Abstract: This article presents the results of analysis of application of cross-system methods in conveying Russian criminal law and criminal procedure realias in English. The specific examples of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation illustrate substantial discrepancies in the existing within Russian criminal law systems and Anglo-American type of criminal law system, which cause most difficulties in translation of relevant terminology from Russian into English. Leaning on the considered linguistic and extralinguistic factors, the authors suggest the original solutions of the set communicative tasks. The scientific novelty is substantiated by the absence of the official English version of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, while the need for the corresponding paperwork (request for legal assistance, extradition request, etc.) is significantly growing. The following conclusions are made: criminal procedure discourse of Russian-language and English-language community constructs different and most of the time nonequivalent models of legal reality, which increases the value of comparative jurisprudence for the translator; at the same time, detailed analysis of not only the direct structure of common law and continental law systems, but also methods of their verbalization, allows comprising a more precise portrait of linguistic persona to have an idea of their experience, worldview, thesaurus and other cultural-specific peculiarities that are essential for improving efficiency of communication.      

Abstract: This work examines the fundamental differences between legal systems, defining uniqueness of the Russian-language and English-language criminal legal discourses, which should be taken into consideration during communication. Moving general-to-specific, the authors analyze the main differences at the legal system level, directly impacting translation of criminal procedural terminology (primary source of law, its role in formation of juridical technique, etc.), and concentrate their attention on the unique traits of lingual and non-lingual element (idea of the criminal legal system, ways of verbalization, etc.), characteristic to Russian and Anglo-American criminal legal discourses. The novelty of this research is justified by the fact that extralinguistic factors of legal discourse and their role during representation has only been generally studied, without sufficient work being done on verbalization of criminal legal system in the Russian and English languages. Referring to separate articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the authors propose a way of transmitting the essence of the Russian legal institution of investigation and the stage of preliminary inquiry by means of Anglo-American legal terminology.

Abstract: This article examines the peculiarities of resolving the complicated questions associated with relations regulated by private international law through legal mechanisms that are at the disposal of the integrated institution – the European Union. It is demonstrated that use of means of harmonization and unification – rules and directives – facilitate regulation in the conflict of jurisdictions (on the questions of mutual recognition and execution of court decisions), conflict of laws (with regards to the choice of applicable law to contractual and non-contractual obligations, family and hereditary relations), substantive regulation of relations complicated by a foreign element. Methodology contains the sources of the European Union Law – constituent agreements, rules and directives in French language as the language of the theory of private international law. The analysis of EU legislative acts demonstrated that the most significant problems in all areas of private international law have been resolved in a positive way: enshrinement of the principle of mutual recognition and execution of court decisions; establishment of the general and subsidiary conflict of laws principles for the various types of private law relations, considering the latest scientific trends of private international law and comparative-legal experience; establishment of groundwork for harmonization of private law of the EU member-states. The authors also underline the inadequacy of regulation on the separate questions of private international law (qualification). Recommendation is made regarding the experience of the European Union in the context of potential development of law of the European Economic Community in the indicated sphere.