Article 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and comments to it

1. The commission by an official of actions that clearly go beyond the scope of his powers and entail a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or the interests of society or the state protected by law is punishable by a fine in the amount of up to eighty thousand rubles or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person. for a period of up to six months, or deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to five years, or forced labor for a term of up to four years, or arrest for a term of four to six months, or imprisonment for a term of up to four years.

2. The same act committed by a person holding a public office of the Russian Federation or a public office of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as the head of a local government body, is punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of the salary or other income of the person convicted of a period of one to two years, or forced labor for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years or without it, or imprisonment for a term of up to seven years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions, or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years or without it.

3. Acts provided for in parts one or two of this article, if they are committed: a) with the use of violence or the threat of its use; b) using weapons or special means; c) causing grave consequences - is punishable by imprisonment for a term of three to ten years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.

Commentary on Article 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

1. The objective side of the crime consists in the commission by an official of actions that clearly go beyond the limits of the rights and powers granted to him by law. These should be considered actions that sharply and obviously do not correspond to the authority of the person.

2. Exceeding official powers may be expressed:

- in committing actions that relate to the powers of another official (superior or equal in status) or can be performed only in the presence of special circumstances specified in the law or regulations (for example, the use of weapons);

- a single decision or action that must be carried out collectively or in agreement with another official or body (for example, the issuance by a judge of an act requiring a decision as part of a panel of judges);

- committing actions that no one has the right to commit under any circumstances (for example, using violence against a suspect or accused) (clause 19 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On judicial practice in cases of abuse of power and exceeding official powers”) .

3. On the content of the consequences in the form of a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or legally protected interests of society or the state, see the commentary to Art. 285 CC.

4. The subjective side of the crime is characterized by intentional guilt.

5. The subject of the crime is an official.

6. For a person holding a government position in the Russian Federation, a government position in a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, or the head of a local government body, see the commentary to Art. 285 CC.

7. The content of specially qualifying characteristics (Part 3 of Article 286) almost completely coincides with the content of similar characteristics of other crimes.

8. If there are signs of crimes under Art. 105 and part 3 and 4 art. 111 of the Criminal Code, committed in the course of exceeding official powers, the act should be qualified in conjunction with Art. 286.

9. Special means include rubber truncheons, handcuffs, sniffer dogs, tear gas, water cannons, armored vehicles, etc. (Clause 20 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation “On judicial practice in cases of abuse of official powers and abuse of official powers”).

Reporter judge Sevastyanov A.A. Appeal case No. <data taken> Judge <data taken>

APPEAL JUDGMENT IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

<data taken> Cheboksary

Judicial panel for criminal cases of the Supreme Court of Chuvashia, consisting of: presiding judge Sevastyanov A.A., judges <data taken> and <data taken>, with the secretary of the court session <data taken>, with the participation of a lawyer <data taken> , convicted S., the prosecutor <data taken>, having considered in open court the appeals of the convicted S. and her defense lawyer <data taken> against the verdict <data taken> from <data taken>, by which S. < date> year of birth, native <address> of the Chuvash Republic, citizen of the Russian Federation, residing <address>, with higher education, married, not convicted, convicted under Part 2 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to punishment in the form of a fine in the amount of <amount> rubles. The punishment imposed on S. in the form of a fine in the amount of <sum> rubles was decided to be considered fulfilled. The preventive measure against S. was left unchanged in the form of a written undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior until the sentence comes into force. The verdict decides the fate of the material evidence in the case.

Having heard the report of judge Sevastyanov A.A., the speeches of the convicted S. and her defender - lawyer <data taken>, who supported the appeals, the prosecutor <data taken>, who considered the appeals to be left without satisfaction, and the court verdict - without change, judicial panel

installed:

The court of first instance found S. guilty of the fact that she, being a “position”, performing the functions of “data seized” in accordance with Art. Art. <data withdrawn>, being an official, exceeded her official powers, that is, she committed actions that clearly went beyond her powers, which resulted in a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and legally protected interests of society and the state.

