Specific features of the legal regulation of prosecution for contempt of court: judicial rules established in different countries:

Larysa  Nalyvaiko; Vasyl  Ilkov; Iryna  Verba; Olha  Kulinich; Oleksandr  Korovaiko

doi:10.46398/cuestpol.4074.21

Larysa Nalyvaiko Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7696-4223
Vasyl Ilkov Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1419-0605
Iryna Verba Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3877-6192
Olha Kulinich Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs. Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0603-0513
Oleksandr Korovaiko Kherson Court of Appeals. Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0347-0887

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4074.21

Palabras clave: responsabilidad legal, desacato al tribunal, infracción administrativa, audiencia del tribunal, revisión del caso

Resumen

El propósito del artículo es revelar las características específicas del enjuiciamiento por desacato al tribunal en diferentes países. La base metodológica de esta investigación es un conjunto de métodos científicos generales (dialéctica, abstracción, generalización, análisis, modelado) y métodos especiales de cognición científica (método comparativo y legal, etc.). Se han caracterizado los tipos de responsabilidad y penas existentes por cometer desacato al tribunal en diferentes países del mundo. Los autores han realizado el análisis de la experiencia de responsabilidad legal por manifestación de desacato o reglas judiciales establecidas en los Estados Unidos, Canadá, Francia, Australia, Bélgica, Polonia, Gran Bretaña, Nueva Zelanda, Irlanda e India, lo que permitió destacar las disposiciones positivas para mejorar la legislación en este ámbito. Se ha concluido que la finalidad de establecer la responsabilidad señalada es garantizar la administración de justicia y el estado de derecho, mantener y fortalecer la confianza ciudadana en el sistema judicial, resguardando la continuidad del proceso judicial. Con base en el análisis de los actos jurídicos reglamentarios y la jurisprudencia de varios países del mundo, los autores han realizado la clasificación por categorías de las acciones que se califican como desacato.

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

Biografía del autor/a

Larysa Nalyvaiko, Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

Doctor in Law, professor, Vice-Rector of Dnipropetrovsk state university of international affairs, professor of the Department of General Legal Disciplines at the Educational and Scientific of Law and Innovative Education of Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.

Vasyl Ilkov, Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs.

Doctor in Law, Professor, professor of the Department of General Legal Disciplines at the Educational and Scientific of Law and Innovative Education of Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs.

Iryna Verba, Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs, Ukraine.

Ph.D. in Law, associate professor of the Department of General Legal Disciplines at the Educational and Scientific of Law and Innovative Education of Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs, Judge, Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administrative Court. Ukraine.

Olha Kulinich, Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs. Ukraine.

Ph.D. in Law, associate Professor of the Department of General Legal Disciplines at the Educational and Scientific of Law and Innovative Education of Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs. Ukraine.

Oleksandr Korovaiko, Kherson Court of Appeals. Ukraine.

Doctor in Law, president judge of Kherson Court of Appeals. Ukraine.

Citas

AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT. 1933. Supreme Court Act. Available online. In: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/ sca1933183/. Consultation date: 23/05/2022.

CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL. 2007. The Canadian Justice System and the Media. Available online. In: https://cjc-ccm.ca/cmslib/ general/news_pub_other_cjsm_en.pdf. Consultation date: 27/05/2022.

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. R. V. GLASNER, 1994 CANLII 3444 (ON CA). Available online. In: https://www.canlii.org/ en/on/onca/doc/1994/1994canlii3444/1994canlii3444.html. Consultation date: 27/05/2022.

DONAL O’DONNELL. 2002. “Some Reflections on the Law of Contempt” In: Studies Institute Journal. Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 87-128.

FRENCH PARLIAMENT. 2002. Code pénal. Available online. In: https:// www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006070719/ LEGISCTA000006181767/#LEGISCTA000006181767. Consultation date: 24/05/2022.

GOLDFARB, Ronald. 1961. “The History of the Contempt Power” In: WASH. U. L. Q. No. 1. Available online. In: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/ law_lawreview/vol1961/iss1/6/. Consultation date: 23/05/2022.

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA. 1985. Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46). Available online. In: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/ acts/c-46/. Consultation date: 27/05/2022.

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA. 2002. Youth Criminal Justice Act (S.C. 2002, p. 1). Available online. In: https://www.laws-lois.justice. gc.ca/eng/acts/y-1.5/page-20.html#h-471612. Consultation date: 27/05/2022.

NEW YORK CODES. 2011. Rules and Regulations. Title 22 – Judiciary (Sec. 1.0 to Undesignated UCS-124). Available online. In: https://www. law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-york/NYCRR-Tit-22-Sec-701-2. Consultation date: 21/05/2022.

NEW ZELAND PARLIAMENT. 2019. Contempt of Court Act. Available online. In: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2019/0044/latest/LMS24753.html. Consultation date: 22/05/2022.

SEJM RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ POLSKIEJ. 2001. Ustawa z dnia 27 lipca. Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych. Available online. In: https:// sip.lex.pl/akty-prawne/dzu-dziennik-ustaw/prawo-o-ustroju-sadow- powszechnych-16909701. Consultation date: 22/05/2022.

