scholarly journals Problems of distinction of articles 243 and 2434 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-103
Author(s):  
Nikolay Seliverstov
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Cultural Values ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
State Register ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Cultural Heritage Objects ◽  
Cultural Monuments

The article is devoted to the study of such elements of crimes as Article 243 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation destruction or damage of cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation included in the unified State register of cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation, identified cultural heritage objects, natural complexes, objects taken under state protection, or cultural values) (hereinafter Article 243 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and art. The article 243.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation destruction or damage of military graves, as well as monuments, steles, obelisks, other memorial structures or objects that perpetuate the memory of those who died in the defense of the Fatherland or its interests or dedicated to the days of military glory of Russia (hereinafter Article 243.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). As an article 243.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is a novel in the criminal law of Russia, it was necessary to compare it with other related crimes in order to study possible problems and controversial questions of qualification. The article provides a comparative analysis of crimes against public morality provided for in Articles 243 and 243.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The article examines their similarities and differences in such parameters of a socially dangerous act as: subject, object, subjective part and objective pa of the crime, as well as responsibility for the crime committed. The controversial issues of qualification of related crimes are studied and possible ways of their solution are given.

PROBLEMS OF CLASSIFICATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE OBJECTS

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 158-168
Author(s):  
SVETLANA IVANOVA ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Cultural Values ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Cultural Inheritance ◽  
Federal Laws ◽  
Cultural Heritage Objects ◽  
Cultural Monuments

The purpose of the research work is to analyze the norms of Federal laws, as well as the laws of the Russian Federation's constituent entities, devoted to the definitions and classification of the concepts “cultural heritage”, “historical and cultural monuments”, “cultural values”. Conclusions obtained in the course of the research: based on the study of current legislation, it is concluded that the definitions of “cultural values”, “cultural property”, “objects of cultural inheritance” contained in various normative legal acts differ in content. Based on the research, the author proposes the concept of “cultural values”.

COUNTERING MATCH-FIXING: COMPARISON OF CRIMINAL LAW AND SPORTS LAW REGULATION ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE RUSSIAN ICE HOCKEY FEDERATION

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Евгения Германовна Ветрова ◽  
Илья Александрович Васильев
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Ice Hockey ◽  
Sports Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Objective Side ◽  
Subjective Side

В статье проводится сравнение положений ст. 184 УК РФ (Оказание противоправного влияния на результат официального спортивного соревнования) и соответствующих статей Дисциплинарного Регламента Федерации Хоккея России. Автор произвел сравнение составов анализируемых правонарушений: объекта, субъекта, объективной стороны и субъективной стороны и указал их сходства и отличия. The article compares the provisions of Article 184 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Illegal influence on the result of an official sports competition) and the corresponding articles of the Disciplinary Regulations of the Russian Ice Hockey Federation. The author compared the components of the analyzed offenses: the object, the subject, the objective side and the subjective side, and indicated their similarities and differences.

ON THE SYSTEM OF SOURCES REGULATING PROPERTY RELATIONS RELATED TO CULTURAL HERITAGE OBJECTS

2020 ◽  
pp. 126-130
Author(s):  
V. V. Kudryashova
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Property Relations ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Cultural Heritage Objects

In the article the author examines the possibility of applying other legal acts and normative legal acts of Federal ministries to the regulation of property relations related to cultural heritage objects. A proposal to amend the industry legislation in order to bring it into line with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is formulated

scholarly journals Problems of Applying Special Grounds for Exemption from Criminal Liability for Kidnapping

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatiana Bersh ◽  
Anna Khristyuk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Practical Interest ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Mere Presence ◽  
The Russian Federation

Despite the positive attitude towards the presence of compromise norms in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, containing the possibility of exemption from criminal liability for a committed crime, their mere presence seems insufficient. It is important to introduce a mechanism for the functioning of the norms, which will describe in detail all the stages necessary for their application. The article discusses controversial issues of insufficient legislative regulation of exemption from criminal liability on the basis of the application of a note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The opinions of scientists concerning the application of special grounds for exemption from criminal liability for kidnapping are generalized, the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding the understanding of the term “voluntary release of the kidnapped” is considered. A number of controversial issues that have not been taken into account by the legislator, which require mandatory regulation, are cited. The article examines the existing judicial practice of applying the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A lack of uniformity in the law enforcement activities of the judiciary was revealed. Supplements are proposed to the new resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 24, 2019 No. 58 to increase the effectiveness of the application of the considered grounds for exemption from criminal liability. As a result, a proposal was put forward that is aimed at improving the note to Art. 126 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The issues raised in the article are of scientific and practical interest.