So, she, in violation of the requirements of Art. 5 <data withdrawn>, Articles 1 and 14 of the Federal Law of October 6, 2003 No. 131-03 “On the general principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation”, knowing in advance that the financing of the subprogram “Providing housing for young families” of the federal target program “ Housing" for 2011-2015, the purpose of which is to provide state support in solving the housing problem to young families recognized as in need of improved housing conditions; it is carried out at the expense of funds from the local, republican and federal budgets and co-financing is not provided from the personal funds of the participants program by depositing it into the local budget account, <date>, exceeding her official powers, clearly going beyond their limits, deliberately, indicating the lack of budget funds, illegally demanded from <ful.io.>, a participant in the “Housing Provision” subprogram young families" and the holder of the certificate "On the right to receive social benefits for the purchase of residential premises or the construction of an individual residential building" dated <date>, series <number> for the right to receive social benefits in the amount of 378,000 rubles, deposit into the village account settlement 52,488 rubles in the form of a voluntary donation, whereas this amount was included in the amount of the subsidy and should have been paid from the budget of the rural settlement. At the same time, she explained that otherwise he would not be able to take advantage of the social benefits coming from the republican budget. <full name>, fearing negative consequences for himself and family members, deposited the specified amount on <date> of the year into the account <data taken>. These actions of S. entailed a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of <f.i.o.> to receive gratuitous support from the local budget and caused him material damage in a significant amount, significantly violated the legally protected interests of society and the state, in the form of undermining authority and discreditation of local government bodies, violation of the main goals and objectives of the subprogram “Providing housing for young families” of the federal target program “Housing” for 2011-2015, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 17, 2010 No. 1050.

The court qualified S.’s actions under Part 2 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the grounds that an official has committed actions that clearly go beyond the scope of his powers and entail a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, legally protected interests of society and the state, committed <officially>.

Disagreeing with the court's verdict, convicted S. and lawyer <data taken> filed appeals.

In the appeal, convicted S. indicates that she did not commit illegal actions and did not exceed her official powers, and also did not cause material harm to <surname> by her actions. Contributing personal funds as a voluntary donation is not prohibited by law; voluntary donations are an official source of budget income. <full.io.> and <full.io.> funds in the amount of 52,488 rubles. deposited into the bank account <data taken> as a voluntary donation. During the trial, it was documented that the budget <data taken> did not have sufficient funds to participate in co-financing the program. This was also confirmed by witness testimony. However, the court of first instance did not take this into account. The arguments that the difference between the planned and actual funds received by the budget, the presence of debt <data taken> under the writ of execution prevented the co-financing of subsidies were also not taken into account by the court when rendering a guilty verdict. Testimony of the victim <f.i.o.>, witnesses <f.i.o.>, <f.i.o.>, <f.i.o.>, <f.i.o. >, <f.i.o.> and <f.i.o.>, the certificate of examination of financial transactions, which the court used as the basis for the verdict, was given an incorrect assessment. This evidence does not confirm her guilt, but rather speaks of her innocence. She asks the court to cancel the verdict, terminate the criminal case and pass an acquittal against her.

The lawyer <data withdrawn> points out in the appeal that the court's verdict is illegal, the court's conclusions set out in the verdict do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case, and the court committed significant violations of the criminal procedure law. During the new consideration of the case, the court ignored the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 50 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and paragraph 12 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 28, 2014 No. 2, the resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic dated July 21, 2021 was incorrectly interpreted. Since, in the cassation procedure, the court's guilty verdict initially rendered in a criminal case was appealed only by convicted S. on the grounds of innocence in committing the act she was charged with, during the new trial of the case, new evidence presented by the prosecution was illegally presented, examined and taken into account. Thus, the situation of convicted S. during the new consideration of the criminal case has worsened. The court unreasonably rejected the arguments about S.’s innocence and the evidence that the defense referred to in support of these arguments. He asks the court to cancel the verdict and issue an acquittal.

In written objections, the state prosecutor and the victim <full name> ask that the court sentence be left unchanged, and the appeals of the convict and the lawyer are not satisfied, considering that there are no grounds provided by law for reviewing the court sentence.

Having checked the arguments of the appeals, having studied the case materials and the evidence available in them, the judicial panel believes that the conviction of the court of first instance is subject to cancellation due to the discrepancy between the court's conclusions and the actual circumstances of the criminal case and an acquittal should be rendered in the case due to the lack of evidence in S.'s actions. crimes.

The appellate court found that <date> of the year, <position> S., performing the functions of <data withdrawn> in accordance with Art. Art. <data taken> of the Charter <data taken>, met with <ful.io.>, who was a participant in the subprogram “Providing housing for young families” and the holder of a certificate “On the right to receive social benefits for the purchase of residential premises or construction individual residential building" dated <date>, series <number>, granting the right to receive social benefits in the amount of 378,000 rubles with financing from the federal, republican and budget funds <data taken>. During the conversation, S., citing the lack of sufficient funds in the amount of 52,488 rubles for co-financing from the local budget, suggested <full name> to deposit this money into the account <data taken> in the form of a voluntary donation, which will make it possible to receive the remaining portion of the subsidy from the federal and republican budgets. Wanting to receive the subsidy as soon as possible, <full name> <date> deposited the specified amount into the account <data taken> as a voluntary donation.

