ST 267 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
1. Destruction, damage or otherwise rendering unusable a vehicle, communication routes, signaling or communication means or other transport equipment, as well as deliberate blocking of transport communications, transport infrastructure facilities or obstruction of the movement of vehicles and pedestrians on communication routes, road network, if these acts created a threat to the life, health and safety of citizens or a threat of destruction or damage to the property of individuals and (or) legal entities, -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one to two years, or by compulsory labor for a term of up to two hundred and forty hours, or by forced labor for a term of up to one year, or by imprisonment freedom for the same period.
2. The same acts, which by negligence entailed the infliction of slight harm to health, -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of two hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of two years to two years and six months, or by compulsory labor for a term of up to three hundred hours, or by forced labor for a term of up to two years, or imprisonment for the same period.
3. Acts provided for in the first part of this article, which entailed by negligence the infliction of moderate harm to health, -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of three hundred thousand to six hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of two years, six months to three years, or by compulsory labor for a term of up to four hundred hours, or by forced labor for a term of up to three years, or imprisonment for the same period.
4. Acts provided for in part one of this article, which through negligence entailed the infliction of grave harm to human health or the infliction of major damage, -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of four 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 three to four years, or by compulsory labor for a term of up to four hundred and fifty hours, or by forced labor for a term of up to four years, or by imprisonment. for the same period.
5. Acts provided for in the first part of this article, resulting in the death of a person through negligence, -
shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to eight years.
6. Acts provided for in the first part of this article, resulting in the death of two or more persons through negligence, -
shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to ten years.
Note. In this article, major damage is defined as damage the amount of which exceeds one million rubles.
Commentary to Art. 267 Criminal Code
1. The subject of the crime basically coincides with the subject of the crime provided for in Art. 266 of the Criminal Code. Additionally, transport communications were identified as the subject of the crime, i.e. a set of communication routes along which route movement of various types of transport is carried out.
2. The objective side of the crime is expressed in the form of actions: a) destruction, damage or otherwise rendering unusable a vehicle, communication lines, signaling, communication or other transport equipment; b) blocking transport communications. Other methods of rendering the vehicle unfit for use include actions not related to the violation of the physical integrity and structure of the subject of the crime, as a result of which the operation of the corresponding subject of the crime is also impossible (filling oil in the cooling system of a vehicle, de-energizing alarm systems, etc.). ). Blocking transport communications is the creation of obstacles to the movement of a vehicle along communication routes (arrangement of physical obstacles, etc.). A mandatory feature of the crime in question is the occurrence of socially dangerous consequences due to negligence: grave harm to human health or major damage (part 1) (according to the note to this article, this is damage the amount of which exceeds 1 million rubles); death of a person (part 2); death of two or more persons (Part 3). In this case, it is necessary to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between actions and socially dangerous consequences that occur.
3. The crime is considered completed from the moment the specified socially dangerous consequences occur. In the absence of these consequences when blocking transport communications, these actions are qualified under Art. 20.18 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Interference with transport infrastructure by the authorities
The amendments did not solve the problem of the lack of responsibility for counter actions of the authorities, which often lead to restrictions on the movement of both transport and protesters.
During protests in early 2021, police restricted traffic in various cities.
- On January 31, pedestrian traffic was restricted in the center of Moscow and seven metro stations were closed. On February 2, traffic was restricted on the streets near the Moscow City Court building, where the hearing on the case of Alexei Navalny was held.
- The police in Chelyabinsk, two days before the action on January 31, warned that they would limit “car and pedestrian traffic in places where unauthorized actions may be held” “due to the ongoing set of measures to protect order and road safety during uncoordinated public events.” Local media reported that the police even blocked tram traffic.
- In St. Petersburg, on January 31, police blocked traffic on Nevsky Prospect and adjacent streets, several metro stations were closed, and ground public transport routes were changed. Traffic was blocked and February 6 was the closest day off after Navalny’s trial.
