Commentary to Art. 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The social danger of a crime lies in the fact that it violates the normal legal activities of government bodies and their authority, as well as the honor and dignity of a government representative.
Victims of a crime are only representatives of the authorities (see commentary to Article 318).
2. The objective side of the crime consists of insulting a representative of the authorities. Specific to this crime is the publicity of the insult. This means that information that humiliates the honor and dignity of a government representative, expressed in an indecent form (obviously does not correspond to generally accepted norms of behavior, grossly violates human dignity) becomes the property of many people, for example. from a public speech, a publicly displayed work, or from the media. Such performances can be in front of an audience, on the street. All kinds of leaflets and appeals containing offensive information about a government official and posted in accessible places have the sign of publicity. ——————————— BVS of the Russian Federation. 1999. N 2. P. 22.
BVS RF. 2002. N 3. S. 17 - 18.
BVS RF. 2007. N 2. P. 24.
The law emphasizes that a crime is public insult both during the performance by a representative of the authorities of his official duties, and in connection with their performance (including in the past). If insulting a government official is related to the performance of other duties and criminal liability for such insult is established in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the offense can be qualified, for example, under Art. Art. 297, 336 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The crime is considered completed at the moment of uttering words of an offensive nature or other actions. The actual consequences resulting from the insult lie outside the scope of this crime and can be taken into account when assigning punishment. If the act additionally contains signs of another crime, everything committed forms a set of crimes and is qualified under the commented article and the corresponding article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
3. The subject of the crime is a physically sane person who has reached the age of 16.
4. The subjective side of the crime is characterized by direct intent. The person is aware of the socially dangerous nature of publicly insulting a government official, is aware that he is insulting a government official while performing or in connection with the performance of his official duties, and wants to do so.
5. This crime should be distinguished from the crimes provided for in Art. Art. 213, 297, 336 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and from petty hooliganism (Article 20.1 of the Administrative Code).
Acquittal under Article 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation due to the absence of indecent forms in statements
This criminal case was in my proceedings for almost a year. July 02, 2021 The acquittal verdict passed on December 27, 2021 has finally come into force. But first things first.
In August 2021, as a duty lawyer, I took over the defense in the Oryol MSO of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Oryol Region of the client F., against whom a criminal case was initiated under Art. 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. for publicly insulting a government official.
The circumstances of the crime allegedly committed by F., according to the prosecution, were as follows.
On July 3, 2021, the next session of deputies of the rural settlement where my client lives took place. It should be noted here that F. takes an active civic position, constantly criticizes the actions of the local administration, and therefore often attends various public events, including sessions of deputies. F. developed a negative relationship with the head of the rural settlement E., whose actions he regularly criticized.
That day, F. accidentally found out about the session that was taking place and showed up to it a little late. After the deputies discussed their questions, F. was given the floor. He began offering to discuss issues that concerned him about the life of the village. During the discussion, E. made a remark to F., to which he, according to the prosecution, became angry and publicly insulted E., who is the head of the rural settlement, i.e. representative of the authorities, namely, he said: “you are a fool”, “a spineless creature”, “a brainless brute”, “a schmuck”, thereby committing a crime under Art. 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
During a conversation with me, F. said that he did not remember well the conflict that occurred between him and E. at the session on July 3, 2021, but he could definitely say that he did not utter the above words. When one of the deputies began to interrupt him, F. only said: “Woof-woof-woof,” thereby wanting to express his protest.
After which this deputy used violence against him and tried to drag him out of the meeting room. F. resisted, then left the hall on his own and called the police, where he reported the violence used against him. F. believed that the case against him was fabricated, since the head of the rural settlement E. and the deputy who used violence against him decided to take revenge on him and “shut his mouth.”
Having testified as a suspect, F. and I submitted several requests to the investigator - to conduct confrontations with E., as well as all the deputies present at the session, as well as the secretary of the meeting, to request the minutes of the session, and several other documents.
I immediately had doubts about the presence of elements of a crime in F.’s actions. I sent a complaint to the prosecutor against the decision to initiate a criminal case, where, in addition to my client’s arguments, the argument was stated about the lack of publicity in F.’s actions, since only deputies and an administration employee (secretary) were present at the session, there were no unauthorized persons. But the complaint was left unsatisfied.
F. decided to fight to the end; he believed that we would be able to convict the deputies and E. of lying during the confrontation.
More than 10 confrontations were held in the case, both with direct witnesses to the incident and with other persons. Of all the deputies, only one stated that he did not hear how F. insulted E. The rest, unfortunately, confirmed the prosecution’s version. Of course, there were minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses, but this, in my opinion, was not enough to refute the prosecution’s version.
Hope appeared after reading the results of a forensic linguistic examination conducted at the Kursk LSE under the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. According to the conclusions of this examination, there is no indecent form of expression in F.’s statements.