STAROVOITOVA, Svitlana. 2021. “Administrative Liability for Direct Contempt in Ukraine” In: Synopsis of the thesis for candidate’s degree in law. Sumy, Sumy State University, 21 p.

STEWART ROBERTSON AND STEPHEN GOUGH V. HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE. 2007. HCJAC 63. Available online. In: https://www. scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=a5a886a6-8980- 69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7. Consultation date: 21/05/2022.

TEREMETSKYI, Vladyslav; KOROVAIKO, Oleksandr; VASYLENKO, Maryna; ZHURAVEL, Yaroslav; KHOVPUN, Oleksii; KRAVCHENKO, Viktor; MULIAR, Halyna. 2021a. “The Contempt of Court: Balance Between the Protection of the Administration of Justice and the Right to Freedom of Expression” In: Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues. Vol. 25(S2), pp. 1-7.

TEREMETSKYI, Vladyslav; STAROVOITOVA, Svitlana; HUTS, Nataliia. 2021b. “Features of contempt proceedings in selected countries of the world” In: Our Law. Vol. 1, pp. 145-150.

THE DÁIL. 1871. Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Amendment Act. Available online. In: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1871/act/76/enacted/en/ print. Consultation date: 24/05/2022.

THE DÁIL. 1937. Constitution of Ireland. Available online. In: http://www. irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article40. Consultation date: 24/05/2022.

THE GERMAN BUNDESRAT. 1808. Strafprozessgesetzbuch. Available online. In: https://www.scta.be/Startseite-Direkt/Strafrecht. Consultation date: 21/05/2022.

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 1950. Constitution of India. Available online. In: https://Legislative.Gov.In/Constitution-Of-India. Consultation date: 21/05/2022.

THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION. 1975. Law Reform Commission Act. Available online. In: https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/ RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/HTML/EN_ACT_1975_0003.htm. Consultation date: 23/05/2022.

THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SOLIDARITY. 2014. Code de Procédure Civile. Available online. In: http://legisquebec. gouv.qc.ca/fr/showdoc/cs/c-25.01. Consultation date: 22/05/2022.

THE NSW GOVERNMENT. 1970. Supreme Court Act. No. 52. Available online. In: https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1970-052. Consultation date: 24/05/2022.

THE NSW GOVERNMENT. 1973. District Court Act. No 9. Available online. In: https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1973-009. Consultation date: 24/05/2022.

THE NSW PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL’S OFFICE. 1987. Children’s Court Act No.53. Available online. In: https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/ inforce/current/act-1987-053#sec.21. Consultation date: 24/05/2022.

THE PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA. 1971. The Contempt of Courts Act. Available online. In: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/ bitstream/123456789/1514/1/197170.pdf#search=Contempt%20of%20 Courts%20Act,%201971. Consultation date: 21/05/2022.

THE UK PARLIAMENT. 1981. Contempt of Court Act. Available online. In: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49. Consultation date: 23/05/2022.

THE US CONGRESS. 1789. The Judiciary Act. Available online. In: https:// avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/judiciary_act.asp. Consultation date: 21/05/2022.

THE US CONGRESS. 1938. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Available online. In: https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-viii- provisional-and-final-remedies/rule-70-enforcing-a-judgment-for-a- specific-act/. Consultation date: 21/05/2022.

THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 2020. Criminal Resource Manual. Available online. In: HTTPS://WWW.JUSTICE.GOV/ARCHIVES/ JM/CRIMINAL-RESOURCE-MANUAL-759-INDIRECT-VERSUS- DIRECT-CONTEMPT. CONSULTATION DATE: 21/05/2022.

U.S. STATE OF VIRGINIA. 1950. CODE OF VIRGINIA. AVAILABLE ONLINE. IN: HTTPS://LAW.LIS.VIRGINIA.GOV/VACODE/18.2-456/. CONSULTATION DATE: 21/05/2022.

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 1948. U.S. CODE TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. AVAILABLE ONLINE. IN: HTTPS:// USCODE. HOUSE. GOV/ V I EW. XHT ML? P AT H=/ P R EL I M@ TITLE18&EDITION=PRELIM. CONSULTATION DATE: 21/05/2022.

VICTORIAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION. 2020. CONTEMPT OF COURT: REPORT. AVAILABLE ONLINE. IN: HTTPS://WWW.LAWREFORM. V I C . GOV . AU / PUB L I CA T I ON / CONT EMP T -R EP OR T / 2 - CONTEMPT-OF-COURT-AND-THE-NEED-FOR-REFORM/. CONSULTATION DATE: 23/05/2022.

ZIEGEL, JACOB. 1959. “SOME ASPECTS OF THE LAW OF CONTEMPT OF COURT IN CANADA, ENGLAND, AND THE UNITED STATES” IN: MCGILL LAW JOURNAL. VOL. 6, NO. 4, PP. 229-266.

Specific features of the legal regulation of prosecution for contempt of court: judicial rules established in different countries

Características específicas de la regulación legal del enjuiciamiento por manifestación de desacato a los tribunales: normas judiciales establecidas en diferentes países

Resumen

Descargas

Biografía del autor/a

Citas