scholarly journals Cross-cutting criminal law concepts: some issues on definition and interpretation

2020 ◽  
pp. 91-98
Author(s):  
T.D. Lysko ◽  
V.V. Kyrychenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Conceptual Apparatus ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Further Development

The article analyses the problem of interpretation of cross-cutting criminal law concepts in the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The urgency of the study is due to the rapid reform of criminal law of Ukraine and the need to create a sustainable and high-quality conceptual framework of criminal law. In accordance with the tasks set in the article, the state of theoretical developments in the field of interpretation of cross-cutting criminal law concepts, their practical implementation and implementation in legislation was analysed. The article identifies the importance of universal interpretation of crosscutting criminal law concepts to ensure the rule of law and the implementation of state-guaranteed human rights. Prospects for the development of criminal law through the creation of an official interpretation of the conceptual apparatus of the Criminal Code of Ukraine were studied. The study was based on the work of legal scholars, as well as the practice of national law and the conclusions of the European Court of Human Rights. The article used the dialectical method as a general method of scientific cognition, by means of which social relations and phenomena that are the subject of research were studied in their interaction and complementarity. The method of analysis was used to determine the essence and content of the problem of interpretation of cross-cutting criminal law concepts. The results of the study identified ways to overcome the problem of interpretation of cross-cutting criminal law concepts and prospects for further development of criminal legislation in the presence of a stable conceptual apparatus. The obtained results allowed to made recommendations for practical improvement of the criminal legislation of Ukraine.

scholarly journals Genesis of the legislative definition of crime and category of crimes in accordance with the Russian criminal law

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-62
Author(s):  
Satenik Vrezhovna Shakhbazyan
Keyword(s):  
Social Relations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Soviet Period ◽  
Normative Documents ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Further Development

The subject of this research is the process of state legal regulation of evolution of the definition of crime and category of crimes within the Russian criminal law. Special attention is given to the analysis of normative sources, which allows determining the key stages of development of the doctrine on crime and categorization of crimes. The author substantiates the opinion that normative documents of the Soviet period regulated the provisions regarding crime and categorization of crimes to the fullest extent, which laid the groundwork for the development of current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The conducted analysis of sources allowed concluding that the criminal legal policy in definition of crime and category of crimes, implemented by a legislator at various stages of social relations, is characterized by priority vectors in criminal policy of the state and caused by objective needs of the society. The complicated by their nature criminal-legal relations are constantly changing, which justifies the need for improvement of criminal legislation. The author comes to the conclusion that formalization and further development of the doctrine on crime and categorization of crimes retains its relevance in light of reform in criminal legislation.

scholarly journals Sports crimes: issues of systematic approach, criminalization and qualifications

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 02009
Author(s):  
Oleg Alexandrovich Dizer ◽  
Irina Gennadievna Bavsun ◽  
Andrey Viktorovich Zarubin ◽  
Vladimir Nikolaevich Safonov ◽  
Georgy Yurievich Sokolsky
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Specific Object ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The study prerequisites are the fragmentation in the current criminal legislation of criminal law standards protecting the field of sports, as well as the issues of criminalization of acts in sports and the qualification of sports crimes. The study aims to solve the issues of systematization of regulatory provisions, the object of which is social relations in sports, taking into account the characteristics of the generic and specific objects, the degree of encroachment danger. The methods included the dialectical method, abstraction, analysis, synthesis, deduction, formal legal method, method of comparative jurisprudence. The results and novelty of the study reside in the conclusions about the advisability of identifying a separate specific object of criminal law protection (social relations in sports), which would systematize related and close acts not only in professional sports but also at all levels of official sports competitions. In this context, the issues of criminalization and qualifications of causing harm to life and health of an individual in violation of the sport rules, exerting unlawful influence on the result of an official sports competition, actions provided for in Art. 230.1 and 230.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the synchronization of the subject of the latter with the subject of Art. 234 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Based on the foregoing, the recommendation of isolating a separate chapter in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and issuing a separate Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on crimes in sports is substantiated. Such measures will be able to optimize the criminal law protection of such an important sphere of public life as sports. In addition, this will make it possible to bring the quality of domestic criminal legislation and sports legislation to the international level and significantly increase the prestige of the Russian Federation.

