scholarly journals Validity of the use of presumptive moral damage by expert psychologists

2020 ◽  
pp. 170-177
Author(s):  
Margarita Zhuravleva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Scientific Validity ◽  
Solution Approach ◽  
Damage Compensation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Moral Damage ◽  
Legal Space ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Average Damage

The purpose of the article is to consider the scientific validity and legal viability of the use of presumed (average) damage proposed by Mr. Erdelevsky A.N. The presumed moral damage continues to be the basis on which the expert psychologists of Ukraine conclude the amount of a personal moral injury. The authors of the article consider this approach unreasonable, unscientific, and erroneous. The appearance of presumed harm was conditioned by Mr. Erdelevsky’s view on justice, which should take place: average justice for an average person. The authors of the article believe that the rationality and justice principle in the legislation of Ukraine has a different meaning, namely: a reasonable and fair solution approach in a specific particular case of causing moral damage.The article considers and analyze the facts demonstrating the irrelevant use of presumed damage in the Ukrainian legal space: 1) Mr. Erdelevsky’s approach is opposed (antagonistic) to the Ukrainian legislation since the author determined certain average damage (presumptive) indicators, however the Ukrainian lawmaker refused regulating the clear amount of compensation and has provided this right to the Court. Meanwhile, the fact that the average compensation amounts are not established by the Ukrainian legislation demonstrates the current position of the legislator in regard to this issue. 2) Mr. Erdelevsky’s attitude was accepted neither by the lawmakers nor by the judicial system of Ukraine and Russia. At the same time, the author himself never talked about the practical nature of his formula, he did not insist on its efficiency exactly in such a form, did not offer its implementation to psychologists. Presumptive damage was developed by the author on the basis of analysis of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as a theoretical proposal for the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, therefore, its application is outrageously unwarranted with respect to the legislation and fundamentally wrong. 3) At his own discretion, very approximately, without any psychological education, Mr. Erdelevsky A.N. supposes (or thinks up) the cases where the suffering of a person is analogous. The author is very free to interpret the legislation of the Russian Federation. In one case, he takes the Criminal Code and the degree of punishment established in it as a basis, in the other he independently decides to depart from the Criminal Code article and increase the amount of compensation for presumptive damage. The methodology, which appeared in 2019 in the Register of methods for conducting forensic examinations of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine under number 14.1.75, in imitation of Mr. Erdelevsky A.N., suggests the use of presumptive damage, but does not contain any justification for its use. The article substantiates the proposal to solve the problem of establishing an indicative amount of compensation for the moral suffering of a person, taking into account only psychological components and using exclusively qualitative criteria for analysis. Key words: moral damage, presumptive damage, compensation, suffering, sequence of expert actions.

scholarly journals Novels of the Criminal Code on responsibility for abusesin public procurement: background and problems of qualification

2018 ◽  
pp. 34-43
Author(s):  
A. Ya. Asnis
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Service Contract ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Contract Managers

The article deals with the criminological grounds and background of the adoption of the Federal law of April 23, 2018 № 99-FZ, which introduced criminal liability for abuse in the procurement of goods, works and services for state or municipal needs (Art. 2004 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and for bribery of employees of contract service, contract managers, members of the Commission on the implementation of the procurement of persons engaged in the acceptance of the delivered goods, performed works or rendered services, other authorized persons, representing interests of customer in the scope of the relevant procurement (Art. 2005 of the Criminal Code).The author formulates private rules of qualification of the corresponding crimes and differentiation of their structures from structures of adjacent crimes and administrative offenses. The necessity of changing the position of the legislator regarding generic and direct objects of these crimes, the adoption of a special resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to explain the practice of applying the relevant innovations.

