New edition of Art. 217 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. Violation of industrial safety requirements for hazardous production facilities, which through negligence entailed the infliction of serious harm to human health or major damage, -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to four hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to eighteen months, or by imprisonment for a term of up to three years, with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.
2. The same act, resulting in the death of a person through negligence, -
shall be punishable by forced labor for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it, or imprisonment for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years, or without one.
3. An act provided for in the first part of this article, resulting in the death of two or more persons through negligence, -
shall be punishable by forced labor for a term of up to five years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years or without it, or by imprisonment for a term of up to seven years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years, or without one.
Commentary on Article 217 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The public danger of a crime consists of undermining the public security of Russia, causing death to a person or major damage to the owner, or creating a threat of death to a person.
The main elements of the crime are revealed in part 1 comment. article and describes socially dangerous acts included in the category of minor crimes. Qualified personnel are provided for part 2 comments. article and includes acts included in the category of crimes of medium gravity. A particularly qualified composition is enshrined in Part 3 and reveals intentional acts related to serious crimes, as well as careless acts included in the category of crimes of moderate gravity.
2. The main object of criminal encroachment is public safety, regulated by safety rules at explosive sites or in explosive workshops. Optional objects can be human life and property relations. In qualified and especially qualified crimes, human life is an additional object of attack.
3. The objective side of the crime is expressed in the form of action or inaction. An active form of criminal behavior is reflected, for example, in violation of the production process, operation of faulty equipment, and careless handling of fire. Passive criminal behavior is possible, for example, when actions are not performed that ensure a safe production process.
4. A mandatory feature of the objective side of the crime is the place where it was committed, which can be an explosive object or an explosive workshop.
4.1. An explosive object is a section of terrain (room, storage) on which explosive substances are placed, such as gunpowder, TNT, nitroglycerin, and products containing them, in particular ammunition, pyrotechnic products, explosive devices, etc. d.
4.2. An explosive workshop is a section of terrain equipped with production equipment where work related to the production or use of explosive substances and products containing these substances is carried out.
5. The disposition of the article is of a reference-blanket nature, see paragraph 7 of the comment. to Art. 216.
6. According to the legislative structure, the corpus delicti provided for in Part 1 of the comment. article is formal and material. The crime is completed (by elements) at the moment of committing a socially dangerous act - a violation of safety rules at explosive facilities or in explosive workshops, which created a real threat of causing the death of at least one person through negligence, or at the moment of large damage to the owner as a result of a socially dangerous act.
6.1. Major damage is determined according to the note to Art. 216 and is recognized as such if the amount of damage caused exceeds 500 thousand rubles.
7. The elements of the crime provided for in parts 2 and 3 of the comment. Articles, by legislative design, are material. The crime is completed (by elements) at the moment of occurrence due to negligence as a result of violation of the specified safety rules, corresponding to the death of at least one person (Part 2) or the death of two or more persons (Part 3). Here there must be a necessary cause-and-effect relationship between the violation of safety rules and the resulting material, socially dangerous consequence.
7.1. For the death of a person, see paragraph 11.2 of the commentary. to Art. 247.
8. The subjective side of the crime is characterized by guilt in the form of intent or negligence. In the first case, for example, the guilty person realizes that he is violating safety rules at explosive objects, foresees the possibility of major damage as a result of this, and although he does not want to, he consciously allows it to occur or is indifferent to its occurrence. In the second case, for example, the guilty person does not foresee the possibility of major damage as a result of his behavior, although with the necessary care and forethought he should and could have foreseen this consequence.
8.1. In parts 2 and 3 comments. Articles of wine can be characterized by two forms. Here, the mental attitude of the perpetrator to the committed act can be expressed in a deliberate violation of safety rules at an explosive facility and the creation of a real threat of causing major damage, the conscious assumption of this consequence (Part 1), the death of one person due to negligence (Part 2) or the death of two or more persons (part 3).
9. The subject of a criminal offense is a sane individual who has reached the age of 16 at the time of committing the crime, who is obliged to comply with safety rules at explosive facilities or in explosive workshops and (or) responsible for their compliance. These may be officials, specialists responsible for areas of work, performers of work at explosive objects (in explosive workshops).
Judicial practice: sentences and punishment under Art. 217 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 27, 2002 N 29 ON JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES OF THEFT,...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination N 203-APU17-21... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 203-APU17-21 APPEAL DECISION Moscow August 31, 2022 Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel of the Supreme...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Resolution No. 310P13 dated... DECISION OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 310-P13 Moscow January 23, 2014 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation...
