graduate student from 01.01.2025 until now
Ekaterinburg, Russian Federation
UDC 343.13
Introduction. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that regulate the release from liability of a person who has committed a crime but has redressed the harm caused essentially represent a specific compromise between public (state) and private (personal) interests. However, the conditions and grounds for the emergence of such a compromise must be clearly delineated, thereby excluding the possibility of ambiguous interpretations of individual elements of criminal procedural norms and inconsistent judicial practice. This article analyses the problem of the lack of a clear distinction between the concepts of “condition” and “ground” for exemption from criminal liability, which entails risks of ambiguous interpretation of norms, discretionary decision-making by law enforcement officials, and potential violations of the principle of equality before the law. Special attention is given to three aspects: gaps in the legislative definition of terms, discrepancies in doctrinal interpretations (ranging from conflation to strict differentiation of the concepts), and contradictions in the positions of various courts. Methods. The research employs a comprehensive set of general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, deduction, generalisation, and a systemicstructural method, as well as specific scientific methods: formal-legal and comparativelegal methods. Comparison was used as an empirical research method. Results. As a result of the study, a system of elements for releasing a person from criminal liability was developed, which is necessary for ensuring a clear and structured understanding of the institution for all participants in criminal proceedings – from law students to practising lawyers, researchers, and legislators.
compromise grounds, exemption from criminal liability, compromise, termination of criminal proceedings, system, conditions and grounds
1. Yanina Ya. Yu. Zakonnost' kak kriteriy dopustimosti kompromissa v razreshenii konfliktov ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva // Pravo i politika. 2007. № 9. S. 83–86.
2. Davletov A. A., Azarenok N. V. Balans publichnogo i chastnogo interesov kak osnovopolagayuschiy faktor formirovaniya sovremennogo rossiyskogo ugolovnogo processa // Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika. 2021. № 6. S. 31–37.
3. Kozlova E. L., Barinova E. D. Sudebnyy shtraf kak mera osvobozhdeniya ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti nesovershennoletnih // Rossiyskiy sud'ya. 2021. № 4. S. 8–11. https://doi.org/10.18572/1812-3791-2021-4-8-11
4. Skripchenko M. Yu. Sudebnyy shtraf: problemy realizacii zakonodatel'nyh novell // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. 2017. № 7. S. 106–114.
5. Yani P. S. Naznachenie sudebnogo shtrafa kak obyazannost' suda // Zakonnost'. 2021. № 7 (1041). S. 27–31.
6. Apostolova N. N. Prekraschenie ugolovnogo dela ili ugolovnogo presledovaniya s naznacheniem mery ugolovno-pravovogo haraktera v vide sudebnogo shtrafa // Rossiyskaya yusticiya. 2016. № 10. S. 34–37.
7. Sabitov R. A. Postkriminal'noe povedenie : (Ponyatie, regulirovanie, posledstviya) : [monografiya] / pod red. R. R. Galiakbarova. Tomsk : Izdatel'stvo Tomskogo universiteta, 1985. 193 s.
8. Kuz'mina O. N. Osnovaniya i usloviya osvobozhdeniya ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti // Gumanitarnye, social'no-ekonomicheskie i obschestvennye nauki. 2019. № 6. S. 87–91. https://doi.org/10.23672/SAE.2019.6.32983
9. Hlebnicyna E. A., Chugunov A. A. «Osnovanie» i «uslovie» osvobozhdeniya ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti: sootnoshenie ponyatiy (na primere st. 76.2 UK RF) // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta MVD Rossii. 2020. № 8. S. 166–170. https://doi.org/10.24411/2073-0454-2020-10474
10. Sokolova O. V., Stepanova I. B. Sudebnyy shtraf: teoreticheskie i prakticheskie podhody k opredeleniyu celey i osnovaniya ego primeneniya // Pravo i praktika. 2021. № 4. S. 107–113. https://doi.org/10.24412/2411-2275-2021-4-107-113
11. Gegel' G. V. F. Uchenie o bytii // Nauka logiki : v 3 t. / [otv. red. i avt. vstup. stat'i M. M. Rozental']. Moskva : Mysl', 1970. T. 1. 501 s.
12. Gruzdev V. V. Yuridicheskie fakty, yuridicheskie usloviya i pravovye sostoyaniya v mehanizme pravovogo regulirovaniya // Vestnik Akademii ekonomicheskoy bezopasnosti MVD Rossii. 2011. № 5. S. 82–89.
13. Lucenko N. S. Osnovaniya i usloviya osvobozhdeniya ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti s naznacheniem sudebnogo shtrafa v teoreticheskom i prikladnom kontekstah // Voprosy rossiyskogo i mezhdunarodnogo prava. 2019. T. 9, № 4-1. S. 332–340.
14. Poltavec V. V. Problemnye aspekty osvobozhdeniya ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti s naznacheniem sudebnogo shtrafa / 30 let yuridicheskoy nauki KUBGAU : sbornik nauchnyh trudov po materialam Vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferencii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem, g. Krasnodar, 10 dekabrya 2021 g. / pod red. V. D. Zelenskogo. Krasnodar : Kubanskiy gosudarstvennyy agrarnyy universitet imeni I. T. Trubilina, 2021. S. 192–197.
15. Stel'mah V. Yu. Processual'nye aspekty prekrascheniya ugolovnogo presledovaniya s naznacheniem sudebnogo shtrafa // Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal. 2018. № 6 (123). S. 117–129.
16. Smyr A. D. Konkurenciya osnovaniy prekrascheniya ugolovnogo dela i ugolovnogo presledovaniya, svyazannyh s pozitivnym postkriminal'nym povedeniem obvinyaemogo i podozrevaemogo // Vestnik Voronezhskogo instituta MVD Rossii. 2019. № 3. S. 234–243.
17. Kirillova N. P., Kamatesov P. A. Processual'nye problemy osvobozhdeniya ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti s naznacheniem sudebnogo shtrafa na stadii predvaritel'nogo rassledovaniya // Sibirskie ugolovno-processual'nye i kriminalisticheskie chteniya. 2021. № 2 (32). S. 34–43.
18. Ovsyannikov I. V. Kogo mozhno osvobozhdat' ot ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti? // Chelovek: prestuplenie i nakazanie. 2023. T. 31, № 2. S. 199–204. https://doi.org/10.33463/2687-1238.2023.31(1-4).2.199-204
19. Markelov A. G. O kompromisse pri prekraschenii ugolovnogo dela ili ugolovnogo presledovaniya v svyazi s naznacheniem mery ugolovno-pravogo haraktera v vide sudebnogo shtrafa // Vestnik Voronezhskogo instituta MVD Rossii. 2017. № 2. S. 83–88.
