Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and comments to it

ST 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

1. Violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules, which through negligence resulted in mass disease or poisoning of people or created the threat of such consequences, -

shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of five hundred thousand to seven hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one year to eighteen months, or by deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of one to three years, or by restriction freedom for a term of up to two years, or forced labor for a term of up to two years, or imprisonment for the same term.

2. Violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules, resulting in the death of a person through negligence, -

shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of one million to two million rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one to three years, or by restriction of liberty for a term of two to four years, or by forced labor for a term of three to five years. , or imprisonment for the same period.

3. Violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules, resulting in the death of two or more persons through negligence, -

shall be punished by forced labor for a term of four to five years or imprisonment for a term of five to seven years.

Commentary on Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The object of the crime is public relations to protect the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population.
According to the Federal Law of March 30, 1999 N 52-FZ “On the sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population” <1> it is understood as such a state of health of the population, the human environment, in which there is no harmful impact of environmental factors on humans and favorable conditions are provided his life activity. ——————————– <1> NW RF. 1999. N 14. Art. 1650.

The objective side of the crime is a violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules, which resulted in mass disease or poisoning of people.

State sanitary and epidemiological rules and regulations are regulatory legal acts that establish sanitary and epidemiological requirements (including criteria for the safety and (or) harmlessness of environmental factors for humans, hygienic and other standards), non-compliance with which creates a threat to human life or health, as well as the threat of the emergence and spread of diseases.

Action can be expressed both in actions and inaction. For example, allowing an employee with an infectious disease to work at a catering enterprise, manufacturing food products in violation of sanitary standards, etc.

A mass disease of people is a disease of a significant number of the population in a certain territory when the average incidence rate of a given disease is several times higher. The mass scale criteria are determined by epidemiologists. Mostly mass diseases of people are: acute intestinal diseases, diphtheria, measles, pediculosis, scabies, tularemia, salmonellosis, anthrax, cholera, tuberculosis, brucellosis.

Diseases can be infectious or non-infectious. Human infectious diseases are diseases, the occurrence and spread of which is caused by the impact on humans of biological environmental factors (causative agents of infectious diseases) and the possibility of transmission of the disease from a sick person or animal to a healthy person.

Infectious diseases that are dangerous to others are human infectious diseases characterized by severe course, high mortality and disability rates, and rapid spread among the population (epidemic).

Mass non-infectious diseases (poisonings) are human diseases, the occurrence of which is caused by the influence of physical and (or) chemical and (or) social environmental factors.

Poisoning is the introduction of a foreign substance into the body in a toxic dose. It can be caused by consuming a substance of animal, plant or synthetic origin. According to the meaning of the article, the poisoning must be massive. Diseases can be bacterial, viral, intestinal, etc., food poisoning caused by drinking poor-quality water or using items containing carcinogenic substances.

The crime is considered completed after mass disease or poisoning of people occurs. The corpus delicti is material.

A more dangerous type of this crime is a violation of the relevant rules, resulting in the death of a person (Part 2 of Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Thus, a qualified type of crime is available provided that at least one person affected by the disease or poisoned died.

The subjective side of the crime is characterized by careless guilt in the form of frivolity or negligence. . Special subject of a crime - a person obliged to comply with the rules established to combat the spread of mass diseases or poisoning of people (workers of public catering establishments, sanitary and epidemiological stations, medical institutions, etc.)

A special subject of a crime is a person obliged to comply with the rules established to combat the spread of mass diseases or poisoning of people (workers of public catering establishments, sanitary and epidemiological stations, medical institutions, etc.).

The court verdict under Part 1 of Art. 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation No. 1-318/2017 | Violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules

RESOLUTION

to satisfy the petition to terminate the criminal case

and imposition of a criminal law measure on a person in the form of a court fine

November 09, 2021 Izhevsk

Judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Izhevsk, Udmurt Republic Zorin A.V.,

under secretary Bazueva A.A.,

with:

Senior Assistant Prosecutor of the Oktyabrsky District of Izhevsk Khokhryakova M.V.,

Investigator of the first department for the investigation of particularly important cases (crimes against the person and public safety) of the investigative department of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the Udmurt Republic Salimullina R.R.,

accused Ryabova T.V.,

her defender - lawyer V.V. Chernetsova,

having considered in open court the investigator’s petition to terminate the criminal case with the imposition of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine against

Ryabova T.V., not convicted,

accused of committing a crime under Part 1 of Art. 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

INSTALLED:

Ryabova T.V. accused of violating sanitary and epidemiological rules, which through negligence resulted in mass disease of people under the following circumstances.

By order of the director of LLC “from Ryabov T.V. appointed to the position of head of the canteen at DOL "".

In accordance with paragraphs. 1.5, 1.6, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8 of the job description approved by the director of DOL "", Ryabova T.V. had to know the basics of rational nutrition, food preparation technology, the procedure for creating menus, rules for storing food, semi-finished products, finished products and requirements for their quality; the procedure for accounting and issuing products, dishes and culinary products, consumption rates for raw materials and semi-finished products; modern types of technological and other equipment, principles of its operation; requirements for production premises, equipment, dishes, kitchen furniture; progressive methods of production organization; internal regulations, safety regulations, industrial sanitation and fire protection; is obliged to: manage the production and economic activities of the DOL canteen; direct the activities of the workforce to ensure the rhythmic release of own-produced products of the required range and quality in accordance with the production task; exercise constant control over food preparation technology, employees’ compliance with sanitary requirements and personal hygiene rules; carry out daily rejection of finished products with members of the rejection commission; monitor compliance by canteen employees with production and labor discipline, and is also responsible for failure to perform or improper performance of their labor functions, assigned tasks, and failure to ensure compliance with labor discipline.