scholarly journals On the Issues of the Application of Part 6 of Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-84
Author(s):  
N. N. Korotkikh
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article analyzes some of the controversial, in the opinion of the author, recommendations of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 10 of 15.05.2018 «On the practice of the courts applying the provisions of paragraph 6 Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation». Lowering the category of crime always requires clear criteria by which the actions of the defendant could be qualified with a change in the gravity of the crime. Based on examples from judicial practice, the thesis is substantiated that “taking into account the factual circumstances of the case” and “the degree of its public danger” are evaluative e criteria and do not always allow to decide the validity of the application of part 6 article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The discrepancy between some of the recommendations contained in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is shown. It is concluded that it is impossible to exempt a person from criminal liability on the grounds specified in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals ISSUES OF THE QUALIFICATION OF A MURDER FOR THE PURPOSES OF USING VICTIM’S ORGANS OR TISSUES (CLAUSE М PART 2 ARTICLE 105 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION)

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 46-51
Author(s):  
Andrey L. Ivanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Human Organs ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article substantiates the solution of some of the issues of qualification of murder discussed in theory and practice in order to use human organs or tissues, the results of a study of judicial practice, in which clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on this topic were applied.

PUNISHMENT FOR SLANDER

2021 ◽  
pp. 50-63
Author(s):  
Tatyana A. Plaksina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Legal Response ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Previous Edition ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Explanatory Memorandum ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
High Share

Federal Law No. 538-FZ of 30 December 2020 substantially tightened the sanctions of the libel article, which previously contained only fines and compulsory labour, by including com-pulsory labour, arrest and imprisonment in most of them. The explanatory memorandum to the bill explained the changes by the need to provide the court with the choice of fair punish-ment, without specifying this provision in detail. As part of the research described in the article, statistics for the Russian Federation for 2013-2020 were taken from the reports of the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to study the practice of punishment for defamation. The analysis showed that law enforcers used the potential of sanctions of Article 128-1 of the Criminal Code in their previous edition to a very limited extent. This was reflected in the high share of fines among penalties imposed, as well as in insignificant amounts of fines even for qualified and especially qualified types of libel, despite the fact that sanctions provide for high maxi-mum fine limits - from RUB 500,000 in part 1 of Article 128-1 of the Criminal Code to RUB 5 million in part 5. In particular, the share of fine among penalties imposed for simple libel was over 85%, and the average fine was equal in 2018 to RUB 11,500. - 11.5 thousand roubles, in 2019 - 13.7 thousand roubles, in 2020. - 16.3 thousand roubles. In 2018, the average fine for public libel (part 2, article 128-1 of the Criminal Code) was 19,500 rubles; in 2020 - 23,100 rubles. - The sanction allowed for a fine of up to 1 million roubles, while the sanction allowed for a fine of up to 1 million roubles. Moreover, over a quarter of those convicted for especially qualified defamation under part 5 of article 128-1 of the Criminal Code were sentenced to a fine of 5,000 rubles, i.e., one thousand times less than the maximum limit established by the sanction. Only in single cases of slander convictions, the fine exceeded 100 thousand rubles. The establishment of custodial sentences for qualified and especially qualified types of defamation seems excessive: a verbal crime against a person's honour and dignity does not require such a harsh criminal legal response. Moreover, the legislator has designed sanctions with too broad a framework, fraught with the risk of arbitrariness in sentencing and the for-mation of contradictory judicial practice (for example, under part 5 of article 128-1 of the RF Criminal Code, both a fine of 5 thousand rubles, and imprisonment for the period of 5 years can be imposed). The inclusion of arrest in the sanction cannot be considered justified, as this type of punishment has not been introduced yet. The optimum way to improve the sanctions for the part 2 to 5 parts of Article 128-1 of the Criminal Code of the RF would be to enhance them with correctional labour and restriction of freedom. These types of punishments corre-spond to the typical level of public danger of qualified and especially qualified types of slan-der and perpetrators of such deeds. Their inclusion in the sanctions would compensate for the disadvantages of the latter, related to the restrictions enshrined in the law on imposing com-pulsory works and large fines.

scholarly journals Criminal Law Violations in Labour Safety at Coal Mining Enterprises

