Article 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
1. The objectives of this Code are: protection of human and civil rights and freedoms, property, public order and public safety, the environment, the constitutional system of the Russian Federation from criminal attacks, ensuring peace and security of mankind, as well as crime prevention.
2. To carry out these tasks, this Code establishes the basis and principles of criminal liability, determines what acts dangerous to the individual, society or the state are recognized as crimes, and establishes types of punishments and other measures of a criminal legal nature for committing crimes.
Commentary to Art. 2 of the Criminal Code
1. Criminal law is designed to protect public relations from socially dangerous attacks. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation in Part 1 of Art. 2 of the Criminal Code of Russia establishes a hierarchy of values placed under criminal legal protection. This sequence was also observed when constructing the Special Part of the Criminal Code.
2. Criminal law is designed to prevent crimes. Private prevention serves to prevent violations of criminal law prohibitions by persons who have already committed crimes. Private prevention is achieved by imposing criminal penalties or other measures of a criminal legal nature on such persons.
General prevention serves to prevent violations of criminal law prohibitions by other citizens. General prevention is achieved by establishing in the criminal law not only prohibition norms, but also enabling norms (for example, on exemption from criminal liability in the case of positive behavior of the perpetrator after criminal behavior). General warning is carried out from the moment the law is published.
Article 2. Objectives 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 May 29, 2018 N 35-APU18-5 against the decision of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Gutsan A.V. dated October 25, 2021 on his extradition to law enforcement agencies of the Republic of Uzbekistan for criminal prosecution under Part 1 of Art. 244- of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, was left without satisfaction. After hearing the report of Judge Istomina G.N., the speech of Dalabaev Sh.A. and lawyer T.V. Shirokov, who supported the arguments of the prosecutor of complaints, the speech of prosecutor K.I. Koval, who believed that the court ruling should be left unchanged, Judicial Collegium
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated February 28, 2019 N 545-O
According to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, during the probationary period established by the court when assigning a suspended sentence, the convicted person must prove his correction by his behavior (part three of Article 73). The fact of committing a crime before the expiration of the probationary period refutes the statement about the correction of the conditionally convicted person and provides grounds for imposing punishment based on the totality of sentences. Otherwise, it would be contrary to the objectives of the criminal law, the principles of guilt and justice (Articles , and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Accordingly, this Code establishes that when imposing a punishment based on a cumulative sentence, the unserved part of the punishment under the previous court sentence is partially or fully added to the punishment imposed according to the last court sentence (part one of Article 70); If a conditionally convicted person commits an intentional grave or especially grave crime during the probationary period, the court revokes the conditional sentence and imposes a punishment on him according to the rules provided for in Article 70 of this Code (part five of Article 74). The above norms of criminal law are based on the constitutional principles of fairness and proportionality of responsibility to the values protected by legislation and involve differentiation of public legal responsibility, taking into account the punishment that was previously imposed by a court verdict, but was not executed at the time of the commission of a new crime (rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 16 2012 N 370-О-О, dated April 23, 2013 N 572-О, dated July 16, 2013 N 1129-О, dated February 20, 2014 N 352-О and dated September 29, 2015 N 2077-О).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 18, 2019 N 1866-O
The fact that a crime was committed during this period refutes the correction of the parolee and provides grounds for imposing a punishment based on the aggregate of sentences, in which the unserved part of the punishment under the previous court sentence is partially or fully added to the punishment imposed by the last court sentence. Otherwise, it would be contrary to the objectives of the criminal law, the principles of guilt and justice (Articles , and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Accordingly, the period for expunging a criminal record in this case is calculated from the moment of serving the sentence imposed according to the totality of sentences (rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated May 28, 2013 N 793-O, dated September 29, 2015 N 2286-O and March 28, 2021 N 558-O).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 28, 2017 N 558-O