In addition, when performing her professional duties, Ryabova T.V. in accordance with Art. 10, paragraph 1, art. 17, art. 28, art. 39 of the Federal Law of March 30, 1999 No. 52-FZ “On the Sanitary and Epidemiological Welfare of the Population” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 52-FZ) is obliged to comply with the requirements of sanitary legislation, as well as decrees, instructions and sanitary and epidemiological conclusions carrying out state sanitary and epidemiological supervision officials; comply with the sanitary and epidemiological rules SanPiN 2.3.6.1079-01 “Sanitary and epidemiological requirements for the organization of public catering, the production and circulation of food products and food raw materials in them” (hereinafter referred to as SanPiN 2.3.6.1079 - 01), approved by the Resolution of the Main State Sanitary doctor of the Russian Federation No. 31 dated November 6, 2001, SanPiN 2.4.4.3155-13 “Sanitary and epidemiological requirements for the design, maintenance and organization of work of inpatient recreation and health organizations for children” (hereinafter referred to as SanPiN 2.4.4.3155 - 13), approved by the Resolution of the Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation No. 73 dated December 27, 2013 and SP 3.1/3.2.3146-13 “General requirements for the prevention of infectious and parasitic diseases” (hereinafter referred to as SP 3.1/3.2.3146-13), approved by the Resolution of the Chief State Sanitary Doctor RF No. 65 dated December 16, 2013; not to carry out actions that entail a violation of the rights of citizens to health protection and a favorable living environment; when organizing catering for the population in specially equipped places (canteens, restaurants, cafes, bars and others), including when preparing food and drinks, storing and selling them to the population, to prevent the occurrence and spread of infectious diseases and mass non-infectious diseases (poisonings) must sanitary and epidemiological requirements are met. Compliance with sanitary rules is mandatory for citizens, individual entrepreneurs and legal entities.

In addition, the head of the Office of the Federal Service for Surveillance in the Sphere of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare in the Udmurt Republic submitted to DOL “” a task plan for preparing for the summer health season for 2021, which provides for the obligation to take measures to timely undergo a medical examination and professional hygienic training and certification of DOL employees, the availability of a medical record for each employee containing information on vaccinations, and an audit of refrigeration and technological equipment in the catering department in order to ensure the required temperature conditions of the refrigeration chamber in order to comply with meat storage conditions.

However, T.V. Ryabova, ignoring the requirements of these regulatory documents and the legitimate requirements of the regulatory authorities, having a real opportunity to carry out her official duties properly, violated scientifically based sanitary and epidemiological rules when preparing food and organizing catering in the DOL "", without foreseeing at the same time, the possibility of the occurrence of socially dangerous consequences of their actions in the form of a mass disease of visitors to the DOL "", although with the necessary care and foresight, should and could have foreseen these consequences.

These careless actions of Ryabova T.V. entailed consequences in the form of infection of visitors to the DOL "" with norovirus infection under the following circumstances.

The Autonomous Non-Profit Organization "" concluded an agreement with DOL "" on the provision of services for the organization and conduct of the Russian Championship among schoolchildren and juniors in the game "What? Where? When?" season 2016-2017

To participate in this championship, 505 minors arrived on the territory of the Udmurt Republic during the period from 2000 to 2010. They were settled on the territory of the children's camp "" (377 people) and in the autonomous educational institution "UR" (128 people) and 83 accompanying coaches (586 people in total). Meals for all participants were provided in the canteen of the DOL "".

During the Russian Championship among schoolchildren and juniors in the game “What? Where? When?" season 2016-2017, in the premises of the canteen DOL "" directly under the leadership of the head of the canteen Ryabova T.V., the canteen employees, including the cook of the meat shop NOV, the baker BNYU, the barmaid RAG, prepared food for the participants of the said championship. At the same time, to production premises and food products Ryabova T.V. the accountant-storekeeper LNV and the cleaner SOV were also admitted

