scholarly journals Failure by Parents or Other Legal Representatives of Minors to Fulfill Their Obligations to Teach the Latter the Traffic Rules, to Foster a Responsible Attitude to Their Compliance, Expressed in the Admission of Driving Vehicles by Minors Who Do Not Have This Right, Which Caused Serious Consequences Due to Negligence

2020 ◽  
pp. 57-61
Author(s):  
Aleksei Viktorovich Ravnyushkin ◽  
Aleksandr Petrovich Nagorny
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Motor Vehicle ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Motor Vehicles ◽  
Administrative Punishment ◽  
Responsible Attitude ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Traffic Rules ◽  
Administrative Responsibility

One of the most acute problems nowadays is the prob-lem of reducing not only the rate of accidents, but also the number of injuries and deaths on the roads. The in-crease in the number of minors injured in road acci-dents, including those driving motor vehicles, causes particular concern. It is stated that bringing individuals to administrative responsibility is possible for transfer-ring control of a motor vehicle to a person who knowing-ly does not have the right to drive a motor vehicle under Part 3 of Article 12.7 of the Code of Administrative Of-fences of the Russian Federation, and also for not taking measures to prevent repeated driving vehicles by mi-nors who do not have such right, under Part 1 of Article 5.35 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Rus-sian Federation. However, administrative responsibility and measures of administrative punishment do not pre-vent serious socially dangerous consequences from driving motor vehicles by minors who do not have this right. The present study substantiates the need to estab-lish criminal liability for failure by parents to fulfill their obligations to educate and teach minors to observe traf-fic rules, which is expressed in letting minors drive mo-tor vehicles without having this right, which resulted in serious consequences due to negligence.

scholarly journals SOME FEATURES OF REFORMING THE ADMINISTRATIVE-DELICIT LEGISLATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION — THE THIRD WAVE OF CODIFICATION

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (72) (2) ◽  
pp. 350-367
Author(s):  
E. V. Evsikova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Third Wave ◽  
Draft Code ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The Third ◽  
Administrative Punishment ◽  
General Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Responsibility

The article reveals and justifies the need for radical processing and reform of administrative-tort legislation in the wake of the third wave of codification, which is one of the priority areas of state legal reform in the Russian Federation as a whole. The author gradually explores the main provisions of the General Part of the Draft Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, revealing and exploring such basic categories of administrative-tort law as: subjects of jurisdiction of the Russian Federation in the field of administrative-tort law and the subjects of the Russian Federation in the field of administrative-tort law, on on the basis of which the author identifies the advantages and disadvantages of the Draft Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses yah in the regulatory settlement of these issues; actions of administrative-tort legislation in time, taking into account the main problems of law enforcement, especially regarding the issue of canceling administrative responsibility for a specific act with its simultaneous criminalization; actions of administrative-tort legislation in space; principles of legality, equality before the law, humanism, guilt, inadmissibility of repeated administrative punishment for the same administrative offense; the principle of justice and proportionality of punishment; categories of “administrative offense” and “administrative responsibility”. Based on the analysis, the author identifies the advantages and disadvantages of the Draft Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, requiring refinement and clarification, makes its suggestions for its improvement.

scholarly journals PECULIARITIES OF SUPERVISION OVER THE RECEPTION, REGISTRATION AND AUTHORIZATION OF CRIMES UNDER ARTICLE 145.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION BY THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-540
Author(s):  
M.A. Gabdullina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Complete Failure ◽  
Employer Liability ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The Constitution of the Russian Federation protects the right to work for remuneration not below the statutory minimum wage. Non-payment of wages is one of the most serious violations of worker's rights. In this regard, the current legislation provides for different types of employer liability for violating these provisions: civil, administrative and criminal. The Federal law “On amendments to article 145.1 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation” dated 23.12.2010 No. 382-FZ tightened criminal liability for non-payment of wages. Thus, in particular, this law introduced criminal liability for partial non-payment of wages, while the former wording of article 145.1 of the Criminal code established liability only for its complete failure. In practice, this norm has not previously been brought to criminal liability for partial non-payment of wages. The paper deals with the issues of powers of the Prosecutor at the stage of reception, registration and resolution of reports on crimes provided for by article 145.1 of the criminal code. The problematic issues arising from the investigative authorities in conducting procedural checks on the specified categories of messages are analyzed. Suggestions on the improvement of criminal-procedural legislation are made.