Limitations of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms in International Law and Novations in the Russian Criminal Legislation

10.12737/1209 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (11) ◽  
pp. 75-84
Author(s):  
Юрий Ромашев ◽  
YUriy Romashyev
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Public Order ◽  
European Court ◽  
State Secret ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
State Secrets

The author analyses new amendments related to state secrets protection: amendments to Article 275 ‘High Treason’, Article 276 ‘Espionage’, Article 283 ‘Disclosure of a State Secret’, and adopted Article 283.1 ‘Illegal Receipt of Information Constituting a State Secret’ of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in respect to their conformity with acceptable restrictions of fundamental human rights and freedoms. Special attention is paid to theoretical and action-oriented aspects of restrictions of fundamental human rights and freedoms. The author investigates relevant provisions of international documents, practice of the European Court of Human Rights, doctrines of leading experts in this sphere. The author notes that the criteria for restricting fundamental human rights and freedoms should be established entirely under the law and be indispensable and applicable in a democratic society, be aimed at the protection of national security and public order. The author draws the conclusion on the urgent character and timeliness of introducing the abovementioned novations into the Russian criminal legislation, and their conformity with generally recognized principles and rules of international law.

scholarly journals Features of signs of the crime object provided by article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-198
Author(s):  
Алена Харламова ◽  
Alena Kharlamova ◽  
Юлия Белик ◽  
Yuliya Belik
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Direct Object ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the problematic theoretical and practical issues of the content of the signs of the object of the crimes under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code. The authors determined the main direct object, revealed the essence of the right of ownership, use and disposal. Marked social relations that can act as an optional direct object. Particular attention is paid in the article to the subject of the crime. Attempts have been made to establish criteria that are crucial for the recognition of any vehicle as the subject of theft. The content of the terms “automobile” and “other vehicle” is disclosed. The analysis of the conformity of the literal interpretation of the criminal law to the interpretation of the law enforcer is carried out. It is summarized that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation narrows the meaning of the term “other vehicle”, including in it only vehicles for the management of which, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, is granted a special right. The authors provide a list of such vehicles and formulate a conclusion on the advisability of specifying them as the subject of a crime. The narration of the article is accompanied by examples of decisions of courts of various instances in cases of crimes under Art. 166 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

scholarly journals DOŽIVOTNI ZATVOR I USLOVNI OTPUST U KRIVIČNOM PRAVU SRBIJE: NEKA PITANJA I DILEME

2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-92
Author(s):  
Emir Ćorović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
Sexual Freedom ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Legislation

Life imprisonment was introduced to Serbian Criminal legislation with the amendments of Criminal Code from 2019. These amendments replaced the former penalty of imprisonment from 30 to 40 years. Special attention was drawn by the fact that the new legislation allows the possibility of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for committing certain crimes. This legal solution is considered not to be in accordance with the Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Still, the prohibition of parole was introduced to Serbian criminal law in 2013, with the adoption of the Law on the special measures for the prevention of crimes against sexual freedom towards minors. However, at that time the academic community did not give the attention it deserved to the justification of this prohibition, which by itself generates many concerns. That is why, when discussing the problematics of life imprisonment and parole, and its prohibition, one has to bear in mind the previously structured legal frame, as well as the concerns that such a prohibition creates, regardless of whether it not it relates to life imprisonment or timely limited imprisonment.

scholarly journals The goals of criminal punishment as a reflection of modern criminal policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 324-330
Author(s):  
V.V. Popov ◽  
◽  
S.M. Smolev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The presented study is devoted to the issues of disclosing the content of the goals of criminal punishment, analyzing the possibilities of their actual achievement in the practical implementation of criminal punishment, determining the political and legal significance of the goals of criminal punishment indicated in the criminal legislation. The purpose of punishment as a definition of criminal legislation was formed relatively recently, despite the fact that theories of criminal punishment and the purposes of its application began to form long before our era. These doctrinal teachings, in essence, boil down to defining two diametrically opposed goals of criminal punishment: retribution and prevention. The state, on the other hand, determines the priority of one or another goal of the punishment assigned for the commission of a crime. The criminal policy of Russia as a whole is focused on mitigating the criminal law impact on the offender. One of the manifestations of this direction is the officially declared humanization of the current criminal legislation of the Russian Federation. However, over the course of several years, the announced “humanization of criminal legislation” has followed the path of amending and supplementing the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: introducing additional opportunities for exemption from criminal liability and punishment, reducing the limits of punishments specified in the sanctions of articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and including in the system of criminal punishments of types of measures that do not imply isolation from society. At the same time the goals of criminal punishment are not legally revised, although the need for such a decision has already matured. Based on consideration of the opinions expressed in the scientific literature regarding the essence of those listed in Part 2 of Art. 43 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the goals of punishment are determined that each of them is subject to reasonable criticism in view of the abstract description or the impossibility of achieving in the process of law enforcement (criminal and penal) activities. This circumstance gives rise to the need to revise the content of the goals of criminal punishment and to determine one priority goal that meets the needs of modern Russian criminal policy. According to the results of the study the conclusion is substantiated that the only purpose of criminal punishment can be considered to ensure proportionality between the severity of the punishment imposed and the social danger (harmfulness) of the crime committed. This approach to determining the purpose of criminal punishment is fully consistent with the trends of modern criminal policy in Russia, since it does not allow the use of measures, the severity of which, in terms of the amount of deprivation and legal restrictions, clearly exceeds the social danger of the committed act. In addition, it is proportionality, not prevention, that underlies justice – one of the fundamental principles of criminal law.

