ST 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
1. A person found guilty of committing a crime is given a fair punishment within the limits provided for by the relevant article of the Special Part of this Code, and taking into account the provisions of the General Part of this Code. A more severe type of punishment from among those provided for the crime committed is assigned only if a less severe type of punishment cannot ensure the achievement of the goals of the punishment.
2. A more severe punishment than provided for by the relevant articles of the Special Part of this Code for the crime committed may be imposed for the totality of crimes and for the totality of sentences in accordance with Articles 69 and 70 of this Code. The grounds for imposing a less severe punishment than provided for by the relevant article of the Special Part of this Code for a crime committed are determined by Article 64 of this Code.
3. When assigning punishment, the nature and degree of public danger of the crime and the personality of the perpetrator, including circumstances mitigating and aggravating the punishment, as well as the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and on the living conditions of his family, are taken into account.
Commentary to Art. 60 Criminal Code
1. The general principles of sentencing are the fundamental rules (requirements) formulated in the criminal law that the court must follow when imposing a penalty. It is assigned:
- within the limits provided for by the relevant article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code. The court assigns to the guilty only such punishment as is directly indicated in the sanction of the relevant norm of the Special Part of the Criminal Code. If the sanction is with alternatively specified types of punishment, then the court should choose a specific type and determine its duration (size). When imposing a punishment, one cannot go beyond the lower and upper limits of the punishment, with the exception of special cases provided for in Art. 64, 69 and 70 of the Criminal Code;
- taking into account the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code. This requirement to a certain extent specifies the above rule. It is due to the fact that in some cases, in order to correctly assign punishment within the framework of the sanction of the norm of the Special Part of the Criminal Code, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code, which determine the features of each type of punishment, starting from the minimum and maximum term (size) and ending with it content.
If there are alternative types of punishment, the court must first consider the possibility of assigning a more lenient type of punishment from among those provided. A more stringent form is applied only if a less severe form cannot achieve the goals of punishment (clause 27 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 22, 2015 No. 58 “On the practice of imposing criminal punishment by the courts of the Russian Federation”). At the same time, the punishment should not be excessively lenient, since then it will give rise to a feeling of permissiveness in the guilty person, and should not be unjustifiably harsh, so as not to embitter the convicted person.
In the event that a convicted person, by virtue of the provisions established by law, cannot be assigned any of the types of punishment provided for in the relevant article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code (for example, compulsory labor - by virtue of Part 4 of Article 49 of the Criminal Code, corrective labor - by virtue of Part 5 Article 50 of the Criminal Code, forced labor and arrest - due to their non-application at present, imprisonment - by virtue of Part 1 of Article 56 of the Criminal Code), he should be given a more lenient punishment than provided for by the sanction of the relevant norm. Link to Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not required in this case;
— taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime (clause 27 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 22, 2015 N 58 “On the practice of imposing criminal punishment by the courts of the Russian Federation”); the identity of the culprit; circumstances mitigating and aggravating punishment; the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and on the living conditions of his family (this takes into account the financial situation of the family, whether the defendant is the sole breadwinner, how many family members are dependent on him, as well as the nature of the relationship of the defendant with his family members).
2. The process of imposing punishment involves taking into account all the rules of the general principles of imposing punishment in the aggregate.
Second commentary to Art. 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. Imposition of punishment is one of the stages of application of the criminal law, consisting in determining for a specific person who committed a crime the types and amounts of punishment necessary and sufficient to achieve the goals of criminal punishment. The general principles of sentencing mean the basic ideas (requirements, criteria) that the court must follow when determining the punishment of a person guilty of committing a crime (crimes).
2. The types of general principles are:
1) imposition of punishment within the limits provided for in the article of the Special Part;
2) imposition of punishment taking into account the provisions of the General Part;
3) imposition of punishment taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime and the identity of the perpetrator, including circumstances mitigating and aggravating the punishment;
4) imposition of punishment, taking into account the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and on the living conditions of his family.
