Articles

This article is devoted to the issues of the possibility and validity of recognizing an act as insignificant within the formally defined crimes. To this end, the author examines the understanding of public danger in relation to the question of the insignificance of an act with formally defined crimes in the doctrine and judicial practice. The article draws a conclusion about the role of the insignificance of an act as a tool that allows decriminalizing violations of regulatory legislation that do not have a criminal public danger within the formally defined crimes. This conclusion is revealed by the example of the corpus delicti provided for in Article 200.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author also substantiates the conclusions about the possibility of recognizing as insignificant an act within the corpus delicti with an alternative form of mens rea; about the need to bring a person to administrative responsibility for committing an act recognized as insignificant due to the absence of criminal public danger; on the need for the court to make a decision on the possibility / impossibility of recognizing an act as insignificant in each specific case and, accordingly, the inadmissibility of limiting the list of acts that can be recognized as insignificant by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (at least in relation to acts that have / do not have a criminal public danger).

The aim of the study was to analyze the legislation of the Russian Federation, Russian legal doctrine and judicial practice to identify a causation between a criminally punishable act — incitement to commit suicide and the consequence — suicide. Based on the analysis, it was concluded that the composition of a criminal act is formed when a direct causal link is established between the actions of the perpetrator and the suicide of the victim and cannot be formed if the suicide was committed due to other influences, factors or circumstances, even if it had the element of influence of the suspect, but it, however, is not decisive, does not directly entail a consequence. A consistent and thorough identification of a causation requires a mandatory comprehensive study of mental processes in consciousness, as well as the circumstances of the victim’s life in their dynamics, which motivated or could motivate him to commit suicide. The impact of a complex of such motivating circumstances may indicate a causality other than outwardly looking wrongful influence. Identification of secondary factors becomes more important for qualification. Establishing a causal relationship involves relying on the conclusion of a forensic psychological and psychiatric examination, which is relevant evidence.

This article continues the article devoted to the problem of the political responsibility of Russian Provisional Government. The author shows that violent overthrow of monarchial order didn`t bring to embodiment of ideas of liberal groups about establishment of political responsibility of the government before parliament. The Russian Provisional Government considered that it can bear responsibility for its decisions only before the people and therefore refused to consider itself responsible before the State Duma. Attempts of the Mensheviks and Socialists Revolutionaries to compel it to bear responsibility before Pre-parliament were also unsuccessful. Right up to its overthrow the Russian Provisional Government successfully counteracted the attempts of right-wing and left-wing political groups to establish the political control of any representative body over it. However, although the Russian Provisional Government remained irresponsible, it`s members bore responsibility before the political parties, which delegated them in the Government. Contrary to expectations of the liberal groups, period between the February and the October revolutions was the time of formation of a principle of party responsibility of the officials.

The article analyses views on intradepartmental normative document in terms of correlation of the concepts «normative legal act» and «local normative act» in legislation, function of Ministry of justice of Russia, regulatory document control and juridical literature. Referring to the theoretical division of departmental normative acts into generally binding and intradepartmental ones, author assumes the synonymy of the concepts «normative legal act affecting the rights, freedom and duties of a person and citizen», «normative legal act mandatory for federal state authorities, state authorities constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local governments, as well as legal entities and individuals» and «generally binding normative act». It is substantiated that intradepartmental normative documents cannot be considered normative legal acts affecting the rights, freedom and duties of a person and a citizen, since they apply to a certain circle of persons and their effect does not go beyond the limits of the relevant department. Considering specific departmental normative acts registered by the Ministry of Justice of Russia or challenged in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the author shows the impossibility of classifying them as generally binding normative acts, including citing as an example similar documents issued by entities not authorized to exercise legal regulation. It is proposed to abandon the practice of state registration of intradepartmental regulatory documents, the advantage of this abandonment from a practical point of view is noted.