scholarly journals An Old Problem in Draft of the New Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 411-420
Author(s):  
Aleksei Grishkovets
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Administrative Policy ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time ◽  
Administrative Responsibility

The article analyzes the provisions of the draft of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, developed on the basis of the Concept approved in 2019 by the Russian Government. Attention is drawn to the fact that the Concept, for the first time in domestic practice, contains a provision stating that improving the institution of administrative responsibility will require work to transform it from a predominantly punitive-fiscal instrument into the institution of sentencing, subject to differentiated application taking into account the risk-based approach. Based on the analysis of particular compositions of the draft of the Code of Administrative Offenses, it has been concluded that the punitive-fiscal orientation in it remains. Suggestions have been made on possible ways to overcome this. Administrative penalties should only provide general and specific prevention. The economy of administrative repression should become an element of the administrative policy of the executive branch. After the entry into force of the new Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, it has been proposed to conduct annual monitoring of its application, which will make it possible to identify the compositions that bring the greatest income to the budget. The problem of the existence of a profitable business on administrative responsibility is outlined. Attempts to introduce public-private partnership related to the provision of police assistance are assessed negatively. Based on Russian realities, it can be assumed that in practice this will lead to abuse by police officers and, as a result, to violation of human and civil rights and freedoms. Only in the future, the Russian police should gradually transform from a purely security structure focused on the use of state coercion measures into a structure that is largely service, providing citizens with specific services, in particular, providing them with police assistance when necessary. The idea is supported to recognize the “right to error” and “the right to forgiveness” for an administrative offender. It is proposed to implement it by expanding the possibilities of applying a warning as an alternative to such a punishment as an administrative fine, as well as by expanding the list of possible grounds for exemption from administrative liability. It is concluded that the adoption of the draft of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses does not look obvious.

scholarly journals Differentiation of criminal liability depending on the signs of the subject of the composition of a transport crime

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-22
Author(s):  
Valeriy F. Lapshin
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Motor Vehicles ◽  
Direct Control ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Structural Methods

Subject of research: signs of the subject of the offenses under Art. 264 and 2641 of the Criminal Code of Russia (hereinafter the Criminal Code). Purpose of the study: formulation of proposals on the content of the category "subject of traffic crimes", depending on which a qualitative differentiation of responsibility for crimes involving the use of motor vehicles is ensured. List of methods and objects of research. To obtain the results of the research, the methods of cognition used in the humanities (legal) sciences were used. The method of content analysis was used in the study of the content of Art. 264, 2641, 109 and 118 of the Criminal Code, as well as Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 9, 2008 No. 25. The dialectical method was used in the study of opinions on the qualification of some transport crimes. Logical and systemic-structural methods were applied in the study of the typical degree of social danger of the criminal's personality. Conclusions based on the results of the study: 1) the subject of the offenses under Art. 264 and 2641 CC is special. It is determined on the basis of the existence of an official right to drive a vehicle and the corresponding obligation to comply with the relevant safety rules; 2) the instructor possesses the characteristics of a subject of corpus delicti of transport crimes in cases when he had a real opportunity to drive a training vehicle and (or) exercised direct control of it together with the student.

scholarly journals Violating the Confidentiality of Adoption: Problems of Implementing a Complex Law Mechanism in the Russian Federation