3. The limits of the sanction of an article (part of an article) are determined by the limits of those penalties that are indicated in it. Wherein:
a) a person can be assigned only those types of basic punishment that are provided for by the sanction of a specific article;
b) it is possible to assign only one, but any of the main types of punishment provided for by the sanction;
c) a person cannot be given penalties that have not been put into effect or are not executed for other reasons;
d) a more severe type of punishment from among those provided for the crime committed is imposed only if a less severe type of punishment cannot ensure the achievement of the goals of punishment (see about this, paragraph 27 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 22, 2015 No. 58 (ed. dated 12/18/2018) “On the practice of imposing criminal punishment by the courts of the Russian Federation”, hereinafter referred to as PPVS 2015);
e) it is possible to impose any amount or duration of the main punishment of a specific type, within the limits specified by law, including the minimum or maximum punishment;
f) the person may be given an additional penalty provided for in the sanction article as an optional one; in some cases there may be two or more additional penalties;
g) if an additional punishment is provided for in the sanction article as mandatory, the court is obliged to apply it;
h) the amount or term of additional punishment can be any within the limits specified by law.
4. The imposition of punishment, taking into account the provisions of the General Part, presupposes: a) the lower limit of punishment, if it is not specified in a specific sanction, is determined by the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code, establishing the minimum possible term for this type of punishment;
b) in a number of cases, based on the provisions of the General Part, the court may replace one type of main punishment provided for in the sanction article with another (punishments applied to military personnel and forced labor instead of imprisonment);
c) taking into account the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code, the court may independently decide the issue of imposing certain additional penalties in cases where they are not provided for by the sanction of the article of the Special Part;
d) when imposing a sentence, the court must take into account the restrictions established by the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code on the application of certain types of punishment to certain categories of convicts (disabled people, pregnant women, etc.).
5. The imposition of punishment is carried out taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime and the identity of the perpetrator. At the same time, according to paragraph 1 of the 2015 PPVS, the nature of the public danger of a crime is determined by criminal law and depends on the elements of the crime established by the court. When taking into account the nature of the public danger of a crime, courts should bear in mind, first of all, the focus of the act on social values protected by criminal law and the harm caused by it.
The degree of public danger of a crime is established by the court depending on the specific circumstances of the crime, in particular on the nature and size of the consequences that occurred, the method of committing the crime, the role of the defendant in the crime committed in complicity, on the type of intent (direct or indirect) or negligence (frivolity or negligence) . Circumstances mitigating or aggravating punishment (Articles 61 and 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and related to the crime committed (for example, committing a crime due to a combination of difficult life circumstances or motivated by compassion, a particularly active role in the commission of a crime) are also taken into account when determining the degree of public danger crimes.
6. Personal information that must be taken into account when sentencing includes information characterizing the guilty party that the court has at its disposal when passing a sentence. These may, in particular, include data on the family and property status of the person who committed the crime, his state of health, behavior at home, whether he has dependent minor children, other disabled persons (spouse, parents, other close relatives). Based on the provisions of Part 6 of Art. 86 of the Criminal Code, courts should not take into account as negatively characterizing the personality of the defendant data indicating that he has expunged or expunged convictions in the prescribed manner (clause 1 of the 2015 PPVS).
Judicial practice under Article 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 12, 2019 N 201-APU19-42
Punishment for the convicted persons was imposed in accordance with the requirements of the law, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed, information about their personality, mitigating and other circumstances, provided for in Part 3 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as taking into account the provisions of Part 5 of Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 14, 2017 N 128P17
In terms of its type and size, the punishment imposed on Udovichenko, both for individual crimes and in their totality, according to the rules of Part 3 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, meets the requirements of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the gravity of the crime committed by it and the identity of the convicted person, and is not unfair due to its excessive severity.
Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 09/05/2017 N 45-UD17-19
The punishment was imposed on the convicted person in accordance with the requirements of Art. Art. , , part 2 art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed, the specific circumstances of the case, data on the identity of the perpetrator. Issues related to the execution of a sentence in the presence of other unexecuted sentences, if this is not resolved in the latest sentence in accordance with Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, are resolved by the court that passed the sentence in the manner prescribed by Art. 396, 397 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 11, 2017 N 11-UD17-39
In accordance with Art. According to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the punishment applied to a person who has committed a crime must be fair, that is, correspond to the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission and the identity of the perpetrator. In accordance with Part 3 of Art. When imposing punishment, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation takes into account the nature and degree of social danger of the crime, including circumstances mitigating and aggravating the punishment, the identity of the perpetrator, as well as the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and on the living conditions of his family.
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 27, 2017 N 169P17
In accordance with Part 1 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a person found guilty of committing a crime is given a fair punishment within the limits provided for by the relevant article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and taking into account the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 4, 2017 N 72-APU17-21
Believes that the court wrongfully pointed out in the verdict his ruthlessness, cold-bloodedness, lack of any compassion for the victims, cynicism, since the list of aggravating circumstances is exhaustive; believes that the court ignored mitigating circumstances, the requirements of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has not been implemented in full. The court did not take into account that for two crimes (under Article 166 and Part 5 of Art., Part 1 of Article 161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) the criminal case against him was terminated, for a number of crimes qualifying criteria were excluded, as a result the scope of the charge was reduced, which improves his situation, but the court imposed the maximum punishment on him for the totality of crimes, did not take into account mitigating circumstances when assigning punishment for the totality of crimes and determining the term of serving the sentence in prison, which was not motivated in any way. Indicates that in one of the episodes qualified under Part 3 of Art. 226 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation related to the F-1 grenade, the statute of limitations expired, in addition, for the second grenade, the statute of limitations expired on August 18, 2021.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06.06.2018 N 48-APU18-10
Punishment for the convicts was imposed in accordance with the requirements of the articles and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, contrary to the arguments of the complaints, the court took into account as circumstances mitigating the punishment of the convicted, confession and active assistance in solving the crime. Along with this, the court rightfully recognized as aggravating circumstances the commission of crimes while intoxicated, as well as the presence of recidivism in their actions.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/07/2018 N 50-APU18-8
Punishment for convicted Nurimbetov B.I. and Yusupov M.A. both for each crime individually and for a combination of crimes, assigned in accordance with the requirements of Art. and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - fair, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crimes committed, information about individuals, including those indicated in appeals, all the circumstances of the case, as well as the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of convicts and the living conditions of their families.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 17, 2018 N 4-APU18-18SP
Shabunin's punishment was imposed in accordance with the requirements of Art. , , of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of the crime, personal data, the presence of mitigating circumstances, and the jury’s recognition of him as deserving leniency. The court fully justified the conclusion regarding the non-recognition of Shabunin’s “sincere confession” as his confession and active assistance, with which the Judicial Panel finds no reason to disagree.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 23, 2018 N 41-APU18-6
lawyer Mikhailova M.M. in defense of the interests of the convicted Miroshnichenko S.S. asks to cancel the verdict and make a decision to acquit her client. In support, he argues that there is no evidence of Miroshnichenko’s involvement in the deprivation of the victim’s life; the blows inflicted by V. Miroshnichenko are not causally related to the death of the victim; Experts did not find any traces of impact from these blows on the victim’s body; from what exact actions and from the influence of what object the death of the victim followed was not clarified during expert research; the circumstances of the intent to kidnap the victim do not correspond to those established by the investigative authorities; the trial of the case was conducted with an accusatory bias, the assessment of the evidence given by the court is biased; When assigning punishment to Miroshnichenko, the court did not sufficiently take into account the provisions of Art. - The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the attitude of the convicted person to the crime, the presence of mitigating circumstances in his actions, imposed an unfair, excessively harsh punishment;
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 24, 2018 N 201-APU18-19
Punishment for Dzhumaev N.M. assigned taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, information about the identity of the convicted person, other circumstances taken into account when assigning punishment, including mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances. Requirements of Art. Art. , the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation were complied with by the court.