According to the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the basis for the parole of a person serving a sentence, in particular, is the recognition by the court that for his correction he does not need to fully serve the sentence imposed by the court, as well as compensation for damage (in whole or in part) caused by the crime in the amount determined by a court decision. Consequently, during the remaining unserved part of the sentence, the convicted person must prove his correction by his behavior, which is the condition for his release. The fact that a crime was committed during this period refutes the correction of the parolee and provides grounds for imposing a punishment based on the aggregate of sentences, in which the unserved part of the punishment under the previous court sentence is partially or fully added to the punishment imposed by the last court sentence. Otherwise, it would be contrary to the objectives of the criminal law, the principles of guilt and justice (Articles , and of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) (Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of May 28, 2013 N 793-O). Accordingly, the period for expunging a criminal record in this case is calculated from the moment of serving the sentence imposed by the totality of sentences (Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of September 29, 2015 N 2286-O).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated November 23, 2017 N 2779-O
1. In his complaint to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, citizen K.V. Sonin, who is serving a criminal sentence in the form of imprisonment, asks to be declared inconsistent with the preamble of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and its articles 1, 2, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 45, 46, 48, 49 , 50, 52, 54, 68, 120, 123 and 126 Federal Law of July 3, 2021 N 324-FZ “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation”, Article 14 of the Federal Law of August 20 2004 N 119-FZ “On state protection of victims, witnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings”, Federal Law of June 1, 2005 N 53-FZ “On the state language of the Russian Federation”, Articles 10 and 16.1 of the Federal Law of April 3, 1995 N 40-FZ “On the Federal Security Service”, articles 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 15 of the Federal Law of August 12, 1995 N 144-FZ “On operational investigative activities”, articles , , , , , , , , , 290, 291, 303 and 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, chapters 9, 11, 13, 19, 20, 39, 45.1, 47.1 and articles 1, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 , 21, 29, 40, 47, 56, 60, 61, 62, 73, 74, 75, 83, 87, 88, 89, 140, 144, 145, 159, 165, 171, 182, 183, 220, 252 , 259, 260, 283, 299, 302, 307, 313, 389.34, 397 and 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 23, 2017 in case No. AKPI17-898
March 4, 2011 Litvinov S.Yu. charged with committing crimes under Part 4 of Art. 159 and part 1 and art. 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, on March 9 of the same year he was interrogated as an accused and a preventive measure was chosen for him in the form of a written undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 23, 2019 N 222-APU19-5
The testimony of Davranov himself, examined in court, witnesses Kh., T., K.A., specialist D. and other evidence underlying the verdict, including copies of procedural documents issued by the investigator of the Investigation Department at the Internal Affairs Directorate ... region of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the initiation of against citizens M. and I. of criminal cases under paragraph “b” of Part 2 of Art. 223 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (illegal travel abroad committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy), Part 1 of Art. 244- Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (creation, leadership, participation in religious extremist, separatist, fundamentalist or other prohibited organizations), Part 12 of Art. 154 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (mercenarism), and in relation to M., in addition, under paragraph “g” of Part 3 of Art. 244- of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (production, storage, distribution or display of materials containing a threat to public safety and public order, committed using the worldwide information network “Internet”), confirm Davranov’s awareness of M. and I.’s involvement in the activities of a terrorist organization.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated March 26, 2020 N 790-O
The fact of committing a crime before the expiration of the probationary period refutes the statement about the correction of the conditionally convicted person and provides grounds for imposing punishment based on the totality of sentences. Otherwise, it would be contrary to the objectives of the criminal law, principles of guilt and justice enshrined in the articles and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Accordingly, this Code establishes that when imposing a punishment based on a cumulative sentence, the unserved part of the punishment under the previous court sentence is partially or fully added to the punishment imposed according to the last court sentence (part one of Article 70); If a conditionally convicted person commits an intentional grave or especially grave crime during the probationary period, the court revokes the conditional sentence and imposes a punishment on him according to the rules provided for in Article 70 of this Code (part five of Article 74). The above norms are based on the constitutional principles of fairness and proportionality of responsibility to the values protected by legislation and imply differentiation of public and legal responsibility, taking into account the punishment that was previously imposed by a court verdict, but was not executed at the time of the commission of a new crime. Such a revocation of a suspended sentence and the imposition of punishment based on the totality of sentences are based on the establishment in the court verdict of the fact of the commission of a new grave or especially grave crime during the probationary period (rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated February 16, 2012 N 370-О-О, dated April 23, 2013 of the year N 572-O, dated July 16, 2013 N 1129-O, dated February 20, 2014 N 352-O, dated September 29, 2015 N 2077-O and dated February 28, 2021 N 545-O).