Further, on <date>, the city of S. issued a resolution No. <date> of the year <full name> funds were transferred in the form of a subsidy from the federal budget in the amount of 115,560 rubles and the republican budget in the amount of 209,952 rubles, and on <date> of the year from the budget <data >52,488 rubles were confiscated, which the family <ful.io.> subsequently used to purchase a two-room apartment.

Finding S. guilty of exceeding official powers, the court of first instance, as the main evidence for the prosecution, cited the testimony of the victim <, since S. explained to them that due to the lack of money for co-financing in the budget <data taken>, they cannot be allocated a subsidy from the federal and republican budgets.

Testimony of witness <ful.io.>, who was a <position>, explaining that the amount of 52,488 rubles was to be paid to the family of <ful.io.> from the budget <data taken> and such expenses were provided for budget at the time of issuing the certificate of entitlement to a subsidy <date>, but were revised to 0 by a decision of the Assembly of Deputies <data taken> dated <date>. Funds from the republican and federal budgets for <last name> to the account <data withdrawn> were received accordingly on the <date> year. <date> of the year S., decree No. <number> was issued on the provision of a <full name> subsidy at the expense of budget funds <data taken>. <date> of the year, 52,488 rubles in the form of voluntary donations were transferred to the off-budget account <data taken> from <full name>, which were transferred to him on <date> of the year already as a social payment for the purchase of housing on the basis the said resolution. <date> of the year <surname> a portion of the subsidy was transferred from the federal and republican budgets. Thus, the payment to the family <surname> from the budget <data taken> was made at their own expense and led to budget savings of this amount. If there were no funds for co-financing in the local budget, then the receipt of the subsidy should have been postponed for <year>, subject to the conditions under which the family <surname> would continue to be in line to receive the subsidy.

Testimony of witness <full name> that in case of insufficient funds from <data taken> the certificate for receiving a subsidy was subject to return with the person who received it remaining on the waiting list for the next year.

Witness <full name>, chief accountant <data taken> that S. did not apply for insufficient funds to finance the Housing program. Income received into the account <data taken> could be spent at the discretion of the Assembly of Deputies.

Witness <full name>, at that time <position> that <data withdrawn> no instructions were given to attract voluntary donations to finance subsidies. If there were insufficient funds, they had to make changes to the budget. Funds received as voluntary donations could be spent <data taken> only on the basis of a decision of the Assembly of Deputies <data taken>.

The court also examined written evidence and cited it in the verdict - “data seized”; documents confirming the official position and powers of S.; the right of the individual and his family to receive a subsidy; regulations and financial documents confirming the allocation and transfer of <ful.io.> funds from the federal and republican budget on the deposit of funds <ful.io.> to the account <data taken> and transfer them to him or in the form of social benefits.

Meanwhile, the panel of judges cannot agree with the conclusions of the court of first instance that the examined evidence confirms the charge brought against S. of exceeding her official powers.

The court of first instance found that S., who did not make changes to the budget, did not have the right to receive voluntary donations from <, exceeded her powers, forcing "" to contribute 52,488 rubles to the account <data seized>, and thereby caused him material damage.

At the same time, the court did not take into account that criminal liability for exceeding official powers arises if the guilty person committed actions that he could not have committed under any circumstances, or clearly exceeded his powers, which resulted in significant harm.

In accordance with paragraph 19 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of October 16, 2009 “On judicial practice in cases of abuse of power and abuse of official powers,” criminal liability for exceeding official powers arises in the case when an official commits active actions, clearly beyond the scope of his powers, if the official was aware that he was acting outside the powers vested in him.

In this case, the commission of such criminal actions on the part of S. is not seen.

S.’s proposal to <full name> to deposit personal funds into the account <data taken> does not constitute an abuse of power by her due to the fact that making voluntary donations is provided for by regulations governing budgetary relations. Consequently, she, having explained that the lack of funding from the <data taken> budget would entail the transfer of the entire subsidy to the next year and, having offered to contribute this amount in the form of a donation, was aware that she was acting within the limits of her authority to manage funds and did not introduce < surname> misleading. There was no direct material damage to <name>, since the deposited funds were returned to him in the same month under the guise of a subsidy. In addition, <ful.io.> exercised the right to receive subsidies from the federal and republican budgets and subsequently used them to purchase housing.