F., by that time, according to the conclusion of a forensic psychiatric examination, had been recognized as of limited sanity, did not attach any importance to this, as he continued to insist on his version of events. We got acquainted with the case and filed a short petition to terminate the criminal case (since we understood that the investigator would not terminate the case anyway). The case with the indictment was sent to the prosecutor's office, where it was successfully signed and sent to the magistrate.
F. did not lose his enthusiasm. All witnesses were directly questioned in court; F. constantly submitted petitions for the inclusion of various types of documents. After repeatedly rejecting the petitions, he challenged the judge... The hearings lasted from the morning until the end of the working day.
Then I came across a publication by linguist expert A.V. Akinina, which further strengthened my opinion that there was no corpus delicti in F.’s actions.
The linguist expert questioned in court fully confirmed her conclusion, including the absence of indecent forms in F’s statements. I asked several clarifying questions, to which clear answers were received that satisfied the defense.
It is necessary to note the passive behavior of the state prosecutor, who completely ignored the expert’s conclusion and his answers in court. During the debate, he successfully referred to the said conclusion as evidence of F.’s guilt. The defense asked F. to be acquitted, citing all possible arguments in the debate, one of which was the argument that there was no indecent form in F’s statements.
On December 27, 2019, the court of first instance ruled an acquittal on the basis of clause 3, part 2 of Art. 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation due to the absence of corpus delicti in the act committed by F. This was the best New Year's gift!
But the struggle continued. The state prosecutor, the district prosecutor, and victim E. filed an appeal and a complaint, the arguments of which boiled down to the non-obligatory presence of an indecent form for the crime under Art. 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
A circus began in the appellate court. Two prosecutors were present at the meetings - the deputy district prosecutor, who supported the charge in the court of first instance, and the former district prosecutor, who approved the indictment, currently working in the regional prosecutor's office.
In court, a specialist brought by the prosecution was questioned, who criticized the conclusion of the linguist expert. Her main argument was the argument about the existence of various techniques when conducting linguistic examination in cases of insult. The court agreed to postpone the hearing to draw up a specialist report. Here expert Akinina A.V. came to my aid again, answering in detail my request about existing methods for conducting linguistic examinations. And although the court rejected my request to include her answer in the case file, the information contained in it, as well as her publications, greatly helped me understand this topic.
And then the coronavirus came... The courts were closed for quarantine, so the appeal was postponed indefinitely. Finally, in early June, the long-awaited meeting was scheduled. A linguist expert from the Kursk LSE was interrogated again via video conference. And then it began... Mr. the prosecutor filed a petition to order a second linguistic examination. The court rejected it. Then from the state. petitions began to pour in from the prosecutor, as if from a cornucopia - to postpone the hearing on various grounds, to re-interrogate a specialist, etc.
The court announced 10-minute breaks several times and issued a reprimand to the state prosecutor. As a result, an ambulance was called for the state prosecutor, the paramedic explained that he would be able to participate in the hearing only after 2 hours... Since it was 20:30 on the clock, the court postponed the hearing. Surprisingly, at the next court hearing everything went calmly, and the parties immediately moved on to debates. The appellate court upheld the acquittal.
What struck me in this case was the immense self-confidence of the investigation and the prosecutor’s office, which sent the case in this form to the court. After all, when conducting a linguistic examination in another expert institution at the investigation stage, everything could have ended completely differently...
In conclusion, I would like to once again express my gratitude to expert linguist Anastasia Vyacheslavovna Akinina for her prompt assistance and selfless cooperation.
Judicial practice: sentences and punishment under Art. 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 27, 2002 N 29 ON JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES OF THEFT,...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination N 203-APU17-21... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 203-APU17-21 APPEAL DECISION Moscow August 31, 2021 Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel of the Supreme...
- Ruling of the ECtHR dated 02/14/2017 EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE “MASLOVA VS. RUSSIAN FEDERATION” (Complaint No. 15980/12) JUDGMENT…
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION of November 15, 2021 N 48 ON THE PRACTICE OF APPLICATION BY COURTS OF LEGISLATION GOVERNING FEATURES...
- Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 5, 2018 N 126-P18 ON RESUMING PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE DUE TO NEW...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Resolution No. 310P13 dated... DECISION OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 310-P13 Moscow January 23, 2014 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 72-АПУ17-1 dated... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 72-АПУ17-1 APPEAL DECISION Moscow February 2, 2021 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases...
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENAUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated June 25, 2021 N 18 ON JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES OF CRIMES,...
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENAUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 17, 2021 N 43 ON SOME ISSUES OF JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES...
- Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases, appeal:... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 72-APU 17-21 APPEAL DECISION Moscow October 04, 2021 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases...
