Kharlamov D.D.

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 problems of criminal liability for extortion in Russia and Germany. The author concludes that there are similar approaches to the regulation of criminal liability for extortion in Russian and German criminal law: extortion is considered as crime against property as a whole. The author also reveals existing differences in the qualification of extortion in the law of both countries.

This article is devoted to debatable issues of qualification of hooliganism. The author analyzes the changes made to Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which regulates responsibility for hooliganism, and the practice of its application. The article deals with the problem of distinguishing between hooliganism and crimes committed out of hooligan motives: the author comes to the conclusion that these crimes are distinguished according to the signs of the objective side. The article also touches upon the problem of qualification of hooliganism committed with the use of violence in conjunction with crimes against health: the author comes to the conclusion that when solving this problem, it is necessary to be guided by the rule of competition between the part and the whole. In accordance with this rule, the norm providing for criminal liability for hooliganism covers beatings and intentional infliction of minor bodily harm, therefore, the relevant articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should not be imputed in conjunction with Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The article analyzes the problem of distinguishing between hooliganism on railway, sea, inland water or air transport, as well as on any other public transport (paragraph 1 of article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and actions committed out of hooligan motives that threaten safety operation of vehicles (Article 267.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The author comes to the conclusion that the main problems associated with the qualification of hooliganism are caused by legislative errors in the construction of this criminal law norm.

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.