- Metro stations were closed and public transport routes were changed on January 31 also in Samara, Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan and Yekaterinburg. In some cases, the authorities referred to impending uncoordinated actions, in others they explained their actions by some kind of breakdown, and sometimes they did not give a reason at all. An overview of the restrictions on this day was published by Mediazona. Local media also reported traffic restrictions that day in the center of Khabarovsk.
In none of these cases did the authorities justify the need to block traffic and were not responsible for the obstacles created to the movement of vehicles and pedestrians. Although such proposals have already been voiced:
- During a speech on May 12 in the State Duma, Nikolai Kolomeytsev, a deputy from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, called the blocking of markets near Rostov by employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the National Guard a violation of Article 267 of the Criminal Code.
- After the Yekaterinburg authorities blocked the city center on the evening of April 21, when protests were again taking place throughout Russia, local activist Dmitry Kalinin contacted the regional prosecutor’s office with a demand to open a case under Part 1 of Article 267 of the Criminal Code in connection with the actions of the city administration.
Second commentary to Art. 267 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. Railway communications are a railway track with rails, sleepers and embankment; in the air - runways, taxiways, safety strips, etc.; in water transport - the route of a vessel from one geographical point (port) to another through open areas of the ocean or sea, as well as natural or artificial narrows (straits, canals, rivers, lakes). Signaling means - means that provide conditional information (command, report, notification, identification, control, etc.), can be audio, visual (light), etc. Signaling means, for example, include semaphores, beacons, beacons, wayfinding and marking signs. Communication means are technical devices that provide the transmission and reception of various types of messages. Communication can be telephone, telegraph, telecode, facsimile, television, etc. Transport equipment is understood as a set of mechanisms, devices, instruments necessary for the safe operation of railways, aviation, sea and river fleets, and the metro. Transport communications is a general concept that includes communication routes and structures on them.
2. Destruction is the complete collapse of the system, as a result of which it is unable to function for its intended purpose. When destroyed, either the technical possibility of restoring the subject of the crime is lost, or it becomes economically infeasible. Damage entails a partial change in the properties, structure and form of a technical system, due to which it can be restored. When otherwise rendered unusable for use, the object of the crime does not suffer damage; it remains serviceable, but “falls out” of the system that ensures the safe operation of transport. Blocking transport communications means significantly limiting or even paralyzing the activities of a certain link in the railway, air or water transport system.
3. On the concept of grievous bodily harm, see the commentary to Art. 111 of the Criminal Code. Major damage is considered to be damage whose amount exceeds 1 million rubles.