scholarly journals Directions for preservation and popularization of cultural heritage objects of Crimea peninsula

2020 ◽  
Vol 164 ◽  
pp. 05021
Author(s):  
Victoriia Zhivitsa ◽  
Victoriia Sidorova ◽  
Dmitry Mosyakin
Keyword(s):  
Urban Planning ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Urban Context ◽  
Protection Zones ◽  
Youth Centers ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Cultural Heritage Objects ◽  
Cultural Monuments ◽  
Crimea Peninsula

“Everyone is obliged to take care of the preservation of historical and cultural heritage, to preserve historical and cultural monuments” (Article 44 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). The study is aimed at considering the most promising methods of safekeeping, maintenance, popularization and museum presentation of cultural heritage. When working on the study, the methods of theoretical analysis and synthesis and the analogy method were used. The authors have identified and analyzed applied areas of safekeeping, maintenance, popularization and modern use of cultural heritage objects, namely: monuments of archeology, architecture and urban planning. Various techniques for inclusion of such objects in the modern socio-cultural and architectural-urban context were analysed. Criteria are selected for choosing monuments of architecture, urban planning and archeology for museification, as well as for their introduction into the tourist and recreational infrastructure of the region. Also the scenario of attracting the population, in particular youth, to the problem of preservation of cultural heritage objects is considered. The authors propose improvement of territory and construction of modular youth centers, and organization of cultural and entertainment events (festivals, exhibitions, historical quests, thematic fairs, performances) near or in the territory of the monument protection zones.

scholarly journals CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF SUBSUMPTION OF MALFEASANCE

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-69
Author(s):  
Evgeny Evgenyevich Zabuga
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Russian Federation

The subject. The article deals with subsumption of malfeasance, judicial characterization of such white-collar crimes.The purpose of the paper is to answer the question of admissibility of qualification of ho-mogeneous actions of a person according to two separate art. 285 and 286 of the Criminal Сode of the Russian Federation.The methodological basis of the research includes general-scientific methods (analysis and synthesis, system-structural approach) as well as academic methods (formal-legal method, method of interpretation of normative legal and judicial acts).Results and scope of application. Within the meaning of paragraph 15 of the Resolution of Plenum of Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, it is absolutely clear that legal actions of an official, which were not caused by official necessity, must be qualified under art. 285 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.Not only legally, but even from the point of view of ordinary logic, the qualification of ho-mogeneous actions by different criminal law norms is unacceptable.Due to the fact that art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not a crime of corruption by its characteristics, art. 285 of the Сriminal Сode of the Russian Federation cannot be regarded as a special case of abuse of power.Conclusions. This is unacceptable to qualify the homogeneous actions of a person according to two separate articles – art. 285 and 286 – of the Criminal Сode of the Russian Federation. It is necessary to add the Resolution of Plenum of Russian Supreme Court from October 16, 2009, No. 19 by the provisions more specifically delimiting qualification of malfeasance crimes according to art. 285 and 286 of the Criminal Сode of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Theft vs find: theoretical and practical issues

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (3) ◽  
pp. 121-130
Author(s):  
Nikolay Ryabinin ◽  
Kseniya Filipson
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Legal Definition ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of

The purpose of the study is to analyze the features of legal relations regulated by Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as well as to identify and resolve the problems related to the proper legal definition of these relations. The main research methods are: structural-system, methods of logical analysis and synthesis, formallegal, comparative-legal, as well as collecting information through the study of scientific periodicals and materials of judicial practice on this issue. The article discusses in detail the features of the delimitation of relations arising in accordance with Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The authors note that in the theory and practice of both criminal and civil law, one of the most controversial issues is the problem of differentiating a criminal offense under Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and acts that are not such (Article 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). So, to date, there is no consensus about the signs of differentiation of these compositions, and the criteria that have been developed at the present time are very vague and contradictory. Misinterpretation and application of norms when qualifying relations in accordance with Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not allow citizens to protect effectively their rights and legitimate interests. Therefore, in order to prevent violations of civil rights, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive scientific study of the features enabling to differentiate the above mentioned relations. Considerable attention is paid to the problem of appropriation of the found someone else’s property, when this property has identifying features. The authors define the types of property in the possession of the owner or any other type of legal owner, and also disclose the main characteristics of the specified property. In addition, the article formulates the authors’ definitions of such concepts as «finding» and «appropriation» of what was found. Based on the analysis of judicial and investigative practice, the authors propose the following recommendations for changing the legislation and the practice of its application in order to resolve controversial issues arising from the qualification of crimes against property. First, it is necessary to make clarifications in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 27, 2002 No. 20 «On judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and banditry» which property should be recognized as being in the possession of the owner or other legal owners and determine the characteristic features of such property ... Secondly, it is necessary to formulate and consolidate the legal definition of a find in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Thirdly, to return into Chapter 21 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation «Crime against property» the part «Appropriation of the found property».