- Ruling of the ECtHR dated 02/14/2017 EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE “MASLOVA VS. RUSSIAN FEDERATION” (Complaint No. 15980/12) JUDGMENT…
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION of November 15, 2016 N 48 ON THE PRACTICE OF APPLICATION BY COURTS OF LEGISLATION GOVERNING FEATURES...
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENAUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated June 25, 2022 N 18 ON JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES OF CRIMES,...
- Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 5, 2018 N 126-P18 ON RESUMING PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE DUE TO NEW...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 56-КГ16-46 dated... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION No. 56-КГ16-46 DETERMINATION Moscow March 6, 2017 Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 56-КГ16-46 dated... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION No. 56-КГ16-46 DETERMINATION Moscow March 6, 2017 Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court...
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENAUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 17, 2022 N 43 ON SOME ISSUES OF JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES...
Another comment on Art. 217 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The victim can be any person.
2. The objective side is a violation of safety rules at explosive facilities or in explosive workshops. Violation of these rules can be expressed both in the form of action (exceeding the maximum concentration limits of explosive substances) and inaction (failure to provide workplaces with ventilation devices).
Violation of these rules entails criminal liability only if it: a) could lead to the death of a person. The corpus delicti in this case refers to the elements of a specific danger. The crime is considered completed from the moment of violation of these rules. Socially dangerous consequences are beyond the scope of the composition; b) caused major damage. According to the note to Art. 216 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, damage is recognized as large, the amount of which exceeds five hundred thousand rubles. In this case, the composition becomes material, the crime is considered completed from the moment the socially dangerous consequences occur.
3. The location - explosive objects - is a mandatory sign of the objective side of the crime being analyzed.
sentence under art. 217 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Case No. 1-12/2012
PRI G O V O R
named after the Russian Federation
p. Orlovsky,
Rostov region. February 10, 2012
Judge of the Oryol District Court of the Rostov Region Nosov A.V.,
with the participation of the state prosecutor of the prosecutor's office of the Oryol district of the Rostov region A.S. Pagasyan,
defendant Melnik Andrey Valerievich,
lawyer FULL NAME5, who presented certificate No., warrant No. dated DD.MM.YYYY,
victim FULL NAME6,
representative of the victim FULL NAME13, FULL NAME12 acting on the basis of a power of attorney from DD.MM.YYYY,
under secretary G.N. Mishchenko,
Having examined the materials of the criminal case regarding:
Melnik Andrey Valerievich, DD.MM.YYYY year of birth, native of <address>, citizen of the Russian Federation, living at <address> house. 8 <address>, has a secondary specialized education, married, working as a worker at Vitrazh LLC at <address>, liable for military service, no criminal record,
accused of committing a crime under Art. 217 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,
U S T A N O V I L:
Melnik A.V., in accordance with the order of the general director of the limited liability company <data taken>” dated DD.MM.YYYY, worked as a senior operator at the Oryol gas filling station. In the period from DD.MM.YYYY to DD.MM.YYYY, in accordance with the order of the head of the Oryol gas filling station from DD.MM.YYYY, Melnik A.V. Acted as a foreman for the unloading and loading section of a gas filling station. In accordance with Federal Law No. 116-FZ dated DD.MM.YYYY “On industrial safety of hazardous production facilities” and in accordance with the resolution of Chapter <address> No. dated DD.MM.YYYY, the gas filling station is classified as a hazardous facility. According to the job description from DD.MM.YYYY, Melnik A.V. was obliged to comply with: safe operation of vessels operating under pressure PB 03-576-03, safety of facilities using liquefied hydrocarbon gases PB 12-609-03, safety during the operation of liquefied gas filling stations PB 12-527-03, industry standards OST 153 -39-3-052-2003. Melnik A.V. violated safety rules at an explosive facility, which resulted in the death of two persons through negligence. Melnik A.V. DD.MM.YYYY from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., acting as a foreman, was at his workplace and was the senior management on the territory of the Oryol gas filling station of DonOrenGaz LLC, located at: <address> “b”. Melnik A.V. violated Art. 9 hours 1, 2 Federal Law No. 116 dated DD.MM.YYYY “On industrial safety of hazardous production facilities”, according to which the organization operating a hazardous production facility is obliged