Topical issues of improving the efficiency of the Russian legislation on liability for knowingly unjust court decision
( Pp. 194-197)

The article deals with topical issues of improving the efficiency of the Russian legislation on liability for making a knowingly unjust court decision. The author notes that the study of the features of the regulation of criminal liability for making obviously unjust court decision on the Russian and foreign legislation, as well as the study of judicial practice of our country allows us to draw a conclusion of possible directions of improvement of the current Russian criminal legislation, which, it seems, will improve the effectiveness of criminal In the article the author formulates appropriate proposals. The purpose of the article: This work aims to study the problem of improving the efficiency of the Russian legislation on liability for making knowingly unjust judgment. the author develops and substantiates proposals to eliminate the problems he sees in the current legislation by introducing new norms in the criminal code, many of which are controversial and call for discussion in the scientific community. Methodology and methods: the article uses the comparative legal method of research, as well as the method of interpretation of legal norms, which allow to better understand the institutions of criminal law and to determine the main directions of their development. Conclusions: the problem of imperfections in the current legislation is relevant for the study, as evidenced by judicial practice in criminal cases, discussions and works of legal scholars. The doctrine also notes the need to respect the principle of justice in order to achieve the objectives of the criminal law. Scope of application of the results: this article may be of interest to students of higher educational institutions: bachelors, masters, graduate students studying this area of criminal law, as well as this material may be of interest to teachers of law schools, can be used as a guide for the preparation of practical and seminar classes.

Zenina L.S., (2019), TOPICAL ISSUES OF IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE RUSSIAN LEGISLATION ON LIABILITY FOR KNOWINGLY UNJUST COURT DECISION. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 4 => 194-197.

Galakhova A.V. Prestupleniya protiv pravosudiya (Tolkovanie ugolovnogo zakona. Kommentariy statey UK RF. Materialy sudebnoy praktiki, statistika). M.: Norma. 2005 // SPS Konsul tant Plyus .
Gorelik A.S., Lobanova L.V. Prestupleniya protiv pravosudiya. - SPb.: Izdatel stvo R. Aslanova YUridicheskiy tsentr Press , 2005. S. 229.
Kalashnikova S.V. Pravovye posledstviya vyneseniya zavedomo nepravosudnykh prigovora, resheniya i inogo sudebnogo akta: dis. kand. yurid nauk : 12.00.08. Rostov-na-Donu, 2011. S. 65.
Kartashov A.YU. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost za vynesenie zavedomo nepravosudnykh prigovora, resheniya ili inogo sudebnogo akta: dis. kand. yurid nauk : 12.00.08. Stavropol , 2004. S. 59.
Korzhanskiy N.I. Glava II Ob ekt prestupleniya. Entsiklopediya ugolovnogo prava. T. 4. Sostav prestupleniya. - Izdanie professora Malinina, SPb., 2005. S. 152.
Kuznetsov V.V. Ugolovno-pravovaya otvetstvennost za vynesenie zavedomo nepravosudnogo sudebnogo akta: dis. kand. yurid nauk : 12.00.08. Kislovodsk, 2006. S. 73.
Lobanova L.V. Prestupleniya protiv pravosudiya: problemy klassifikatsii posyagatel stv, reglamentatsii i differentsiatsii otvetstvennosti: dis. d-ra. yurid nauk: 12.00.08. Kazan , 2000. S. 106.
Nikiforov B.S. Ob ekt prestupleniya po sovetskomu ugolovnomu pravu. M., 1960. S. 10.
Titova A.V. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost za vynesenie zavedomo nepravosudnogo, resheniya ili inogo sudebnogo akta: dis. kand. yurid nauk : 12.00.08. Rostov-na-Donu, 2010. S. 106
Spektor L.A. Sudebnaya vlast kak ob ekt ugolovno-pravovoy okhrany: dis. d-ra. yurid nauk : 12.00.08. Rostov-na-Donu, 2012. S. 326.