PROCEDURAL STATUS OF A JUDGE AT THE STAGE AFTER THE REFUSAL OF EXCITATION CRIMINAL CASE OR ITS TERMINATION BY THE DECISION OF THE INVESTIGATOR OR INQUIRER
( Pp. 183-188)

Objective: The development of the procedural status of a judge in criminal proceedings is far from complete. This process has acquired a permanent character due to the constant improvement of the forms and content of criminal proceedings, strengthening the role of judicial protection of the rights and legitimate interests of participants, clarifying the forms of the court's activities, including new powers in its competence. The main problem associated with judicial activity is the lack of systematic legislative regulation of all its aspects, and the emergence of new institutions in criminal proceedings, which are included in judicial activity, is not always accompanied by a simultaneous clarification of the procedural powers of the judge. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to identify the modern trends of criminal procedural activity of the judge, which do not have sufficient and systematic legislative regulation and the formation of author's proposals to eliminate gaps in legislation. The tasks set by the author are aimed at the theoretical substantiation of the need for legislative regulation of judicial activity at the procedural stages after the refusal to initiate a criminal case or its termination by the decision of the investigator or inquirer, and on this basis the development and formulation of proposals to clarify certain provisions of the criminal procedure law. Methodology: in the course of the study, various General and private scientific research methods were used: induction, deduction, generalization, analysis, forecasting, modeling, functional and structural analysis, systematic, logical, comparison, formalization, etc. Conclusions: as a result of the study, the following conclusions were formulated. 1. Stepwise construction of the criminal proceedings is not covered by the activities of the court complaints against the illegal, unjustified refusal to initiate criminal proceedings, or giving the court permission, Prosecutor, head of the investigative body to revoke the decision on termination of criminal case or criminal prosecution in case provided for by part 1 of article 214 of the criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation. The location of this activity of the court (after the completion of pre-trial proceedings), as well as the content of the existing criminal procedural regulation, allow us to characterize it as post-trial, carried out under special procedural rules, with the participation of persons in specific procedural conditions. 2. 214, 214.1 of the criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation should be considered as an independent criminal procedure proceedings initiated by the Prosecutor, the head of the investigative body in cases specifically stipulated in the criminal procedure law, with the empowerment of the persons involved procedural statuses that do not coincide with those that they had in the framework of verification of 3. For establishment of full-scale and system criminal procedural regulation of competence and procedural status of the judge at consideration and permission of such appeals the theoretical model including set of procedural powers of the judge on preparation, consideration and permission of appeals about illegality of the procedural decision on refusal in initiation of criminal case, about the termination of criminal case, including, after one year from the moment of their removal is offered. 4. The necessity of presenting part 3 of article 214.1 of the criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation in the following edition: "At the beginning of session the judge shall announce what petition is subject to consideration, explain who appeared at the hearing to interested persons their rights and responsibilities, including the right to get acquainted with the available trial materials, provide additional materials, to file motions for discovery of materials necessary to establish essential facts. The person who has addressed with the petition justifies it then the arrived materials are investigated and other persons who have appeared in court session are heard". Possibility of further use: the Obtained results form the basis for the continuation of scientific research in terms of the development of the doctrine of the criminal justice system, its elements, the criminal procedural status of participants in criminal proceedings, including the judge. They can also be used to improve the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, to continue research in the field of optimization of procedural powers of a judge, investigator, other participants in criminal proceedings, to improve judicial and investigative practice, as well as during the educational process in the preparation of students in the direction of "Jurisprudence" (bachelor's, master's, postgraduate). Practical importance. The obtained results deepen scientific knowledge about criminal proceedings and allow to solve interrelated problems of legislative, investigative and judicial activity at the stages of criminal proceedings not covered by its stages. The social significance of the results obtained is manifested indirectly through the optimization of legislative regulation of criminal procedural relations and increasing the level of protection of the constitutional rights of citizens in the course of criminal proceedings. The value of the results due to the presence in her of the problem, essential to improve the criminal justice system as a whole (they reach the destination in full) and, to a certain part of increase of efficiency of procedural activities of the court, the investigator, as well as ensure human rights and freedoms, legitimate interests of the participants. On the basis of the conducted research new knowledge about the system of criminal proceedings and its structure, as well as the further direction of optimization of the criminal procedural status of the judge is received. The work is intended for researchers and practitioners, students of law schools.

Ovchinnikova E.A., (2019), PROCEDURAL STATUS OF A JUDGE AT THE STAGE AFTER THE REFUSAL OF EXCITATION CRIMINAL CASE OR ITS TERMINATION BY THE DECISION OF THE INVESTIGATOR OR INQUIRER. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 6 => 183-188.

Азаров, В. А., Абдрахманов, М. Х., Сафаралеев, М. Р. Юридические лица в уголовном процессе России: теоретические основы, законодательство и практика: монография. Омск: Изд-во Омского гос. ун-та, 2010. 400 с
Golovinskaya I.V. Sledstvennye sud i i sudebnye sledovateli: zarubezhnyy i otechestvennyy opyt // Vestnik Vladimirskogo yuridicheskogo instituta. 2015. № 2 (35). S. 55-63.
Федеральный закон от 18 апреля 2018 г. № 72-ФЗ «О внесении изменений в Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Российской Федерации в части избрания и применения мер пресечения в виде запрета определенных действий, залога и домашнего ареста» // Собр. законодательства Рос. Федерации. 2018. № 17. Ст. 2421.
Zagvozdkin N.N. Kuzora N.A. Zapret opredelennykh deystviy. Analiz pravoprimenitel noy praktiki // Zakon i pravo. 2018. № 12. S. 83-86.
Pskovskiy oblastnoy sud. Apellyatsionnoe postanovlenie № 22-867/2018 ot 19 dekabrya 2018 g.
Primorskiy kraevoy sud. Apellyatsionnoe postanovlenie № 22-568/2018 ot 24 dekabrya 2018 g.
Primorskiy kraevoy sud. Apellyatsionnoe postanovlenie № 22-111/2019 ot 15 yanvarya 2019 g.
Primorskiy kraevoy sud. Apellyatsionnoe postanovlenie № 22 K-6023/2018 ot 15 yanvarya 2019 g.

criminal proceedings, stage, proceedings, judge, status, powers.