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 817-825
Author(s):  
Svetlana Kornakova ◽  
Elena Chigrina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Priority Task ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The priority task of any democratic state is safeguarding the interests of children, including the right of every child to live in a family. Adoption of orphans or children deprived of parental care is becoming more and more common in present-day Russia, which makes the issue of legal regulation highly relevant. The article examines the problems of implementing a complex legal mechanism that regulates the protection of the confidentiality of adoption and imposes criminal liability for violating it. It should be acknowledged that there are diverse approaches to the problem of criminal law protection of the confidentiality of adoption. The authors analyze the views of different scholars on this problem. They present a critical analysis of the viewpoint that the norm imposing liability for such a violation should be abolished and prove the social importance of preserving the confidentiality. The authors also discuss the problem areas of criminal law characteristics of crimes connected with violating the confidentiality of adoption and conduct a comprehensive research of this issue. The analysis of current legislation shows that it includes a sufficient number of norms safeguarding the confidentiality of adoption. At the same time, this legal institute includes some specific norms that need improvement, require editing or amending, which, according to the authors, stops them from performing their preventive functions. The article contains concrete recommendations on improving current Russian legislation in this sphere, in particular, on improving the clauses of Art. 155 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes criminal liability in those cases where the confidentiality of adoption is violated. Besides, the authors examine the controversial issue of limiting the confidentiality of adoption because they believe that it is not lawful to deny a person who has reached majority the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the RF to learn information concerning him/herself, in this case, the right to know who their parents are. They suggest amending Art. 139 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, which will make it possible to fully guarantee the constitutional rights of citizens.

scholarly journals DISQUALIFICATION AS A MEASURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (6(56)) ◽  
pp. 43-45
Author(s):  
Aya Abilmanatovna Belyaeva ◽  
Irina Vladimirovna Krylova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Labor Legislation ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Critical Understanding ◽  
The Right ◽  
Administrative Penalty ◽  
Administrative Responsibility

In case of violation of labor legislation in the Russian Federation, such a type of punishment as disqualification is also applied. Disqualification by itself means the deprivation of an individual of the right to hold a position (most often a managerial one), which he held at the time of the administrative offense. It can be installed for a period of 1 to 3 years. The decision to impose an administrative penalty for violation of labor legislation in the Russian Federation in the form of a warning, as well as an administrative fine, is made by authorized officials of the Federal Service for Labor and Employment, in turn, the application of a sanction in the form of disqualification is imposed on judges. In this article, an attempt is made to scientific analysis and critical understanding of disqualification as a measure of administrative responsibility.

scholarly journals Court Fine as an Alternative to Criminal Liability

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 118-130
Author(s):  
I. A. Klepitskiy
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Law And Order ◽  
Coercive Measure ◽  
Conditional Release ◽  
Good Deed ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

In 2016 the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was supplemented by article 762 , i.e. an innovative norm on exemption from criminal liability with a court fine. Its novelty is that it provides for: 1) conditional release from criminal liability; 2)the use of a coercive measure against a person who is considered innocent by virtue of the presumption of innocence; 3) its use is associated with the payment of a sum of money to the budget. In addition, the consent of the victim is not required for its application. In practice, there is no uniformity in the interpretation of the new law. The purpose of the paper is to summarize the practice of applying the new norm, conceptualize it and give recommendations on its application. The paper concludes that a court fine is not a liability. Agreeing to pay money to the budget and paying it is a "good deed", a form of making amends for the harm caused by a crime to society as a result of law and order violation. This may be sufficient to release you from liability if there is no victim. The rule on a court fine supplements the norms of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on active repentance (article 75) and reconciliation with the victim (article 76) and is especially relevant in the absence of the victim, when the application of these articles is problematic. If there is a victim, the harm caused to him (including moral) must be compensated. The fact that the consent of the victim and the Prosecutor is not required for the application of a court fine does not mean that the court has the right to ignore their opinion.

scholarly journals Administrative Responsibility as a Means of Protection of Patent (Inventor’s) Rights in the Russian Federation: Some Issues of Legal Regulation

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 9-17
Author(s):  
N. A. Kulakov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Administrative Responsibility

The purpose of the research paper is to study the problems of legal regulation of administrative liability in the field of patent law. As a result of the conducted research, the author comes to the conclusion that administrative responsibility as a means of legal protection of patent rights possesses significant potential capacity. However, a number of factors do not allow this potential to be enforced to the necessary extent. The author enumerates the following factors: latency of administrative offenses in the field of the patent legislation and lack of confidence of rights’ holders in law enforcement agencies in this area; low level of legal qualification of law enforcement officials in the field of the patent legislation; problems of the normative and legal regulation of administrative liability for infringement of patent rights. The author sees the solution to the problem of increasing the efficiency of administrative responsibility in the field of the patent legislation as a complex counteraction to the above factors. Within the framework of the paper special attention is paid to the problems of legal regulation of administrative liability in the field of patent legislation. The author analyzes Para 2 of Art. 7.12 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, which provides for liability for violation of patent and inventor’s rights. The author comes to the conclusion about the need to develop this legal rule and defines a number of proposals for amending the current legislation. In addition, in order to ensure a comprehensive and effective protection of the right to remuneration for an invention (utility model, industrial design), a proposal has been formulated to expand the jurisdiction of the federal labor inspectorate and introduce the consequential amendments to the secondary legislation.