Thus, it is impossible to agree with the court’s conclusions that S. caused significant harm to a citizen, society and the state, since her actions did not prevent <surname> from improving his living conditions.

Thus, since the judicial panel does not see the presence of the necessary elements of a crime in S.’s actions, the conviction is subject to cancellation with a new decision, by which S. should be found not guilty and acquitted on the basis of clause 2 of part 1 of Art. 24 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Physical evidence - documents must be returned as they belong, a disk with recordings of conversations must be kept in the file.

Based on the above, guided by art. Art. 389.15, 389.19, 389.20, 389.23, 389.28 - 389.30, 389.33 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, judicial board

sentenced:

The sentence <data withdrawn> from <data withdrawn> year against S. is canceled and a new sentence is passed.

S. found not guilty and acquitted of charges of committing a crime under Art. 2. 286 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 lack of corpus delicti.

The preventive measure against S. in the form of a recognizance not to leave the place and proper behavior is cancelled.

In accordance with Art. Art. 133-134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation recognize S.’s right to rehabilitation.

Physical evidence - documents <data seized> return according to their belonging. A CD-R disk with telephone conversations obtained during operational-search activities should be kept in the criminal file

The appeal verdict can be appealed through the cassation procedure established by Chapter 47.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Presiding Judge

Mego-Info - Legal portal No. 1

Material pages:

Article 286. Violation of the rules of road safety and the operation of transport by persons who are responsible for transport personnel
Side 2

Violation of the rules of road safety or the operation of special transport, such as the transport service, which caused the victim of moderate severity bodily harm, -

is punishable by a fine of two hundred to five hundred non-compliant minimum incomes of citizens, or by lawful robots for up to two years, or by arrest for up to six months, or by deprivation of liberty for up to three years, with the exception of the rights of the keruvat and transport means for lines up to three days or more without this.

These same actions, as the stench caused the death of the victim or caused severe bodily harm, -

are punishable by abrogation of freedom for lines from three to eight rokіv with abrogation of the right to carry out transportation by transport means for lines up to three rokіv or without it.

The action, which was transferred in part to the first statistic, as it caused the death of many individuals, -

are punishable by abrogation of freedom for lines from five to ten rokivs and remission of the right to carry out transport by means of lines up to three rokivs.

Note: Under transport means, this article covers all types of cars, tractors and other self-propelled vehicles, trams and trolleybuses, as well as motorcycles and other mechanical vehicles. No matter.

(Article 286 of the edition of the Laws of Ukraine No. 270-УІ dated 15 April 2008 and No. 586-УІ dated 24 Spring 2008)

Due to technological progress, all types of mechanical transport are developing, and the complexity and fluidity of the flow of transport methods is increasing. In addition to positive changes in robot transport, there are also negative phenomena. The possibility of serious consequences—deaths and injuries of people, reduction or damage to transport facilities, vandalism, etc.—becomes more realistic. Importantly, the safe operation of all types of mechanical transport is followed by all participants in the safety rules for the development and operation of transport. Among all transport evils, this encroachment is the most widespread, in connection with which criminal and legal approaches to combating this evil are of particular relevance.
At the reception to the station. 286 KK overinsurance of transport assets, which may result in the commission of such mischief. Before them there are all types of cars, tractors and other self-propelled vehicles, trams and trolleybuses, as well as motorcycles and other mechanical transport vehicles.
Among the vehicles there are vans and cars, special purpose vehicles - sanitary, fire, sports, truck cranes, vanator, scythes, sprinklers, as well as buses. Tractors are self-propelled wheeled and tracked vehicles designed for transporting goods, as well as a variety of different types of work - agricultural, agricultural, forestry, etc. Other self-propelled vehicles are suitable for civil, road, agricultural and other types of work - grader, combine harvester, bulldozer, crane, excavator, etc. Trams and trolleybuses (passenger, vans, colliery, repair, special maintenance) are connected to the Moscow electric transport, the services of which operate continuously to the traffic police. Motorcycles (road, sports, special purpose) can be either with or without a sidebar and have an engine with a displacement of 50 cc. see and more. They are compared to motorized scooters, motorized strollers, tricycles and other transport vehicles, the maximum permitted weight of which does not exceed 400 kg, as well as mopeds - two-wheeled transport vehicles that run engines with a working volume of up to 50 cubic meters. see or electric motor up to 4 kW. Other mechanical transport vehicles (all-terrain vehicles, airplanes, amphibians, etc.) are subject to the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1029 dated June 26, 2011. The subject of this problem is independent of the working volume of the internal combustion engine. Transport functions that drive electric motors with a voltage of up to 3 kW are not the subject of any harm.
The objective side of evil is characterized by three signs: a) actions; b) inheritances; c) causal links between actions and inheritances.
The action (action or inactivity) is reflected in the violation of the rules of safety and operation of transport. Disposition art. 286 KK - blanket. Therefore, in the case of increasing attention to criminality, this article needs to be updated to regulations that regulate the procedure for road traffic and the operation of mechanical transport. The main regulatory act in the field of road safety is the Road Traffic Regulations, as approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1306 dated June 10, 2001. In addition, the Law of Ukraine “On Road Traffic”, which was adopted on June 30, 1993, is of greater importance. Given the significant nature of the violation of the safety rules, it is necessary for the economy to be established, since a clause of the Rules was destroyed by the person who was in charge of the transport department. At this point, the PVSU pays respect to paragraph 3 of the resolution “About the practice of the courts of Ukraine imposing legislation on the right about acts of evil against the security of the economy and the operation of transport, as well as about the administrator