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 29, 2018 N 18-UD18-63
In the cassation appeal, the convicted Didenko V.S. challenges the legality of the decision of the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated February 28, 2021, asks to cancel it, review the decision of the Ust-Labinsky District Court of the Krasnodar Territory dated November 9, 2004 and in accordance with Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is to amend the verdicts of the Belorechensky District Court of the Krasnodar Territory dated July 26, 2000 and the Krasnodar Regional Court dated January 23, 2003. According to the verdict of July 26, 2000, the convict asks to reclassify his actions under paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Art. 166, paragraph “a” of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as amended by Federal Law No. 26-FZ of March 7, 2011, which, in his opinion, improves his situation and mitigates the punishment using Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and according to the verdict of January 23, 2003 - to exclude the court’s indication of the presence in his actions of a particularly dangerous recidivism of crimes and to mitigate the punishment imposed on him under clauses “b”, “d” of Part 2 of Art. 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and paragraphs “g”, “k”, part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as on the totality of these crimes on the basis of Part 3 of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the totality of sentences in accordance with Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 20, 2020 N 222-APU20-1SP
lawyer Sagadiev I.E., that in issue No. 61 the court illegally combined four acts provided for in Parts 1 and 2 of Art. 209 and part 1 and part 2 of Art. 210 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which do not form an ideal totality, which resulted in difficulties for the jury in understanding and comprehending these issues;
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 23, 2020 N 1902-O
Within the meaning of Article 54 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which specifies the generally recognized legal principle of NULLum crimen, NULLa poena sine lege (no crime, no punishment unless specified in the law), in conjunction with the provisions of part two of article and article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, parts one and two Article 1, Articles 24, 27 and 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the norms of criminal law serve as a substantive prerequisite for criminal procedural activity: suspicion or accusation of committing a crime must be based only on the provisions of the criminal law defining the criminality of the act, its punishability and other criminal - legal consequences, which establishes all the elements of a crime, the presence of which in the act, being the only basis for criminal liability, is subject to establishment only in the proper procedural order, mandatory for the court, prosecutor, head of the investigative body, investigator, interrogator and other participants in criminal proceedings (decrees of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 14, 2011 No. 16-P, dated November 19, 2013 No. 24-P, etc.).
Second commentary to Art. 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. From the wording of the commented article it is clear that the protective function of criminal law is put in first place, which is its main task, for the sake of which it exists.
2. The Criminal Code, defining the tasks of criminal legislation, established the priorities of criminal legal protection. The hierarchy of values protected by criminal law is as follows: individual - society - state. Priority protection of the individual comes from the Constitution of the Russian Federation and corresponds to the traditions existing in developed democratic states. At the legislative level, such a task as ensuring the peace and security of mankind is formulated. Among the tasks of criminal legislation, crime prevention has been highlighted for the first time, although it is obvious that such a task has always been there. This task reflects the preventive function of criminal law. Criminal law has an educational function.
3. The implementation of the assigned tasks is achieved by specific means provided for in Part 2 of Art. 2. The criminal law establishes the grounds and principles of criminal liability, determines what dangerous acts are considered criminal, and establishes types of punishments and other measures of a criminal legal nature.