Article 319. Insulting a representative of the authorities
ECtHR ruling dated October 3, 2017 12. The applicant, being intoxicated, did not stop behaving aggressively even after the police officers warned the applicant about the illegal nature of her behavior. Since the applicant's actions constituted a public insult to a government official, an act punishable under Article 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), P. and T. asked the applicant to follow them to the police station to draw up a report. The applicant refused to comply with this demand and they took her hands to put her into the police car. The applicant resisted and tried to fall to her knees. At that moment, F. ran out of the house and kicked one of the policemen in the stomach. P. and T. were forced to stop F.’s aggression by using physical force and handcuffing him. They then took F. to the police station.
Appeal ruling of the Appeal Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/07/2018 N APL18-241
Davoyan Arthur Mnatsakanovich, born ... in the city ... of the Republic ..., accused of committing crimes under Art. Art. 319, 318 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Having heard the report of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Yu.V. Sitnikov, the speech of the accused A.M. Davoyan, his defense attorney S.V. Poddubny. in support of the arguments of the appeal, the speech of prosecutor Gurova V.Yu. about the absence of grounds for canceling and changing the court decision, Board of Appeal
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/04/2019 N 56-APU19-9
1. December 15, 2014 under Art. 318 part 1, art. 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 2 years of suspended imprisonment with a probationary period of 1 year; 2. July 6, 2016 under Art. 158 part 2 clauses “b”, “c”, art. Part 3, Art. 158 part 2 paragraph “b” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 2 years of suspended imprisonment with a probationary period of 2 years;
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 30, 2019 N 67-APU19-5
Kolchunov Alexey Igorevich, ..., convicted on April 30, 2014 under Art. 319, paragraph “g”, part 2 of Art. 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 2 years in prison and a fine of 1,000 rubles, released on April 29, 2021 after serving the sentence,
Decision of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 14, 2019 N DK19-65
In violation of the provisions of Articles 259, 312, 390 and 393 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in 2 criminal cases - case No. 1-52/2008 on the charge of Ch. under Article 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and case No. 1-2/2009 on the charge K. and K. under Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - there is no information on the execution of judicial acts, and it was also established that there were no minutes of court hearings, applications for payment of remuneration to lawyers were not considered, the cases were not numbered and filed, reference sheets were not filled out.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 20, 2018 N 88-APU18-6
By the verdict of the Tomsk Regional Court dated June 8, 2021, P. was convicted under paragraph “i” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In the appeals, the convicted P. and his defense lawyer asked to reclassify P.’s actions from clause “i” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation at Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since there was a conflict between the convicted person and the victim, provoked by the victim himself.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 19, 2018 N 4-APU18-23
Rashchupkin Vladimir Aleksandrovich, ... convicted by the verdict of the Magistrate Judge of the Cheboksary District Court dated November 29, 2012 under Art. 119, part 1 art. 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to punishment in the form of 350 hours of compulsory labor; the sentence has not been served, acquitted under Part 2 of Art. 209 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of clause 2, part 1, art. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation for the absence of corpus delicti in the act, with the right to rehabilitation in this part;
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 11, 2018 N 88-APU18-6
- according to Art. 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - for 6 (six) months of correctional labor with the deduction of 10% of wages to the state income. Based on Part 3 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the totality of crimes by partial addition of the imposed punishments was assigned to Yu.V. Parnishchev. 18 (eighteen) years 6 (six) months of imprisonment in a maximum security penal colony.
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 20, 2019 N 109-P19
The same resolution refused to initiate a criminal case against employees of the Department of Internal Affairs in the Novotoryalsky district of the Republic of Mari El V. and S., based on a report of their use of violence against L., refused to initiate a criminal case against R.A. Lebedev. and other persons upon notification of their uttering threats of violence, obscene insulting expressions addressed to employees of the Department of Internal Affairs in the Novotoryalsky district of the Republic of Mari El, who are in the performance of official duties, under Art. 319 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of clause 2, part 1, art. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation for the absence of corpus delicti in their actions, under Part 1 of Art. 130 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - on the basis of clause 5, part 1, art. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation due to the absence of a complaint from the victim.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated December 19, 2017 N 2868-O
THE RIGHTS OF ARTICLE 319 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, composed of Chairman V.D. Zorkin, judges K.V. Aranovsky, A.I. Boytsova, N.S. Bondar, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M. Zharkova, S.M. Kazantseva, S.D. Knyazeva, A.N. Kokotova, L.O. Krasavchikova, S.P. Mavrina, N.V. Melnikova, Yu.D. Rudkina, O.S. Khokhryakova, V.G. Yaroslavtseva,
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated December 19, 2017 N 2870-O
ARTICLE 319 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, composed of Chairman V.D. Zorkin, judges K.V. Aranovsky, A.I. Boytsova, N.S. Bondar, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M. Zharkova, S.M. Kazantseva, S.D. Knyazeva, A.N. Kokotova, L.O. Krasavchikova, S.P. Mavrina, N.V. Melnikova, Yu.D. Rudkina, O.S. Khokhryakova, V.G. Yaroslavtseva,