national law violations in transport (resolution No. 14 dated 23 April 2005 // VVSU. - 2006. - No. 1. - P. 6).

Violation of traffic safety rules can manifest itself in overspeeding, violation of the rules of overtaking, avoiding crossings, driving through intersections, rules of using light devices, towing, as well as driving with a trailer, driving through fences and traffic lights. what.
Violations of the operating rules may result in the untrimmed water of the technical minds of the operation, in the disruption of the order of transportation of passengers, in the improper installation, placement and fastening of fittings, in the operation of equipment strictly faulty transport methods, etc. Zagalni vymogi until the technical development of transport means to place the division. 31 PDR. Article 286 of the Criminal Code only applies to violations of operating rules that are related to the safety of transport facilities. Therefore, they cannot be qualified under this article for violating operating rules that are not associated with a safe operation. This, for example, is a violation of the terms of technical maintenance of transport equipment or lack of maintenance could occur in the case of frozen types of palm oil and other materials, etc. The violation of the legislation on the protection of goods, as well as the violation of safety rules during the destruction of vandalism, civil society, civil society and other work does not fall within the meaning of Art. 286 CC.
The following is divided into transport vehicles, such as those used only for transporting cargo and passengers, and other self-propelled vehicles (tractors, combines, bulldozers, graders, etc.). The first ones always collapse because of the traffic rules. Other self-propelled vehicles can be used for transporting goods, as well as for carrying out various types of work (military, road, civil engineering, etc.). When such vehicles are in transit at the transport station, their operation continues until the traffic regulations. The destruction of other machines by such machines in the process of collapse is regulated by other rules and instructions, the destruction of which for old minds can be qualified under other articles of the CC.
Penalty for violating the rules of road safety and operation of transport means arises regardless of the place where the damage occurred (highway, highway, street, crossing, door, field, business area i t. in.)
Another sign of the objective side is seriously unsafe inheritances.

Responsibility per station 286 QC is differentiated due to the severity of the inheritance,

they have arrived. Part 1 has consequences of moderate bodily harm, part 2 has severe bodily harm or the death of the victim, and part 3 has the death of several individuals.