4. The subjective side is characterized by a careless form of guilt.
5. The subject of the crime is a person who has reached the age of 14.
6. The death of one person or two persons or more is provided for, respectively, in Parts 2 and 3 of Art. 267 CC.
International law
“Participants in assemblies have the same rights to use public space for a reasonable period of time as any other person. Moreover, public protest, like freedom of assembly in general, should be considered as a valid use of public space as other purposes for which public spaces are most commonly used (for example, commerce and the movement of vehicles and pedestrians), the Guidelines say. OSCE/ODIHR Principles on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, with reference to the position of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
In general, the ECtHR leaves relatively wide limits for Council of Europe states to legally assess the blocking of roads by protesters:
- In 2021, in the case “Annenkov and others v. the Russian Federation” (complaint No. 31 475/10), the ECHR considered the case of residents of Voronezh. They protested against the demolition of the market and the construction of a shopping center on its territory. To prevent the demolition, people organized a constant vigil at the market, which, according to the local district court, blocked access to the market for its employees and blocked the passage to the office building. The ECtHR ruling in this case states: “Any demonstration in a public place is likely to lead to a certain level of disruption to everyday life, for example disruption of transport services. But this fact in itself does not justify interference with the right to freedom of assembly, since it is important for public authorities to demonstrate a certain degree of tolerance.” This position is confirmed in a number of other decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
- The case of Barraco v. France (application no. 31 684/05) dealt with the case of truck driver Alain Barraco. On November 25, 2002, he was one of seventeen drivers who participated in a speeding action organized by the Joint Trade Union Committee. Since 6 a.m., they have been driving at speeds of about 10 kilometers per hour along the highway, forming a moving barricade on several road lanes. Later that day, Alain Barraco and two other drivers were detained for stopping trucks and completely blocking traffic on the highway. The national court sentenced each to three months' suspended detention and a fine of 1,500 euros. The ECtHR recognized that any demonstration in a public place may cause some inconvenience and considered that in such circumstances a certain tolerance is required from the authorities. However, the Court considered that in this case the complete blockade of traffic on the motorway went beyond the inconvenience inherent in any demonstration, and noted that the demonstrators were detained only after a series of warnings. According to the Court, Alain Barraco was able to exercise his right to freedom of peaceful assembly within a few hours and the authorities showed the necessary tolerance. Accordingly, there was no violation of Article 11 and Barraco's sentence was not disproportionate.
- Disputes about the fair balance between the rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of movement have been the subject of consideration by the ECHR in a number of other complaints.
The United Nations takes a more clear position.
- The 2021 General Comment on the Right to Peaceful Assembly of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that assemblies “by their size or nature […] may interfere with, for example, vehicular or pedestrian traffic or economic activity. These consequences, whether intended or unintended, are not grounds for depriving such assemblies of the protection they enjoy” (para. 7). “Simply pushing and shoving or obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic or daily activities is not violence” (paragraph 15). “An assembly that remains peaceful but causes significant disruption, such as prolonged blocking of traffic, may generally only be dispersed if the disruption is “serious and prolonged” (para. 85).
- In a 2021 report, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association emphasized that “road blockades should never carry criminal penalties,” as “road blockades and prolonged sit-ins in public spaces have become central to social movements.” and peaceful protests around the world. Roadways, in particular, are common sites for peaceful protests.” This position was also expressed in the report, which criticized bills that introduced criminal liability for blocking roads and impeding traffic in a number of US states. The Special Rapporteur called this approach “disproportionate criminalization” and strongly condemned it as potentially discouraging peaceful demonstrations.
- In the 2021 report, Special Rapporteur Fr.
Thus, the criminalization of short-term and minor interference with the movement of pedestrians and vehicles and the practice of applying Article 267 of the Criminal Code are incompatible with the requirements of international law.
Definition of concepts
By rendering vehicles or means of communication unusable we mean their destruction or damage , that is, complete or partial damage to these objects, which does not allow them to be used in the future. The result of such actions is the impossibility of their restoration in the future or the need for excessive repair costs.
Methods
Here are the main ways to render vehicles or communications routes unusable:
- transferring various signs to another place from those intended for them;
- turning off the light alarm or traffic lights;
- construction or construction of obstacles on communication routes;
- opposition of persons to the passage of vehicles through them;
- arson of vehicles or their explosion;
- water flooding of communication routes;
- disconnecting them from the power supply;
- other mechanical influences on them.
This is not a complete list, but it represents the most common cases when vehicles fail.
What are the punishments?
If the act is qualified under Part 1 of Art. 267 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation prescribes the following types of punishment :
- a fine in the amount of 100 to 300,000 rubles. or salary for 1-2 years;
- forced labor for up to 4 years;
- imprisonment for the same period.
If the crime was determined under Part 2 of Art. 267 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, then the only measure chosen is imprisonment in a colony for 8 years . When qualifying under Part 3 of Art. 267 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the term of imprisonment is increased to 10 years.
Important! The court chooses a specific measure after the incident has been fully considered. Her choice depends on all the circumstances of the act and what consequences it had.
From judicial practice it can be concluded that in the future the convicted person is allowed to apply for parole if he does not violate discipline.
