ST 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
1. The use of violence that is not dangerous to the life or health of the convicted person, or the threat of violence against him in order to prevent the correction of the convicted person or out of revenge for the assistance he provided to the administration of an institution or body of the penal system - is punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to five years.
2. The acts provided for in the first part of this article, committed against an employee of a place of deprivation of liberty or a place of detention in connection with his official activities or his relatives, are punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to five years.
3. Acts provided for in parts one and two of this article, committed by an organized group or with the use of violence dangerous to life or health, are punishable by imprisonment for a term of five to twelve years.
Commentary to Art. 321 Criminal Code
1. Disorganization affects the activities of those special institutions that ensure the isolation of persons from society when executing their imprisonment-related penalties, as well as procedural coercive measures.
2. The victims include: a) those sentenced to punishments associated with isolation from society (parts 1 and 3); b) employees (persons with a special rank) of places of deprivation of liberty or places of detention or their relatives (parts 2 and 3). The named employees and their relatives may be victims when an attack on an employee is committed in connection with the performance of his official activities.
3. The objective side of the main elements (parts 1 and 2) is characterized either by the use of violence that is not dangerous to the life or health of the victim (see commentary to Article 318 of the Criminal Code), or by the threat of violence (intimidation by the use of physical violence of any intensity in the form , accessible to the victim’s perception of the expressed intimidation and clearly perceived by him).
The crime is considered completed from the moment one of these actions is committed.
4. The use of violence dangerous to life or health constitutes an act in the objective aspect of a qualified crime and is characterized either by the method - a danger to these benefits, or by the consequences - causing harm to health.
The content of the second qualifying feature—the commission of a crime by an organized group—is identical to the content of a similar feature in other crimes.
5. Subjective side - direct intent, as well as (according to the characteristics of the victim) either the goal of preventing the correction of the convicted person (parts 1 and 3) or the official activities of the employee (parts 2 and 3), or the motive of revenge on the convicted person for the assistance he provided to the administration of the institution or body of the penal system (parts 1 and 3) or an employee and his relatives in connection with the performance of official activities (parts 2 and 3).
6. Subjects are persons serving a sentence of imprisonment or being held in custody. Recognition of other persons as subjects is controversial.
Commentary to Art. 321 Civil Code of the Russian Federation
1. The commented article establishes general rules for determining the legal regime of obligations with a plurality of persons on the side of the creditor and (or) debtor.
Following the historically established principle “solidarity is not assumed” that exists in all developed legal orders, the commented article presupposes such obligations as shared obligations.
Thus, with active plurality, each creditor has the right to claim a certain amount. This right exists independently, separately and independently of the rights of other creditors, and is also independently exercised. With passive plurality, each of the debtors bears a separate, independent and separate debt in the amount of his share. With mixed (active-passive) plurality, both of the above options exist simultaneously.
The independent and separate nature of several shared obligations is manifested in the inadmissibility of the debtor using objections arising from his relations with other co-creditors, in the impossibility of using the mechanism of recourse (reverse) claim, since the debtor repays only his own debt, etc.
2. One of the general rules provided for in the commented article is the presumption of equality of shares of all co-creditors and (or) co-debtors.
3. The rules established by the commented article are dispositive. Otherwise may follow from the law, other legal acts or agreement.
Other options for the legal regime of an obligation with a plurality of persons include, first of all, shared plurality with different sizes of shares of co-creditors and (or) co-debtors. An example of this is the established clause 1 of Art. 1047 of the Civil Code, the liability of participants in a “non-profit” simple partnership for general contractual obligations is proportional to the value of the contribution of each participant to the common cause. In a shared manner, in proportion to the degree of their guilt, the legal representatives and the corresponding educational (medical or other) organization will be responsible for harm caused to minors, if the harm caused is a consequence of both shortcomings in education and failure to exercise proper supervision on the part of the organization (Article 1073 of the Civil Code).
Another option for the legal regime of the obligations under consideration will be the solidary nature of plurality (see Art. 322 - 326 of the Civil Code and commentary thereto).
4. Unlike the Civil Code of 1922 (Article 115) and the Civil Code of 1964 (Article 179), the commented article does not limit the possibility of changing the rule on the shared nature of plurality only by law or agreement. The wording of the “conditions of an obligation” used by the legislator is quite broad and includes both possible sources of its occurrence - an agreement, a unilateral transaction, and the direct nature of the obligation (for example, the indivisibility of its subject - see Article 324 of the Civil Code and the commentary thereto).