scholarly journals The Signs of the Subject of a Crime under Article 243.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-127
Author(s):  
Iskander A. Khalikov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
General Scientific ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Professional History ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Private Collections

Introduction. When studying history, the results of the work of archaeologists play a significant role. At the same time, for science, only those studies that are conducted by scientists on the basis of a state-issued permit (the so called open sheet) are of value. In accordance with the permit, scientists are required to provide reports on the excavations carried out and information about the objects found. This is what distinguishes professional archaeologists from non- professional history enthusiasts. Such enthusiasts dig atr archaeological sites because of their interest, to create private collections and to sell items of historical value in antique markets. By their actions, they commit crimes against cultural heritage. This makes it necessary to study the characteristics of the subject of the crime provided for in art. 243.2 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation in order for criminal officers to properly deal with crimes in the field of archeology. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The research is based on general scientific and special research methods. The theoretical base consists of the works of domestic and foreign scientists in the field of law, history, archaeology, as well as the experience of competent authorities in the field of cultural heritage preservation. Results. The analysis of the work of the competent authorities and the study of legal literature led to the conclusion about the problems associated with the attribution to the subject of crime of persons searching for archaeological objects without obtaining a state permit. Discussion and Conclusion. Taking into account the accumulated international experience of countering illegal archaeology, studying domestic law enforcement practice, it is concluded that it is necessary to clarify the characteristics of the subject of the crime by making changes to the disposition of part 1 of art. 243.2 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Military Monuments as Objects of Cultural Heritage: Features of State Protection (On the Example of Krasnodar Krai)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
А.В. Гончаров ◽  
А.В. Крюков
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
National Standard ◽  
Krasnodar Krai ◽  
Military Equipment ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Cultural Heritage Objects ◽  
State Protection

Цель статьи – определить правовой статус и особенности государственной охраны объектов культурного наследия, созданных для увековечения событий военной истории, а также принадлежащих к произведениям монументального искусства. Исследование выполнено на материалах ведомственного архива управления государственной охраны объектов культурного наследия Краснодарского края, использованы национальные стандарты Российской Федерации, акты федерального и регионального законодательства. Изучены проблемы, связанные с правоприменительной практикой в отношении братских могил воинов и отдельных памятников, содержащих в своем составе военную технику, тиражированные монументы и обелиски из листового железа. Определено, что в каждом конкретном случае юридический статус и особенности государственной охраны рассмотренных монументов могут быть установлены с опорой на нормативно-техническую документацию (национальный стандарт), в большинстве случаев содержащую достаточно точные определения этих объектов. The aim of the study is to determine the status and peculiarities of the state protection of cultural heritage objects, which were created in order to perpetuate military history and are works of monumental art, within the framework of the current Russian legislation. The materials used in the article mainly relate to the regulatory framework for the protection of monuments in Krasnodar Krai. The study is based on documents from the departmental archive of the regional Office of State Protection of Cultural Heritage Objects of Krasnodar Krai, on national standards of the Russian Federation, and on acts of federal and regional legislation. The study uses historical legal, formal legal, and comparative legal methods, as well as methods of interpretation of law and logical methods. The authors examine the novelties of the Russian legislation affecting the establishment of protective zones around the monuments of architecture and urban construction and note that the acts of Krasnodar Krai also prescribe the arrangement of such zones for monuments containing burials and monuments of monumental art. The authors formulate questions related to the law enforcement practice in relation to the mass graves of soldiers and to individual monuments containing military equipment, replicated monuments, and obelisks made of sheet iron. The authors analyze the national standard of the Russian Federation, “Cultural Heritage Preservation. Terms and Definitions”, and give examples of checks for compliance with the terms in the standard at individual objects of cultural heritage. The analysis of the status of monuments containing military equipment is based on methodological recommendations published in the 1980s. They prescribed state protection for monuments made at a high artistic level from durable materials, but in practice these requirements were rarely met. The authors conclude that, along with samples of military equipment, works of architecture or sculpture created in honor of specific historical events, including guns or transport-combat vehicles installed on pedestals, are subject to state protection. It is the presence of an architectural base that allows classifying such objects with the term “monument”. In each specific case, the legal status and features of the state protection of the monuments considered in the article can be established based on the regulatory and technical documents (national standard) that contain sufficiently accurate definitions of these objects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document