If the rules of safety and operation of transport are violated, the consequences arise as they are transferred in different parts of the article. 286 CC. In such cases, one qualifies only for that part of the status, which conveys responsibility for more serious inheritances. Given the real totality of evils, if there are at least two or more independent, unrelated damages, as independent heirs called out, the truth stands for the totality of evils. If a person violated the rules and a person died as a result of these attacks, then it is necessary to qualify for Part 2 of Art. 286 CC. If the death of two or more individuals is the result of the same transport benefits, either one or many violations of the rules connected with each other, then the correspondence comes in part 3 of Art. 286 CC.
The causal connection between actions and inheritances that have arrived is an obligatory sign of the objective side of this evil. To establish a causal link, the nature of the damage is more important. In case of such damages, it is necessary to introduce: caravanning by transport means in an unsteady station, with a non-working speedometer, if the water has a certificate for the right to caravanning by transport means of the singing category, etc. The indicated damage cannot be the cause of serious injuries. The cause of serious consequences may be only such damage as creates the real possibility of succession. This is the state of the technical system of transport in a specific road situation, which, with the further development of processes and processes, turns into activity, so that ultimately unsafe results arise.
Songs are difficult to discern, since several reasons give rise to the same inheritance. This may include: incorrect behavior of other road users, special weather conditions, insufficient road surface, unsatisfactory technical standards of the transport department, etc. In such cases, examinations are required to help establish a causal connection between violations of safety rules for the economy and operation of transport and the inherently unsafe findings.
In cases of seizures, if there is a causal connection with damage caused by two or more waters, all of them are attracted to a criminal level.
The subjective side of this evil is indicated by the complexity of the objective side, which is characterized by actions, inheritances and the causal connection between them. The connection with this mental state of the individual is evident both before the fact of the violation of the rules, and before the subsequent violation. Violation of the rules could be done with direct intent or with malicious intent. Only carelessness (malicious self-righteousness or lack of balance) can lead to destruction. In general, this evil appears to be careless.
Once it is established that death or bodily harm was caused by the intention of the water, then it must be qualified as an intentional evil against the life and health of a person.
The subject of the crime is a person who reached the 16th century and is responsible for transport. During the initial period of driving in cars with subordinate controls, the main responsibility is the instructor, who is in charge of the cadet’s training and is in charge of driving. If it is brought to a criminal level, it does not matter whether the driver has a daily driver’s license to drive a transport vehicle, or as a driver of a transport company, or as an official of a transport vehicle, etc. The qualification also does not depend on the knowledge of skills, up to the management of transport vehicles of the singing category or in special minds.
Individuals who drilled water before violating traffic rules or operating transport vehicles, which resulted in the transfer of Art. 286 CC. Such individuals, regardless of the intelligent nature of their actions, are not partners in this evil, which is why they are careless, and the complicity in such evil cannot be taken away.

1
offensive ›
ostannaya"

‹ Article 285. Failure to provide the captain with the name of his vessel when the vessel is locked up Article 287. Release into operation of technically faulty transport vehicles or other disruption of their operation ›

Automotive law. Auto assistance. Autofriendship

One of the common issues is liability for road accidents with injuries or deaths. In this regard, I am publishing comments to Art. 286 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

Article 286. Violation of road safety rules or the operation of transport by persons driving vehicles.

1. Violation of road safety rules or the operation of transport by a person driving a vehicle, which caused moderate bodily injury to the victim, -

shall be punishable by a fine of up to one hundred tax-free minimum incomes of citizens, correctional labor for a term of up to two years, or arrest for a term of up to six months, or restriction of freedom for a term of up to three years, with or without deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a term of up to three years.

2. The same acts, if they caused the death of the victim or caused grievous bodily harm, -

shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of three to eight years with or without deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a term of up to three.

3. Acts provided for in part one of this article, if they resulted in the death of several persons, -

shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of seven to twelve years with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a term of up to three years with deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a term of up to three years.

Note. In this article and Articles 287, 289 and 290, vehicles should be understood as all types of cars, tractors and other self-propelled machines, trams and trolleybuses, as well as motorcycles and other vehicles.

1. The object of the crime is road safety, health and life of citizens.

An act is considered criminal only if the rules for driving and operating vehicles are violated. Transport means all types of cars, tractors and other self-propelled machines, trams and trolleybuses, as well as motorcycles and other mechanical vehicles. The Road Traffic Regulations define a motor vehicle as a vehicle powered by an engine, excluding mopeds and bicycles with an engine displacement of less than 50 cubic centimeters. This term also covers trams, trolleybuses, tractors, sidecars and other self-propelled machines and mechanisms.

Other self-propelled machines mean any road construction, agricultural and other special machines (excavator, grader, truck crane, forklifts, etc.)

2. The objective side of the crime involves a violation of traffic safety rules and the operation of transport, the occurrence of harmful consequences, a causal relationship between the violations and the resulting harmful consequences.

In order to have the corpus delicti under comment, it is necessary to establish that the harmful consequences that have occurred are causally related to the violation of traffic safety rules and the operation of transport. The absence of such a connection excludes the liability of the violator under Art. 286 of the Criminal Code.

Violation of traffic safety rules can be expressed in speeding, driving while intoxicated, violating intersection rules, improper overtaking, driving through a prohibited sign, improper maneuvering, etc.

Violation of operating rules is the operation of technically faulty equipment, violation of the rules for transporting passengers, exceeding the tonnage and dimensions of transported goods, etc.

To hold a person accountable, it must be established that he violated traffic rules (Road Rules. Approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on December 31, 1993), violations of other safety rules, for example, when repairing cars, electric tractors and other self-propelled machines, does not entail liability under Article 286 of the Criminal Code. Such violations are not aimed at traffic safety, but at other objects: life, human health, safe working conditions, etc.