During the specified period of time, T.V. Ryabova, holding the position of head of the canteen of the DOL "", being on the territory of the DOL "", located at the address:, having lost, in violation of paragraphs. 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 of his job description, control over food preparation technology and employee compliance with sanitary requirements and personal hygiene rules, violating Art. Art. 10, 17, 28, 39 of Law No. 52-FZ, according to which, when organizing food for the population in canteens, sanitary rules must be followed to prevent the occurrence and spread of infectious diseases and mass poisonings, did not ensure that subordinate employees of the canteen complied with sanitary requirements when carrying out food preparation work , thus violating clause 5.1 SP 3.1/3.2.3146-13; p.p. 5.2, 8.1, 8.22, 8.24, 8.25, 8.26, 9.3, 9.11, 9.25, 9.26, 9.27, 10.3, 10.10, 10.6, 13.1,13.2 SanPiN 2.4.4.3155–13, as well as paragraphs. 8.19, 14.1, SanPiN 2.3.6.1079 – 01, namely: did not provide daily inspection of the canteen staff, as well as those on duty in the kitchen for the presence of pustular skin diseases, catarrhal phenomena of the upper respiratory tract, a survey for the presence of dysfunction of the gastrointestinal system, allowed to work into the production premises of the canteen and to the preparation of food of infected employees - the cook of the meat shop NOV, the accountant-storekeeper LNV, the baker BNYU, the barmaid RAG, as well as the cleaning lady SOV, who did not have a health certificate at all. Along with the above, Ryabova T.V. when used as intended, did not ensure the safety of food products in circulation within the established shelf life; did not ensure production control over the quality and safety of food raw materials and food products; allowed the storage of unprocessed table eggs in meat and bakery production shops; allowed the unsatisfactory sanitary and technical condition of the catering unit - failure to carry out routine and general cleaning in production premises, in the dining room, in storage areas; did not ensure that employees had a personal medical record book of the established form, which should contain the results of medical examinations and laboratory tests, information about vaccinations, previous infectious diseases, information about undergoing professional hygienic training and certification, and permission to work; did not ensure the maintenance of a reject log of finished culinary products; allowed the use of salads dressed with mayonnaise for feeding children, as well as the preparation of ready-made meals by hand; did not ensure the preparation of a daily menu layout indicating the output of dishes and obtaining daily samples of finished products; allowed food products to be stored in violation of conditions; did not provide high-quality washing of dishes, allowing dishes to be washed with a sponge; used canteen equipment for cooking - industrial baths with no air gaps; did not comply with the requirements for deratization of catering premises; violated the requirements of sanitary and personal hygiene of the canteen staff - did not ensure timely change of work clothes for cooks due to the lack of a sufficient number of sets, also allowing work clothes to be stored together with personal outerwear in the locker room for employees; allowed children to drink unboiled water from the well and from the distribution network of the catering unit, which had not been tested for compliance with sanitary and hygienic standards; organized the production of finished products in violation of the technological map.

Without ensuring that the subordinate employees of the canteen "DOL" complied with the above-mentioned requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation when organizing the work of preparing food, knowing that the canteen employees did not undergo a medical examination for the presence of pustular skin diseases, catarrhal phenomena of the upper respiratory tract, as well as by the medical employee of the ShAC, was not carried out their survey for the presence of dysfunction of the gastrointestinal system, Ryabova T.V., acting from the falsely understood interests of the service, wanting the administration of the DOL "" to fulfill the requirements of the contract, being in the specified period of time on the territory of the DOL "", gave instructions to her subordinates to the canteen staff about preparing food for the championship participants.

At the same time, T.V. Ryabova did not foresee the possibility of socially dangerous consequences of its actions in the form of a mass disease of food consumers - participants in the Russian Championship among schoolchildren and juniors in the game “What? Where? When?" season 2016-2017, held on the basis of DOL "", although with the necessary care and foresight, she should and could have foreseen these consequences.

As a result of violation of the specified sanitary and epidemiological rules by the head of the canteen Ryabova T.V., from contact with the indicated employees of the DOL "" were infected with infections, in particular, infection, food raw materials and semi-finished products, namely "fried minced meat for pies", and also prepared by them poor quality food, namely Stolichny salad, contaminated with infections, including infection. Consumption of poor quality food prepared by the indicated employees of the Children's Center "" during the period with visitors of the Children's House "": SKA, born; ShPV, born; MDA, born; LRA, born; SAA, born; UMG, born; SHOA, born; ADR, born; KAN, born; SHAV, born; ODD, born; TAV, born; ShDH, born; SAO, born; KKI, born; MEL, born; GNV, born; SKM, born; SAE, born; HES, born; GEA, born; KNI, born; SUS, born; NEA, born; MEM, born; AAP, born; OLA, born; AKS, born; ShMK, born; KNM, born; MRI, 12/30. born 2003; AAA, born; LAS, born; PEO, born; VAA, born; FAV, born; KVN born; ZSYA, born; ChDA, birth date; KVR born 08/05/2001; GPM g.r.; KDV born June 10, 2001; YAPA, born; RDD g.r.; TWO years of birth; VAM birth date; BVS g.r.; BES, born; PAA, born; GDA born; BED g.r.; EPA, g.r.; LAA, born; TSV, born; BVL, born; PAS, born; PMK, born; PSV, born; INA, born; SRA, born; GDA, born; ZHKA, born; ZPD, born; BOA g.o.; AES g.o.; KMM, born; NMI, born; KZhS g.r.; SIA, born; VVA, born; DAS born; VUM, born; OAV, born; KLN, born; KSA, born; OAD, born; KLA, born; ZAE, born February 26, 1999; MAE, born; Surfactant, g.r.; RAS, born; SAD, birth date; GVV, born; Engineering and technical personnel born; KGV, born; KAV, born; KAV, born; MMA born; PMS, birth date; NPV, birth date; SSD, born, resulted in their massive infection with an infection, which caused slight harm to everyone’s health due to a short-term disorder (temporary dysfunction of organs and (or) systems (temporary disability) lasting up to three weeks from the moment of onset of the disease (up to 21 days inclusive ).

