Information regarding the regulatory resolution of the Constitutional Court
(№ 23 of 14 July 2023)
The Constitutional Court considered a citizen's appeal concerning the constitutionality of the second part of Article 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter – the CCP).
According to this article, an enforceable court judgement in a civil case is binding on the body conducting the criminal proceedings. In a pre-trial investigation or criminal case, only the question of whether the event or act itself took place and should not prejudge conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
In the opinion of the subject of the appeal, the provision of this article does not comply with the Constitution, because before the criminal conviction, the court in the civil case satisfied the civil claim of the victim by collecting the amount of the principal debt and losses. Afterwards, he was found guilty in a criminal case by a court verdict. The applicant believes that he was prosecuted twice for the same offence and that the decision in the civil case prejudged his guilt in the criminal case. The courts of all instances rejected his arguments that the disputed actions lie within the scope of civil law relations.
The Constitutional Court considers that the common ground for bringing to all types of legal liability is an offence committed by a person. Differences in the types of offences are conditioned by the peculiarities of their composition, including the object of encroachment and subjective attitude to the committed act (guilt). Depending on the nature of the committed offence, the legislator may apply different types of legal responsibility, as each of them is aimed at achieving certain goals. Determination of the criminal-legal qualification of actions (or inaction) of a person subject to liability is carried out exclusively within the framework of procedures provided for by the law of criminal procedure and cannot be established in other types of legal proceedings. In other types of proceedings this qualification is not established. Consequently, the prejudicial value of court decisions in civil cases is determined depending on the nature of legal relations and cannot replace the evidentiary basis for other types of proceedings.
The Constitutional Court recognised the second part of Article 127 of the CCP as being in conformity with the Constitution.