4. Pp. 20—28. (In Russ.).
2. Glebovskiy, Ya.A. (2015). Nekotorye voprosy razgranicheniya podsudnosti grazhdanskikh del mezhdu rayonnym sudom i mirovym sudey [Some questions of differentiation of civil cases jurisdiction between district courts and a Magistrate judge]. Mirovoy sudya [Magistrate Judge]. No. 3. Pp. 23—26. (In Russ.).
3. Lozhkina, D. Yu. (2016). Ugolovno-pravovaya zashchita prav na intellektualnuyu sobstvennost [Criminal and legal protection of intellectual property rights]. Pravovye, sotsialno-gumanitarnye i ekonomicheskie problemy v fokuse nauchnykh issledovaniy: materialy vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii [Legal, social, humanitarian and economic problems in the focus of scientific research: Procs. of the All-Russian scientific and practical conference]. Khabarovsk: Far Eastern State Transport University. Pp. 229—232. (In Russ.).
4. Magomedova, Z. I. (2018). Iski, vytekayushchie iz ugolovnogo dela [Claims arising from the criminal case]. Mirovoy sudya [Magistrate Judge]. No. 8. Pp. 37—40. (In Russ.).
5. Misnik, I. V. (2017). Uchastie poterpevshikh — yuridicheskikh lits v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Participation of victims-legal persons in criminal proceedings]. Zakonnost [Legitimacy]. No. 7. Pp. 48—50. (In Russ.).
6. Sycheva, O. A. (2015). Grazhdanskiy isk v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Civil action in criminal proceedings]. Mirovoy sudya [Magistrate Judge]. No. 5. Pp. 28—33. (In Russ.).
7. Titov, S. N. (2012). Polozheniya ugolovnogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii o prestupleniyakh protiv intellektualnoy sobstvennosti: problema obedineniya [Provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on crimes against intellectual property: the problem of unification]. Simbirskiy nauchnyy vestnik [Simbirsk Scientific Bulletin]. No. 1 (7). Pp. 127—131. (In Russ.).
8. Truntsevskiy, Yu., & Bondarev, M. (2009). Ponyatie i vidy prestupleniy protiv intellektualnoy sobstvennosti [Concept and types of crimes against intellectual property]. Ugolovnoe pravo [Criminal law]. No. 1. Pp. 48—53. (In Russ.).
9. Chernovol, I. V. (2010). Vozmeshchenie ushcherba, prichinennogo prestupleniem [Compensation for damage caused by a crime]. Zakonnost [Legality]. No. 6. Pp. 32—34.
10. Shestak, V. A. (2017). O nekotorykh osobennostyakh predyavleniya i podderzhaniya grazhdanskogo iska v khode sudebnogo razbiratelstva po ugolovnym delam [On some features of presentation and maintenance of the civil claim during trial on criminal cases]. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya [Russian Justitia]. No. 2. Pp. 62—65. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Soynikov M.A. DAMAGES RECOVERY CAUSED BY A CRIME AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: PROCEDURAL ASPECTS. Lex Russica. 2019;(12):80-86. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2019.157.12.080-086
Views:
525
Email this article 