Responsibility under Part 1 of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code is punishable for actions resulting in moderate bodily injury (see commentary to Article 122 of the Criminal Code).

Part 2 Art. 286 of the Criminal Code provides for liability for violation of traffic safety rules and the operation of transport, resulting in the death of the victim or causing him serious bodily injury.

On the concept of “grievous bodily harm”, see the commentary to Art. 121 CC.

Part 3 Art. 286 provides for liability for actions provided for in .1 Art. 286 of the Criminal Code, resulting in the death of two or more persons.

The actions of the perpetrator, which simultaneously entailed the consequences provided for by different parts of Art. 286 of the Criminal Code, require qualification in the part that provides for the most severe consequences received.

If each of the violations was of an independent nature and was not connected with each other by a subjective aspect, as well as by the place or time of commission, then they require qualification in each specific case according to the totality of crimes.

Violation of the Traffic Rules by the victim (driver, pedestrian, passenger or other road user) or other unlawful behavior is not grounds for releasing the driver from criminal liability if there is corpus delicti in his actions. Such circumstances may be taken into account by the court as mitigating liability.

This crime is considered completed from the moment the consequences specified in the disposition occur.

It does not matter the circumstances related to the person’s lack of the right to drive a vehicle or the deprivation of such a right in an administrative or judicial manner, whether he is a transport worker or not. It also does not matter whether such a person is the owner or lessee of the vehicle, drives it by proxy, or has stolen it without permission.

For violation of traffic safety rules during practical driving in a training vehicle with dual controls, the instructor, and not the student, is responsible if he has not taken timely measures to prevent socially dangerous consequences.

3. The subjective side of the crime is characterized by a careless form of guilt, which is expressed in the nature of the attitude of the perpetrator to the consequences. The very action or inaction in violation of traffic safety rules or the operation of transport can be intentional or committed through negligence

4. The subject of the crime is a person who has reached the age of 16 at the time of the commission of the crime.

A driver who, after committing this crime, intentionally left the victim in a life-threatening situation is liable for a set of crimes (the relevant part of Article 286 of the Criminal Code and Article 135 of the Criminal Code).

If the driver’s actions do not contain the corpus delicti provided for in Art. 286 of the Criminal Code, but the life of the victim was endangered as a result of a traffic accident committed by the driver, then deliberately leaving the victim without help with other necessary signs entails liability under Article 135 of the Criminal Code.

If it is established that the perpetrator created the socially dangerous nature of his actions or inactions, foresaw their socially dangerous consequences and desired their occurrence or deliberately allowed them to occur, then his actions should be qualified under the articles of the Criminal Code providing for liability for a crime against the life and health of citizens (for example , Art. 123 of the Criminal Code) or against the authority of public authorities (for example, Art. 345 of the Criminal Code).

Source

Judicial practice under Article 286 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 14, 2017 in case No. 306-ES16-9944, A55-5004/2014
When satisfying the claims, the courts of three instances were guided by Articles 239, 279 - 282, 284 - 286 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation ( hereinafter - the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), clause 2 of part 1 of article 49, articles 55, 57, 63 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - the Land Code of the Russian Federation) and proceeded from the legality of the seizure of the disputed property for the needs of the Samara region through redemption.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 27, 2020 N 306-ES19-25691 in case N A57-24241/2018

In support of the arguments of the complaint, the applicant points out that, by virtue of Article 239 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in cases where the seizure of a land plot for state or municipal needs or due to improper use of land is impossible without termination of ownership of buildings, structures or other real estate located on this plot, this property may be confiscated from the owner by redemption by the state or sale at public auction in the manner provided, respectively, by Articles 279 - 282 and 284 - 286 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Commentary to article 286. Violation of road safety rules

and the operation of transport by persons who are responsible for transport

1. Violation of the rules of road safety or the operation of special transport, such as transport, in particular, which caused moderate bodily harm to the victim, -

punishable by a fine of up to one hundred non-compliant minimum incomes of citizens, or by lawful robots for up to two years, or by arrest for up to six months, or by deprivation of liberty for up to three years, with the exemption of the right to carry out transport duties for up to three years oh fate, or without this.