2019 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. 02018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yury Volgin ◽  
Irina Gaag ◽  
Alexander Naumov
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Coal Mining ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Mining Industry ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Safety Rules

The paper deals with the qualification of criminal violations of safety rules in coal mining enterprises in the light of recent changes in Art. 216 and 217 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the adoption of a new Resolution of the Plenum of Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on violations of safety rules during operations. Firstly, the old and new editions of Art. 216 and 217 of the Criminal Code are compared. After that, the distinctive features of the articles under consideration are examined with the help of the new Plenum Resolution, federal laws and bylaws. Finally, the case law on this issue has been reviewed since 2016 with consideration of specific examples. In the paper, the authors do not address the issues of qualifying violations of safety rules at coal mining enterprises under Art.143 of the Criminal Code as it has not been changed. At the end of the study, the authors formulate the qualification rules taking into account the latest changes, without proposing any changes to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and other regulatory legal acts that do not include the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, i.e. the results of the study can be used in practice. The problem is that there is a lack of research of the changes we are considering in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and even more in relation to the coal mining industry.

Individualization of Punishment Taking into Account the Nature and Degree of Public Danger

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Вячеслав Воронин ◽  
Vyacheslav Voronin
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
The Public ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Common Criteria ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Special Part ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Common

Part 3 of article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation refers to the common criteria of individualization of punishment the nature and degree of public danger of committed crime in each criminal case. The purpose of this article is to analyze the legal practice of this provision, as well as the construction of clarification on the issue of taking into consideration the public danger, which will be useful for the judiciary. For this purpose the author supposes to solve following problems: analysis of dogmatic ideas about the nature and degree of public danger; search for factors that courts consider in determining public danger in judicial practice; analysis of the survey data of judges from different regions of the country. As a result the author concludes that the nature of public danger depends on the object of the offense and cannot influence on individualization of punishment, because it was considered by the legislator when constructing the corresponding article of the Special Part and therefore should be excluded from Part 3 of art. 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Degree of public danger when individualizing is determined subject to the objective and subjective elements of a crime. The author proposed to make recommendations on considering into account degree of public danger in the judgment 22.12.2015 No. 58 adopted by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On practice of criminal sentencing by courts of the Russian Federation”.

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 Efficiency of practical application of criminal law prohibition in the sphere of economy of the Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (4) ◽  
pp. 118-123
Author(s):  
Vladimir Tunin ◽  
Natal'ya Radoshnova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Economic Crime ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Economic Crimes

The article considers the practical effectiveness of the criminal law prohibition in combating economic crime in the Russian Federation. 22nd Chapter of the Criminal code currently includes 58 articles. This is maximum number of articles in relation to other chapters of the criminal code, in the same Chapter of the Criminal code. Accordingly the need for such a number of prohibitions in the economic sphere should be confirmed by judicial practice. However, a completely different picture emerges. Based on the analysis of the statistical reports of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the authors conclude that the enforcement practice in cases of economic crimes is insufficient.The authors express their opinion on the reasons for the ineffectiveness of the practical application of the articles constituting the 22nd Chapter of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation, and suggest ways to address them.

scholarly journals Problems of proving guilt in criminal cases in connection with tax evasion

2019 ◽  
pp. 170-176
Author(s):  
V. V. Dubrovin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Tax Evasion ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The establishment of an intentional form of guilt and its specific type is mandatory for the implementation of the provisions of Art. 8 of the Criminal Code. In criminal proceedings in connection with tax evasion, a direct intent should be established in the act of the accused, otherwise the provisions of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 28, 2006 No. 64 “On the practice of criminal law on liability for tax offenses”. One of the proofs of direct intent in the act of the accused may be the decision of the tax authority to prosecute for the tax offense, made according to the results of tax control measures (in-house or on-site tax audits). In the event that it establishes an imprudent form of the taxpayer’s guilt in committing a tax offense, in proving the guilt of the accused in the course of criminal proceedings there may be an intractable contradiction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document