Krylova Natalia Evgenievna

The article is devoted to the problems of assessing the limits of action of intersectoral prejudice in qualifying crimes in Russia and Germany. The authors analyze the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on this issue and come to the conclusion that, due to the substantial difference in the goals and objectives of criminal and civil processes, intersectoral prejudice in qualifying crimes must be refutable.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the draft federal law on amending the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes of the Russian Federation, approved by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation at its meeting on October 13, 2020. The author of the article notes the absence in the Draft of a general definition of a criminal offense; referring to the number of misdemeanors of crimes of average gravity; deviation from the established rules for determining a crime committed for the first time. The provisions of the draft legislation relating to “other” measures of a criminal-legal nature are being investigated in more detail. The author critically evaluates the idea of expanding the system of such measures, believing that if the draft legislation is adopted, the system of criminal legal sanctions will acquire a dualistic character: along with the system of punishments, a system of security measures will be created that will be applied in the absence of a conviction by the court to persons who have not been found guilty of the established okay. The article examines the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, formulated by it in relation to the confiscation of property. The author draws attention to the experience of certain foreign countries (France, Germany), noting that there is a tendency in them to reduce the number of measures that act as legal consequences of the commission of a crime, but are used outside the forms of implementation of criminal liability. The final conclusion is to state the significant shortcomings of the draft legislation, which do not allow supporting it as a whole.

The article deals with the problems of criminal liability of a medical worker for careless crimes committed in the field of professional activity in the context of two divergent trends in the criminal policy pursued by the state. The main attention of the authors is focused on the issues of the statute of limitations of the criminal prosecution of a medical worker. As a result of the humanization of the criminal law, the statute of limitations for the crimes of medical workers with a fatal outcome has been significantly reduced, which does not allow the investigative and judicial authorities to perform the task of a comprehensive and objective investigation and trial of the relevant criminal cases. The complexity of criminal cases on the crimes of medical workers, the need to appoint forensic medical examinations, including additional and repeated ones, do not allow conducting the necessary investigative actions and considering the case by the court within the time limits provided for by the criminal law. The authors come to the conclusion that it is necessary to transfer the composition of the negligent infliction of death on a person by a medical worker to the category of a medium-gravity crime and, accordingly, to increase the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution for this crime. According to the authors, this will contribute to strengthening the criminal law protection of the rights of victims and create conditions for the proper investigation and trial of criminal cases in this category of crimes of medical workers.

The special issue of the Bulletin of Moscow University, ending in 2022, is dedicated to the anniversary date — the 95th anniversary of the birth of the head of the Department of Criminal Law and Criminology of the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University, laureate of the USSR State Prize, Honored Scientist of the RSFSR, Honored Worker of Higher Education, Honored Professor of Moscow State University, member of the International Association of Criminal Law Ninel Fedorovna Kuznetsova (1927-2010).

The article examines the problem of errors made by the investigative and judicial authorities in the qualification of crimes considered in a special procedure for making a court decision (Chapter 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). The author takes as a basis the definition of the qualification of crimes and qualification errors by the professor of Moscow University N.F.Kuznetsova. The contribution of N.F.Kuznetsova in the development of the problem of qualifying errors, which consists, in particular, in considering the corpus delicti as the main tool for qualifying a crime, in classifying the types of qualifying errors, in the proposed methodology for determining the number of these errors. In the main part of the article, using the materials of judicial practice, individual law enforcement errors made in the qualification of crimes considered in a special order are analyzed. The author of the article comes to the conclusion that the largest number of overturned sentences is associated with the wrong choice of the criminal law norm or its incorrect interpretation. Particular attention is paid to the problem of qualifying crimes, the composition of which includes the so-called evaluative features, the content of which is not disclosed in the criminal law and is established by the law enforcement officer depending on the actual circumstances of a particular criminal case. The author of the article believes that in such cases, priority should be given to the general procedure for considering a criminal case. Conducting a full-fledged judicial investigation, although it does not guarantee the correct final qualification of the crime committed and will not completely eliminate qualification errors, however, it can minimize them to a large extent.

This article is devoted to the issues of liability for criminal acts against justice in the criminal law of France and Germany. The authors examine the conceptual features of the model of criminal liability for criminal acts against justice in each of the specified legal orders. The article concludes that there are different approaches to establishing liability for criminal acts against justice in French and German criminal law. The French model of criminal liability for criminal encroachments on the interests of justice assumes the inclusion in the latter of not only the acts of individuals participating in legal proceedings, but also the acts of officials committed in connection with the administration of justice. Also, in the criminal law of France, criminal acts against the interests of justice include encroachments on the health and other benefits of both officials and individuals, if these acts are committed in connection with the administration of justice. The German model of criminal liability for criminal acts against justice is based on a narrow approach, according to which criminal attacks on justice are limited to acts of private individuals participating in various types of legal proceedings.