2 These very actions, as the stench caused the death of the victim or caused serious bodily harm, -

are punishable by abrogation of freedom for lines from three to eight rocks with abrogation of the right to transport by transport means for lines up to three rocks or without such

3 Acts, transferred in part to the first statistic, as they caused the death of many individuals, -

are punishable by abrogation of freedom for lines from seven to twelve rocks with abrogation of the right to carry out transportation by transport means for lines up to three rocks

Note Under transport conditions in this stage, articles 287, 289 and 290 include all types of cars, tractors and other self-propelled vehicles,

trams and trolleybuses, as well as motorcycles and other mechanical transport vehicles

1 The main objective of the problem is the safety of the maintenance and operation of automobiles and other types of transport, the transfer of any guidance from the notice up to Article 286, and its additional binding object is the life and health of individuals

2 By means of transport, in connection with the carriers of which there is a responsibility for the station. 286 (as well as signs of warehouses of evil goods, transferred by Articles 287, 289, 290), transport

Features: 1) which are driven by an internal combustion engine with a working volume of over 50 cm or by another mechanical engine (electric, steam, etc.), which ensures structural flexibility that exceeds 40 km/year; 2) for the fulfillment of any necessary requirements, which is seen by the authorities of the DAI and grants the right to transfer the shlyakhs of the Zagalal Koristuvanna; 3} subject to periodic sovereign technical inspection; 4) support civil liability insurance.

3. The objective side of the word includes the following obligatory signs:

1) action, 2) situation, 3) inheritance and 4) causal connections between actions and inheritance.

The action stems from the violation of the rules of road safety or the operation of transport. You may end up in a bad way of doing or inactivity and lying down; 1) actions performed that are prohibited by the rules (driving through a traffic light, operating a car with serious technical malfunctions, etc.); 2) illegal actions that a person may or may be required to carry out in accordance with the necessary rules for the safety of the vehicle and the operation of transport (non-reduced fluidity of the vehicle is consistent with the road situation and the registration of road signs, incorrectly painting with external light fixtures). About the concept of water and operation of marvelous machines. comment to Art. 415.

The act of committing this mischief is always connected with failures to comply with the relevant regulations - the rules for the safety of the economy and the operation of transport vehicles. Such rules are established in laws and other regulatory legal acts, just before the Road Rules.

The situation in which the crime is committed is characterized by the fact that the action begins and remains in a situation of road disruption, and in the process of transferring transport means. So don’t bother Art. 286 maintenance during the repair of transport equipment and during the execution of special (non-transport) operations (for example, during the movement of soil with a bulldozer, harvesting crops with a self-propelled combine).

Criminal record under Art. 286 insists on clearing the minds of the heir to the appearance of physical harm, which is no less dangerous, lower than the average severity of bodily harm. About the understanding of the average severity of bodily grooming of divas. comment to Art. 122. Penalties resulting from violation of road safety rules for light bodily injuries include the suspension of Article 286,

A causal connection between actions and inheritances may occur if the rules of safety for the economy or the operation of transport are violated, naturally, due to the need to drag the inheritance with them, transfer Art. 286.

Zlochin is considered to be completed from the moment the appointment of the Art. 286 inheritances.

4. The subject of evil is special. This vessel is a person who has reached the 16th century and has a means of transport. Particularly in charge of transport, we pay special attention to: water; an instructor who teaches beginners; a service person who gives water to the baked goods for making a paste. In this case, the significance of the obviousness does not loom

where the individual has the right to operate a transport vehicle, certified for the right to manage a transport vehicle.

5. The subjective side of evil is indicated by the placement of wine before the end and is generally characterized by careless wine. When cleverly placed before the succession, the commission is qualified for the articles of the Special Part of the CC, which transmits the most common crimes.

6. Qualifying signs of harm are those caused as a result of violation of traffic rules or operation of transport: 1) death of the victim or severe bodily harm to one person (Part 2 of Article 286). If, under the hour of the road, bodily injury of a high level of severity is detected, then it is likely to qualify as a partial statistic that transmits the most severe type of injury; 2) the death of several individuals (Part 3 of Art. 286), For Part 3 of Art. 286 Violations of safety rules and operation of transport are qualified if the death of several people was the result of one road accident. Two more cases, as a result of which the death of one individual occurred, cannot be assessed as a succession - the death of many individuals.

Law of Ukraine “On Road Traffic” as of 1993. Law of Ukraine “On Transport” dated November 10, 1994. Law of Ukraine “On motor transport in the 5th quarter 200 ї r. Road traffic rules. Confirmed by the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 1094 for the third breast, 1993.

Rules for operating trams and trolleybuses. Confirmed by order of the State Committee of Ukraine for Housing and Communal Governance No. 103 dated 10th 1996.

Rules for traveling by tram and trolleybus in parts of Ukraine. Confirmed by the order of the State Committee of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Living Policy of Ukraine No. 22 dated November 18, 1997.