Subjective properties of the grounds for criminal liability for driving while intoxicated

2021 ◽  
pp. 465-474
Author(s):  
Igor V. Goncharov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Road Traffic ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Physiological State ◽  
Mental States ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Driving While Intoxicated ◽  
Administrative Punishment ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Subjective Side

We consider the signs of subjective side of a crime involving a traffic violation by a person subjected to administrative punishment (Article 264.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). We emphasize that the state of intoxication should be distinguished from morbid psyche states, since they should be attributed to a different category of mental states of the person. We pay attention to the signs of the subjective side, we note that the considered corpus delicti is formulated as formal. Therefore, this act is com-mitted intentionally and with direct intent. Driving while intoxicated is so-cially dangerous, since in this psycho-physiological state the driver largely loses the functional, physiological, psychological capabilities of transport control, which poses a real threat to safe road traffic – the danger of harm to health or death to individuals. We justify the need to exclude from Article 264.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation an indication of an administrative prejudice, since a person, while driving intoxicated, realizes and understands that he is violating traffic rules, that the vehicle is a source of increased danger, and, in addition, his concentration of attention decreases, etc.

ПОБОИ, СОВЕРШЕННЫЕ В ИСПРАВИТЕЛЬНОМ УЧРЕЖДЕНИИ: ВОПРОСЫ КВАЛИФИКАЦИИ

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dinara Latypova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Correctional Institution ◽  
Violent Crimes ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Goals And Objectives ◽  
Administrative Responsibility

В статье рассматриваются вопросы квалификации такого преступления, как побои, совершаемого в исправительном учреждении. Осужденный, совершающий насильственные преступления в период отбывания им наказания в виде лишения свободы, не встает на путь исправления, противоречит своими действиями тем целям и задачам, которые стоят перед назначаемым ему наказанием. С появлением уголовно-правовой нормы, предусмотренной ст. 116.1 УК РФ, возник ряд вопросов квалификации преступлений, связанных с причинением побоев в отношении потерпевшего. Сложности возникают при отграничении уголовно наказуемых побоев от аналогичных действий, предусмотренных нормами административного права. Пробелы действующего законодательства усложняют квалификацию действий осужденного, который наносит побои другим осужденным. В случае совершения данных действий по личным мотивам, не указанным в ст. 116 УК РФ (хулиганский мотив, политический, религиозный, национальный и т. д.), действия осужденного относятся к числу административных правонарушений, и лишь после повторного совершения побоев в течение года после привлечения к административной ответственности наступает уголовная ответственность, предусмотренная ст. 116.1 УК РФ. В статье анализируются пробелы действующего уголовного законодательства, регламентирующего уголовно наказуемые побои, предлагаются изменения действующего законодательства по рассматриваемому вопросу.The article discusses the qualification of such a crime as beating committed in a correctional institution. A convicted person committing violent crimes while serving his sentence of deprivation of liberty does not take the path of correction, contradicts his actions to the goals and objectives that face the punishment imposed on him. With the advent of the criminal law provision provided for in Article 11.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, many questions of qualification of crimes related to the infliction of beating in relation to the victim appeared. Difficulties arise when delimiting criminally punishable beatings from similar actions provided for by administrative law. Gaps in the current legislation complicate the qualification of the actions of a convict who beats other convicts. In the case of these actions for personal reasons not specified in Art. 116 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hooligan motive, political, religious, national, etc.) the actions of the convict are administrative offenses, and only after repeated beatings during the year after bringing to administrative responsibility does criminal liability ensured by Article 116.1 of the Criminal Code. The article analyzes the gaps of the current criminal law governing the criminally punishable beatings, proposes changes to the current legislation on the issue under consideration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document