The diagnosis was also made for the above-mentioned cook of the meat shop NOV, accountant-storekeeper LNV, baker BNYU, barmaid RAG, and cleaner SOV, whose health was also slightly harmed due to a short-term disorder (temporary dysfunction of organs and (or) systems (temporary disability ) lasting up to three weeks from the onset of the disease (up to 21 days inclusive).

and in the following days, after and as a result of eating contaminated food in the canteen of the DOL “”, these visitors and employees of the canteen were hospitalized with an acute infectious disease of the gastrointestinal tract caused by infection in the Republican Clinical Infectious Diseases Hospital Ministry of Health of the Urals.

In addition, as a result of consuming the specified poor-quality food during the period with GAM, CHTA birth, BES birth. also, with signs of illness and gastrointestinal disorder, they were taken to the Republican Clinical Infectious Diseases Hospital of the Ministry of Health of the Urals, from where, in turn, due to satisfactory health and refusal of hospitalization, they were released.

As a result of the actions and inactions of T.V. Ryabova, expressed in violation of the requirements of the above sanitary standards, the above-mentioned persons, as well as GAM, CHTA and BES, suffered moral suffering, expressed in hospitalization in a medical institution and the need to interrupt the conduct and participation in Russian Championship among schoolchildren and juniors in the game “What? Where? When?" season 2016-2017

The body of the preliminary investigation of the actions of Ryabova T.V. qualified under Part 1 of Art. 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules, which through negligence resulted in mass disease of people.

The investigator in charge of the criminal case, on the basis of a statement from the accused and with the consent of the head of the investigative agency, filed a petition with the court to terminate the criminal case against T.V. Ryabova. with the imposition of a criminal law measure in the form of a judicial fine in accordance with Ch. 51.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, since she committed a crime of minor gravity for the first time and made amends for the harm caused by the crime.

At the court hearing, the investigator and assistant district prosecutor supported the stated petition for the reasons stated in it.

Accused Ryabova T.V. asked to satisfy the investigator’s petition, explaining that she agreed with the petition, she had made amends for the harm caused, and understood that the termination of a criminal case on this basis does not entail the emergence of the right to rehabilitation and is associated with the application of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine.

The defendant’s defense attorney fully supported the position of T.V. Ryabova.

Having listened to the opinions of the persons involved and having studied the presented materials of the case, I come to the conclusion that the investigator’s petition must be granted for the following reasons.

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 25.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and Art. 72.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, on the basis of a petition from an investigator, the court has the right to terminate a criminal case against a person accused of committing a crime of minor gravity, if this person committed a crime for the first time, and also compensated for the damage or otherwise made amends for the harm caused by the crime, and assign this person a criminal measure. legal nature in the form of a court fine.

Ryabova T.V. not convicted (vol. 18, pp. 156), characterized positively (vol. 18, pp. 160-181), accused of committing a crime of minor gravity (vol. 18, pp. 104-114), in as a result of which no property damage was caused and no serious consequences occurred. No aggravating circumstances have been established in the case.

Presented by Ryabova T.V. the accusation is confirmed by evidence collected in the criminal case, including protocols of interrogations of victims and their legal representatives, a protocol of inspection of the scene of the incident from (vol. 1, pp. 112-228), an act of investigation into the causes of mass infectious diseases from (vol. 2 pp. 46-49), an act of epidemiological investigation of the focus of an infectious (parasitic) disease with the establishment of a cause-and-effect relationship from (vol. 2 pp. 50-56), protocols of interrogations of ShAC witnesses (vol. 11 pp. 90-98), KMM (vol. 11 pp. 100-104), TNV (vol. 11 pp. 105-108), NOS (vol. 11 pp. 112-117, 249-256, v. 12 pp. 41-167), CHB (v. 11 pp. 118-125), VSA (v. 11 pp. 126-132), SHOA (v. 11 pp. 140 -146), ChSA (vol. 11 pp. 211-219, v. 12 pp. 241-245), conclusion of the sanitary and epidemiological examination from (vol. 14 pp. 25-30), conclusions of commissions forensic medical examinations, 139 from (vol. 14 pp. 38-45, 50-81), interrogation reports of T.V. Ryabova. as the accused (vol. 18, pp. 29-42, 77-81, 145-149), documents on her appointment to the position of head of the canteen and her official responsibilities (vol. 13, pp. 139-167).

When deciding on compensation for damage and making amends for the harm caused by the crime, the court proceeds from the following.

In accordance with paragraphs 2.1, 3, 10 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 27, 2013 No. 19 “On the application by courts of legislation regulating the grounds and procedure for exemption from criminal liability,” damage should be understood as property damage that can be compensated in kind or in monetary form.

Making amends (Article 76.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) means property, including monetary, compensation for moral damage, providing any assistance to the victim, apologizing to him, as well as taking other measures aimed at restoring the victim’s rights and legitimate interests violated as a result of the crime. individuals, society and state.

Compensation for damage and (or) redress of harm can be made not only by the person who committed the crime, but also at his request (with his consent) by other persons. The methods of making amends for the damage, as well as the amount of compensation, are determined by the victim.

Ryabova T.V. accused of committing a crime, as a result of which no property damage was caused.

According to Ryabova T.V. charges, due to the disease the victims suffered physical harm and moral suffering.

At the same time, a civil claim for compensation for moral damage and reimbursement of treatment costs was filed only by the victim SKA and his legal representative (vol. 4, pp. 24-28). The demands of the victim and the accused were satisfied in full voluntarily, the harm caused was made up for (vol. 18, pp. 153-154).