Second commentary to Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The activities of correctional institutions entrusted with the duty of executing sentences, as well as the activities of pre-trial detention centers are regulated by the legislation of the Russian Federation: the Law of the Russian Federation of July 21, 1993 “On institutions and bodies executing criminal punishment in the form of imprisonment” and the Federal Law of the Russian Federation dated July 15, 1995 “On the detention of suspects and accused of committing crimes.” In accordance with the legislation, as well as with paragraph 2 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR dated 06.21.1985 “On judicial practice in cases of criminal liability for actions that disrupt the work of correctional labor institutions”, to the administration of places of deprivation of liberty, as well as temporary detention centers include: persons in command; military personnel of the Internal Troops; persons who provide general education and vocational training, medical care, and management of the production activities of convicts in these institutions.
2. Employees of a place of deprivation of liberty or a place of detention, in addition to the administration of the institution, include employees who have special ranks of ordinary or commanding personnel of the internal affairs bodies of the Russian Federation; workers and employees of all institutions included in the penal system (including medical and correctional institutions).
3. Employees of places of detention include members of the rank-and-file and commanding staff of internal affairs bodies, employees of institutions and bodies of the FSB, the Border Troops of the Russian Federation and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, performing duties to ensure the regime of detention, captains of sea vessels and heads of winter quarters.
4. Persons close to employees of places of deprivation of liberty and places of detention are determined in accordance with the criteria formulated when considering the elements of the crime provided for in Art. 317 CC.
5. Disorganization of the activities of institutions that ensure isolation from society is provided for by two independent offenses provided for in parts 1 and 2 of the commented article.
The objective signs of the acts provided for in parts 1 and 2 of Article 321 of the Criminal Code are identical: the use of violence that is not dangerous to life and health, or the threat of violence (see: commentary on Article 318 of the Criminal Code). According to Part 1 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code, these actions are carried out in relation to the convicted person, and under Part 2 - in relation to an employee of the place of deprivation of liberty or place of detention.
6. The subjective side of the crime provided for in Part 1 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code, includes the direct intent and purpose of preventing the correction of a convicted person or the motive of revenge for the assistance he provided to the administration of an institution or body of the penal system.
7. The subjective side of the crime provided for in Part 2 of Art. 321 of the Criminal Code, includes the direct intent and purpose of obstructing the activities of an employee of a place of deprivation of liberty or a place of detention, or the motive of revenge for carrying out official activities.
8. The subject of the crimes provided for in parts 1 and 2 of Article 321 of the Criminal Code is a convicted person serving a sentence in a place of deprivation of liberty, a suspect or accused, held in a temporary detention center (pre-trial detention center), who has reached the age of 16.
9. A qualified type of disruption of the activities of institutions that ensure isolation from society is provided for in Part 3 of Art. 321 CC. Its content, in addition to the main elements, includes qualifying signs of committing a crime by an organized group or with the use of violence dangerous to life and health. For the content of these signs, see: comments to Articles 105 and 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Judicial practice: sentences and punishment under Art. 321 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
- 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...
- 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,...
- 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...
- 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...
- 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...
- 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...
- 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…
- Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 13, 2018 N 578-O THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION RULING dated March 13, 2018 N 578-O ON THE REFUSAL TO ACCEPT A CITIZEN’S COMPLAINT FOR CONSIDERATION...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 38-АПУ17-2 dated... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION No. 38-АПУ17-2 APPEAL DECISION Moscow March 1, 2021 Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court...
- 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 practice under Article 321 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 24, 2020 N 309-ES20-1841 in case N A47-10335/2018
The courts of first and appellate instances, having examined and assessed, according to the rules of Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the evidence presented in the case materials, having analyzed the terms of the agreement dated 08/07/2008 N 38-08/08 lease of land, guided by articles 195, 200, 309, 310, 321, 322, 395, 606, 610, 614, 621, 622 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, articles 22, 65 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, applying At the request of the defendant, the statute of limitations in relation to the claims made by the Krasnopolye company until June 25, 2015, came to the conclusion that there were grounds for collecting 25,636,779 rubles from the Gazprom company. 72 kopecks debts and 3,606,103 rubles. interest accrued on the debt amount.