scholarly journals Subject Of A Crime Under French Criminal Legislation

2021 ◽  
Vol 03 (01) ◽  
pp. 63-68
Author(s):  
Khurshida Mirziyatovna Abzalova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Legal Entities

This article deals with the issues of criminal liability of persons (the subject of the crime) for committing crimes under the Criminal Code of France. It is noted that the French criminal law does not contain any special chapter devoted to the subject of the crime, but provides for important provisions on the responsibility of individuals and legal entities. Based on the analysis, it was concluded that it is necessary to apply the experience of France in terms of liberalizing the responsibility of minors and introducing the responsibility of legal entities.

scholarly journals Current issues of decriminalization of goods smuggling considering the nature of the criminal offense

2020 ◽  
pp. 95-100
Author(s):  
A.O. Puhach ◽  
M.A. Rubashchenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Current Version ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
Previous Edition ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Direct Target

The article is devoted to the investigation of the subject of crime under Article 201 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, its amendment and their analysis. In particular, the subject of the crime was considered in the wording of the article, which was in force until January 17, 2012, and the sanction provided for in the article for committing the crime. The principal and direct target of smuggling in the past and current versions were considered and questions were raised as to the appropriateness of locating the crime with items such as cultural property, poisonous, potent, explosive substances, radioactive materials, weapons or ammunition (except for shotguns or ammunition) , parts of firearms, special technical means of silent obtaining information among those generic object who are called to defense relationship that provides business activity. The author has demonstrated why this issue did not arise in the previous version. In addition, a comparison of the decriminalized "goods smuggling" with its current version was considered with the articles of the Customs Code, which now provide for liability for "goods" smuggling, in particular - with the sanction of the article intended for committing an offense. In order to understand why the humanization of the act committed did not take place, despite the fact that the former crime was a customs offense, the nature of the criminal offense, developed in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, whose decisions are recognized as a source of law in Ukraine, was analyzed. Particularly, attention was drawn to the Court's findings in case of Engel and Others v. The Netherlands, where the criteria for attributing the offense to criminal were elaborated. In addition, the case of Nadtochiy v. Ukraine was analyzed, in which the European Court of Human Rights founds out that the custom legislation of Ukraine contained a criminal offense by its nature It is analyzed sanction provided by the Customs Code through the prism of these criteria, it was concluded that the sanctions did not change. The author explores bill of returning goods in significant, large and particularly large amounts to the object of the Smuggling crime with the previous edition of this article, and the conclusion was drawn.

scholarly journals Cо-perpetrators of torture: national and convention definition framework

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (15) ◽  
pp. 91-110
Author(s):  
Yuliia Serhiivna Tavolzhanska ◽  
Iryna Anatoliivna Kopyova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Theoretical Modeling ◽  
Public Official ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Human Rights Organizations ◽  
European Court ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
Degrading Treatment

The article is prepared in continuation of development of author's dissertation researches. The paper reveals the peculiarities of objective and subjective features of cо-perpetration in torture (both on the basis of the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and taking into account the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. When interpreting national criminal law norms in the light of convention provisions, the requirements of two-frame criminal law research are met. The authors' positions are supported by message from human rights organizations, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and theoretical modeling. The article contains the following conclusions. A co-perpetrator of torture may commit this criminal offense by his or her own actions or omissions, use another person as a “means” of committing a criminal offense, or delegate the commission of a criminal offense to another person. A co-perpetrator of torture may join in committing torture at any stage of the commission of this criminal offense. If, under the circumstances of complicity in torture, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity direct torture, he or she is the perpetrator (co-perpetrator) of the offense. If, in complicity in torture, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity creates the conditions for committing the offense, he or she should be recognized as the organizer, instigator or accomplice of the torture (depending on the role he or she has played). If, in complicity in torture, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity doesn't interfere of torture, he or she is the accomplice to torture. Not preventing torture should not be confused with the mental violence that can be used to torture. Article 1 of the 1984 Convention also covers cases of involvement in the torture of public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Object of the Crime as a Symbol in the Doctrine of the Composition of the Crime

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-70
Author(s):  
Natalya S. Goncharova
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Clear Definition ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Objective Side ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Further Development

The author attempts to determine the place of the object of the crime in the doctrine of the composition of the crime. They analyze the views of scientists available in legal literature at various historical stages in the development of Russian legislation pertaining to criminal acts. Pre-revolutionary criminal legislation did not distinguish between the objects and the subjects of the crime. At the beginning of the 20th century, Russian criminal law science began to realize the need to distinguish the objects of crimes from the subjects. Since 1953, in connection with liberalization, there has been a clear definition of the subject of crimes, depending on their composition. Further development of the doctrine of the subject of crimes is characterized by a wide variety of scientists views, which the author analyzes, combining them into two groups, depending on the location of the subject of the crime as part of the crime: 1) the subject of the crime is a sign of the objective side of the crime and does not depend in any way; 2) the subject of the crime is a sign of the object of the crime and is inextricably linked with it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document