As follows from the protocols of interrogations of other victims and their legal representatives, they do not have any claims of a material nature and do not want to file civil suits.

The court also takes into account that immediately after the events that were the basis for the presentation of Ryabova T.V. accusation, the organizers of the event - the administration of the ANO "" with the consent of the accused, took measures to compensate the victims and their legal representatives for expenses associated with travel to the venue of the event and accommodation (vol. 12, pp. 41-167).

Along with this, the court takes into account the specific circumstances of the case, including the characteristics and number of objects of the criminal attack, takes into account that Ryabova T.V. accused of committing a crime while performing his job duties.

In such circumstances, taking into account that the victims refused to exercise the right to determine ways to make amends for the harm caused to them, as well as the amount of compensation, the court comes to the conclusion that the harm established during the preliminary investigation was compensated by the accused, as well as by other persons with her consent in in full.

Taking into account the above, the court comes to the conclusion that there are no circumstances preventing the release of a person from criminal liability and the appointment of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine, and the presence of all the grounds provided by law for the termination of the criminal case against T.V. Ryabova. with the imposition of a court fine.

Based on Art. 104.5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Part 6 of Art. 446.2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, when determining the amount of a court fine and setting the deadline for its payment, the court takes into account that its amount cannot exceed half the maximum amount of the fine provided for by the sanction of Part 1 of Art. 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and also takes into account the circumstances and severity of the crime charged, the property status of T.V. Ryabova. and her family, having a permanent source of income.

Based on the above, guided by Articles 76.2, 104.4, 104.5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 25.1, 446.1-446.5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation,

DECIDED

The petition of the investigator of the first department for the investigation of particularly important cases (on crimes against the person and public safety) of the investigative department of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the Udmurt Republic is satisfied.

A criminal case against T.V. Ryabova, accused of committing a crime under Part 1 of Art. 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, terminate on the basis of Art. 72.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, releasing her from criminal liability.

Appoint Ryabova T.V. a measure of a criminal legal nature in the form of a judicial fine in the amount of 20,000 rubles, setting a deadline for its payment within 60 days from the date this resolution entered into legal force.

Preventive measure against T.V. Ryabova in the form of a written undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior - cancel.

Physical evidence - return documents as they belong.

Explain to Ryabova T.V.:

- the need to submit information about the payment of a court fine to the bailiff to the department of the bailiff service at the place of residence within 10 days after the expiration of the period established for payment of the court fine;

- the consequences of failure to pay a court fine within the prescribed period, which consists in the fact that in the event of failure to pay a court fine imposed as a measure of a criminal law nature, the court, upon the proposal of the bailiff, in the manner established by Art. 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, cancels the decision to terminate the criminal case and impose a court fine and sends the materials to the head of the investigative agency. Further proceedings in the case are carried out in accordance with the general procedure.

The resolution can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic through the Oktyabrsky District Court of Izhevsk within 10 days from the date of its proclamation.

Judge A.V. Zorin

"Agreed"

judge

A.V. Zorin

Author of the article

Dmitry Leonov

Work experience 15 years, specialization - housing, family, inheritance, land, criminal cases.

Author's rating

721

Articles written

712
about the author

Commentary on Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

1. The disposition of the commented norm is one of the blanket norms, therefore, to understand the essence of the sanitary and epidemiological rules, the violation of which constitutes a crime, it is necessary to refer to various laws and by-laws.

2. A mass disease of people is recognized as a disease of a viral, intestinal, bacterial or other nature, the prevalence of which clearly exceeds the average incidence rate for a certain period in a given territory.

Mass poisoning of people refers to acute, chronic, industrial, medicinal, chemical and other diseases, the occurrence of which is caused by the action of toxic substances of various origins on the human body through their absorption through the respiratory tract, as a result of contact with the skin, absorption with food and liquids, etc. d. A sign of mass disease or poisoning of people is harm to health of any severity.

The subjective side is characterized by a careless form of guilt.

4. A special subject of a crime is a person who has the obligation to comply with or ensure compliance with sanitary and epidemiological rules.

5. The qualified type of crime in question is characterized by causing the death of a person through negligence (Part 2 of Article 236 of the Criminal Code).

What judicial practice shows

Since control over compliance with the rules is quite strict, judicial practice is not extensive.

Examples of cases:

Citizen G. worked in a grocery store in the fish department. She neglected sanitary rules, rarely washed her hands, so as a result the products were contaminated with salmonella. All store employees who bought this fish were infected and were placed en masse in the infectious diseases department of the hospital. The investigation began to understand the reasons and came to G. For violating the rules of compliance, she was sentenced to a fine and suspended imprisonment.
Citizen U. was engaged in the production of lead products at his summer cottage. He dumped the waste into a river flowing past, which fed the groundwater of the dacha plots around. People from wells and wells drank this water, as a result they received mass poisoning, several children died. During the investigation of the case, U. was found guilty; several witnesses pointed to him. He was imprisoned for 3 years, plus he received compulsory labor.
Citizen A. worked at a poultry farm and was responsible for compliance with hygiene standards for meat production. Due to an equipment malfunction, he missed selling a batch that was contaminated with microbes. People who bought the meat got sick and began to be admitted to the city’s infectious disease departments. It was found out that all of them were connected with the purchase of such meat; the investigation went to the management of the factory. They and A., as the person responsible for control, were deprived of their positions and sentenced to correctional labor.

What decisions are most often made under Article 236?

The article severely punishes violators, so it is rare to find acquittals under it. In 2021, 12 cases were considered on it, all in 1 part. 3 people received restriction of freedom, 7 received a fine, 1 was arrested and 1 received compulsory labor.

If one or more people die as a result of a crime, the punishment is increased. This is an aggravating circumstance. Mitigating factors are not listed in the article, but when making a decision, the court can use their general list if necessary.

Using cases under Article 236 of the Criminal Code to marginalize protest

The rapidly emerging cases under the “sanitary” article gave the authorities the opportunity over the following months to promote in the media space the negative image of the protest as dangerous to society.

If before protests the main message of messages about the possibility of initiating cases under Article 236 of the Criminal Code was to dissuade the audience from participating in protests and disseminating information about them, then later the emphasis is on the devaluation of already past protests. Focus on the issues that sparked the protests—corruption and political persecution—is being replaced by criticism of the protesters themselves.

Online publications publish articles under the following headings:

“Navalnists turned an illegal rally in Moscow into a breeding ground for coronavirus” (website of the Anti-Maidan movement);
“Oleg Navalny, who endangered the lives of Muscovites, was detained” (RIA FAN);
“Navalny’s “COVID-terrorists”: Who was detained in Russia after the rallies on January 23” (“Public News Service”);
“The Investigative Committee asks the court to arrest five Covid-dissidents participating in the illegal action on January 23” (“Moskva.ru”).

The image of protesters as narrow-minded or irresponsible violators of public order, whose actions could harm other people, is conveyed.

“One Covid-19 person can infect up to 16 people around him,” reported on the Kadara portal. — In a crowd, the rate of infection spreads at least four times. The organizers of the rally attracted demonstrators from regions that are not included in the Moscow healthcare system; these people could be carriers of a deadly infection. According to experts, more than 1,200 people infected with COVID-19 could have left Pushkin Square. Inciting people to mass gatherings during a pandemic is not only a violation of the law, but also a direct biological attack on a city of millions. <…> The consequence of the rally may be an extreme burden on the city healthcare system, on doctors who have been working to the limit since the spring of 2021; new deaths among the sick and refusal to return to their usual way of life. A sharp jump in new Covid cases could lead to a forced lockdown and new strict restrictions; hundreds of people could lose their jobs and find themselves in difficult life circumstances.”
“The organizers of unauthorized actions must be punished: their calls to “take a walk in the street” could lead to an increase in the number of St. Petersburg residents infected with coronavirus. <…> The instigators of the riots may be responsible for the outbreak of coronavirus [in St. Petersburg],” the New Information Agency wrote in February 2021.

These theses are repeated in public statements by officials. “Everything that occurs within the legislative framework on the part of any opposition political forces is completely normal,” Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev said in April. — In other words, if we are talking about rallies, rallies are permitted, yes, but not during a pandemic, when thousands of people gather, everyone marches in formation, and then our numbers for the number of cases in Moscow begin to jump. Activities must comply with the law."

The very essence of “sanitary work” is also undergoing a transformation in the media. For example, it is alleged that cases were opened “against persons who were infected with coronavirus and participated in uncoordinated rallies in Russian cities,” despite the fact that the vast majority of charges are related to publications on social networks, and among thousands of participants the investigation was unable to find any one patient. The only participant, whom the ten accused in the “sanitary case”, according to the investigation, incited to violate self-isolation, did not have a negative PCR test at the time of the action, but took a rapid test at home, which showed a negative result. The actual circumstances of the “sanitary case” are strikingly different from the information background around it, and the paucity of the prosecution’s arguments clearly demonstrates that the protesters, on the contrary, were extremely responsible for the health of others.

At the same time, the authorities are preventing the dissemination of reliable information about the case and the charges brought against it.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs announced the initiation of a case in Moscow only six days later, on January 29. By this time, dozens of searches had taken place in Moscow and the first suspects had already been detained. The website of the Investigative Committee, which later took over the case, did not publish a single news about it. At the same time, they talked about cases being investigated under Article 236 of the Criminal Code related to poisoning during the same period. There are no public statements about the status of the “sanitary case” in Saratov, although investigative actions were actively carried out on it in the winter.

“Non-disclosure agreements” regarding investigation data are used. The investigator took such a subscription from Natalya Rezontova, the defendant in the Nizhny Novgorod “sanitary case”, and her lawyer Ruslan Sozonov. As a result, they cannot release detailed information about the progress of a case until it goes to trial.

Lawyer Vladimir Voronin said in May that he had discovered a falsified non-disclosure agreement in the materials of Lyubov Sobol’s case: “They didn’t even show it to us, especially since we didn’t ‘get acquainted with its text through personal reading,’ as the investigator indicated,” he said in conversation with Novaya Gazeta. According to the investigator, Sobol and her lawyer refused to sign. Voronin emphasized that the document did not contain the signatures of witnesses who were supposed to confirm the refusal. In addition, the Moscow department of the Ministry of Justice sent a disciplinary complaint against Voronin to the regional chamber of lawyers due to the fact that the document he published from the interrogation of a witness in a “sanitary case” contained personal data. In August, the Council of the Moscow Bar Association reprimanded Voronov.

Consultations and comments from lawyers

It is necessary to distinguish this crime from other crimes:

According to the direction of intent: if the culprit treats the result of his actions (inaction) lightly, then the qualification under 236 is correct, but if the investigator proves intentional infliction of harm, then the qualification must be changed to another composition. In this case, liability will arise for causing harm of varying severity or death.
Subject: qualifications are subject to change when the emergence of large-scale diseases was caused by the circulation of goods and products, works or services that do not meet sanitary standards. In this case, the actions form a separate composition, regulated by paragraph g of Part 2.3 of Art. 238.

Violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules is characterized as a criminal act of minor severity, and if death occurs - of moderate severity.

Despite the dire consequences, the legislator provided for a maximum penalty of only 5 years in prison.

Summary

After the protest action on January 23, 2021, in several Russian cities - Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod and Saratov - criminal cases were opened for violation of sanitary rules, which entailed the threat of mass infection (Article 236 of the Criminal Code). Soon the cases were transferred from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the central office of the Investigative Committee.

We know about 11 defendants in Moscow and 2 defendants in the case in Nizhny Novgorod. There were no reports of any suspects appearing in Saratov. One Moscow case was dropped, and eight more were sentenced in August.

Only one person was directly accused of participating in the rally in violation of self-isolation due to the lack of a negative PCR test. The cases of the rest are related solely to the publication of information about the upcoming protest action - in most cases, the investigation saw this as “incitement” to a violation that created the threat of mass disease.

The possibility of prosecution for violations of sanitary and epidemiological rules without specific negative consequences, but only for the “threat” of their occurrence, appeared in the article with the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic - in the spring of 2021. The changes to the legislation were adopted in record time and without public discussion in the State Duma: a total of 10 minutes were devoted to this issue at plenary sessions. At the same time, sanctions were tightened - the maximum fine was increased and a sentence of imprisonment was added.

The OVD-Info report analyzes the practice of applying Article 236 of the Criminal Code before and after amendments to it. We rely on materials from the Moscow “sanitary case”, as well as data from the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, decisions from court websites and publications in the media. The data is available in tabular form in the appendix.

From 2010 to 2021, 107 people were convicted of violating sanitary and epidemiological rules. As a rule, the cases were related to cases of mass poisoning in canteens of schools, kindergartens and other institutions. Since 2021, the first cases of violations that created a “threat” of mass infection with coronavirus have appeared. In 2021, the article did not become widespread: the courts convicted 16 people. However, in 2021 the number of cases may increase: the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Investigative Committee have already reported dozens of cases filed.

Cases involving the threat of coronavirus infection more often end in convictions and more severe punishments than cases involving real negative consequences. Nevertheless, their sentences are noticeably lighter than in cases where the same article is applied to protest participants.

The preventive measures for those involved in the “sanitary case” were also noticeably stricter. For them, the courts in most cases chose a ban on certain actions or house arrest. For “non-protesting” cases, a preventive measure, as a rule, was not chosen or a written undertaking not to leave was assigned.

Preventive measures significantly limited the activities of those involved in the “sanitary case,” many of whom planned to participate in the elections in the fall of 2021. And the very existence of a “sanitary case” made it possible to build a full-fledged infrastructure for political persecution and legitimized hundreds of interrogations, mass searches and seizure of equipment from a wide range of people. The new edition of the article began to be used both preventively - to intimidate and reduce the number of participants in the protests, and subsequently to create a negative image of the protesters.

The transformation of Article 236 of the Criminal Code from an ordinary article on poisoning into an instrument of political pressure was ensured by a number of rule-making and law enforcement inventions. The emergence of punishment for an unintentional threat - especially in combination with such a streamlined concept as “mass disease” and the definition of “sanitary and epidemiological rules”, which expanded even more against the backdrop of the pandemic - has pushed the boundaries of application of the “sanitary” article to the maximum. A special invention of the investigators was the charge of “incitement”: this made it possible to use the article as a tool to combat speech - after all, it itself does not contain a part that would allow punishing calls for violations.

There is a selectivity and discriminatory application of Article 236 of the Criminal Code: despite appeals, no cases were brought under it in connection with pro-government actions or due to violations of sanitary conditions during the detention of protesters.

Commentary on Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

To understand the wording of Art.
236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a lawyer’s comment will be very useful. After all, the peculiarity of the article is the norm it contains, which is a reference one, that is, the Criminal Code itself does not contain any indication of specific violations of sanitary standards that entail the application of punishment. Therefore, in order to bring to justice it is necessary to find out which norm, rule or standard was committed by the person under investigation. The absence of sanitary standards, as well as violation of other special acts (veterinary, medical, regulating land use) entails a change in qualifications.

The massive nature of the disease (poisoning) meets the following criteria:

defeat of a significant part of the population (we can talk about an epidemic);
limited distribution area (institution, locality, organization) with the danger of expanding the scale;
exceeding the average statistical data for a specific type of disease.

The type of disease does not affect qualifications. As a rule, these are cholera, measles, salmonellosis, tuberculosis, smallpox and others.

Poisoning is an injury to the body that occurs after the penetration of a foreign chemical substance into it in a dose that can cause harm, both mild and severe.

When conducting an investigation, in addition to a forensic medical examination, the participation of specialists with knowledge in such fields of medicine as epidemiology, virology, bacteriology and sanitation is required.

Application

Suspects and accused in the “sanitary case”

The data is current at the time of publication of the report.

Constantly updated data on criminal cases after protests in early 2021 is available in the Palace Case dataset.

Official statistics on the consideration of cases under Article 236 of the Criminal Code in 2010–2020.

Source: Data from the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, aggregated within the framework of the dostoevsky.io project.

Punishments are indicated only for main cases.

Texts of decisions on the first part of Article 236 of the Criminal Code in 2013–2020.

All texts of decisions we found are given, where Part 1 of Art. 236 of the Criminal Code is the only article.

Source: Official websites of district courts

Examples of mass events that took place in Russia in 2021 without hindrance

Requirements for checking compliance with sanitary rules

Reports from open sources about demands to conduct an inspection in connection with a possible violation of sanitary rules in January–March 2021.

Contradictions in official statements and documents on the issue of medical masks

Articles of the Criminal Code that contain a threat in the sense of unrealized risks of negative consequences (similar to Article 236 of the Criminal Code)

Data as of August 27, 2021.

Legal commentary on Article 236 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation

1. Labor legislation establishes the financial liability of the employer in case of violation of the established deadline for payment of wages, vacation pay, calculation upon dismissal and other payments due to the employee.

2. For terms of payment of wages and vacation pay, see Art. 136 of the Labor Code, on payments upon dismissal - Art. 140 TK.

To receive monetary compensation, no prior written application to the employer is required. If he violates the established payment deadlines, the employer calculates monetary compensation taking into account the days of delay and pays it to the employee. Article 236 obliges the employer to pay the due compensation along with the delayed wages. Consequently, monetary compensation for the entire time of delay in payment of wages until the day of actual settlement should not be paid later than the day when the employer paid the employee the delayed wages.

By Directive of the Bank of Russia dated September 13, 2012 N 2873-U On the amount of the Bank of Russia refinancing rate, the refinancing rate from September 14, 2012 was set at 8.25% per annum.

An exception to the general conditions for the onset of material liability of a party to an employment contract, provided for in Art. 233 of the Labor Code is to impose on the employer the obligation to pay monetary compensation regardless of the presence of his fault, which increases the level of protection of the employee’s interests.

When considering a dispute arising in connection with the employer’s refusal to pay an employee interest (monetary compensation) for violation of the deadline for payment of wages, vacation pay, dismissal payments and other payments due to the employee, it must be borne in mind that in accordance with Art. 236, the court has the right to satisfy the claim regardless of the employer’s guilt in the delay in payment of the specified amounts (clause 55 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2).

3. Imposing on the employer the obligation to pay the specified monetary compensation does not deprive the employee of the right to apply to the court for the issuance of a court order on the basis of Art. 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if a demand is made for the recovery of accrued but not paid wages to the employee. A court order (court ruling) issued to an employee to collect wages is also a document of execution.

4. The provision on payment of monetary compensation to an employee does not apply if a dispute has arisen between the employee and the employer about the right to receive this payment, for example, about payment for overtime work performed.

5. Securing the right of an employee to receive monetary compensation for the time of delay in payment of wages does not limit his right to index the amount of delayed payment in connection with the increase in consumer prices for goods and services (see Article 134 and commentary thereto).

6. Increasing the level of social protection of workers, some industry tariff agreements establish monetary compensation in a higher amount compared to the law, for example, the amount of compensation for each calendar day of violation of the established deadlines for the payment of wages or amounts due to the employee upon dismissal is set at least 1 /200 of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, valid on the day of the established payment period (Federal Industry Agreement on the Radioelectronic Industry of the Russian Federation for 2009 - 2011 - extended for 2012 - 2014, Industry Agreement on Forestry of the Russian Federation for 2013 - 2015).

If a collective or labor agreement determines the amount of interest to be paid by the employer in connection with the delay in payment of wages or other payments due to the employee, the court calculates the amount of monetary compensation taking into account this amount, provided that it is not lower than established by Art. 236. The accrual of interest in connection with late payment of wages does not exclude the employee’s right to index the amounts of delayed wages due to their depreciation due to inflationary processes (clause 55 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 N 2).

7. For information on the deadline for going to court regarding the collection of accrued but unpaid wages, see the commentary. to Art. 392.

Arbitrage practice

When rendering a guilty verdict, the court must, in the reasoning part, refer to the rule providing for the procedure for maintaining a favorable epidemiological situation.

An example from practice: the director of housing and communal services was sentenced under Article 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in connection with an intestinal infection in a regional village due to contamination of the water intake with wastewater. As the official responsible for the supply of clean drinking water, he did not take measures to remove untreated sewage, nor did he ensure that water quality was monitored. The failure to act resulted in samples not being taken and intestinal viruses affecting the 110 residents not being detected in a timely manner.

Not only officials are held accountable, but also employees whose performance of work duties involves strict adherence to cleanliness and order in the workplace.

Example from practice: Cooks in the catering department of a boarding house were sentenced to restriction of freedom for violating the cooking technology. By being negligent in processing meat contaminated with salmonellosis, the perpetrators through their actions allowed bacteria to enter the food. Sick people - boarding school students - fell ill en masse after eating prepared food.