to allow persons who meet the relevant qualification requirements to work at a hazardous production facility; organize and carry out production control over compliance with industrial safety requirements; ensure the availability and operation of the necessary instruments and systems for monitoring production processes in accordance with established requirements; prevent unauthorized persons from entering a hazardous production facility; comply with the requirements of regulatory legal acts and regulatory technical documents establishing the rules for conducting work at a hazardous production facility. Melnik A.V. without the permission of the head of the gas filling station FULL NAME8, who is on duty in the city of Rostov n/a, allowed access to the territory of the Oryol gas filling station of LLC “<data taken>”, to carry out work on loading liquefied hydrocarbon gases, a MAZ car with a state registration sign No. region, with a tanker truck PPCT-36 with state registration plate No. region, under the control of driver FULL NAME9 Melnik A.V. showed negligence. He did not foresee the possibility of grave consequences in the form of causing death to two persons, although with the necessary care and foresight he should have and could have foreseen this. Melnik A.V. violated clause 9.1.20, 9.1.21, 9.1.22 “Rules for the design and safe operation of pressure vessels”, PB 03-576-03, approved by Resolution of the State Gortechnadzor of Russia No. 91 of June 11, 2003, according to which: before filling tanks and barrels with gases, a responsible person appointed by the administration must carry out a thorough inspection of the outer surface, check the serviceability and tightness of the fittings, the presence of residual pressure and the compliance of the gas in them with the purpose of the tank and barrel; It is prohibited to fill faulty tanks or barrels with gas, and also if the appointed inspection period has expired, the fittings and instrumentation are missing or faulty; filling tanks and barrels with gases must be carried out according to the instructions and comply with the standards of PB 03-576-03. Clause 5.7.5 was also violated. “Safety Rules for Facilities Using Liquefied Petroleum Gases” PB 12-609-03, approved by Resolution of the Gosgortekhnadzor of Russia dated May 27, 2003 No. 40,” according to which work on draining (filling) LPG must be carried out by decision of the head of the organization; clause 5.7.7. of these rules, according to which rubber-fabric hoses used during draining and filling operations must comply with state standards and technical conditions allowing their use for liquefied carbon gases; to protect against static electricity, they must be wrapped with copper wire of at least 2 mm. or a copper cable with a cross-sectional area of at least 4 square meters. mm with a coil pitch of no more than 100 mm. Also, Melnik A.V. violated section 3 of the job description of the foreman of the loading and unloading area, identical to the job description of the senior operator. Melnik A.V. did not fulfill his official duties. He did not check the necessary documentation, the tightness and serviceability of the fittings, the presence of residual pressure in the tanker, and the sufficient grounding of the filling hose of filling dispenser No. 1, violating the rules for LPG dispensing operations. He directed the driver FULL NAME9 to the gas pump, instructing the operators FULL NAME10 and FULL NAME11 to refuel the tanker at pump No. 1 with liquefied petroleum gas. Thus, Melnik A.V. in violation of the requirements of clause 1.2.2. “Safety Rules for Facilities Using Liquefied Petroleum Gases” PB 12-609-03, approved by Resolution of the Gosgortekhnadzor of Russia No. 40 dated May 27, registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on June 19, 2003 under No. 4777 and Section 3 of the job description of the foreman of the unloading and loading area , allowed to fill the vessel FULL NAME10 who was not trained, did not have a certificate, and did not pass the knowledge test in the prescribed manner. He himself went to the administrative building to draw up documents for the cargo. Operators FULL NAME10 and FULL NAME11 connected the tanker to gas station No. 1. At the same time, they did not properly inspect the filling hose with the liquid phase for the presence of sufficient grounding, and began to fill with liquefied petroleum gas. During refueling, the filling hose ruptured and a spark of electrostatic electricity occurred, which led to the ignition of liquefied hydrocarbon gases (LPG), a fire and explosion of a tanker truck and a gas filling station, which resulted in the death of two persons, FULL NAME11 and FULL NAME10, due to negligence
According to expert conclusion No. 371 from DD.MM.YYYY, the death of FULL NAME11 occurred from a thermal burn of degree 11-111AB on 98% of the body surface, a thermal burn of the upper respiratory tract, accompanied by the development of shock of the 3rd degree, degenerative changes in the internal organs. This damage is caused by the action of the flame. These injuries entail serious harm to health, due to the danger to life. The injuries occurred several hours, perhaps tens of hours before death. Death FULL NAME11 occurred DD.MM.YYYY at 7:40.
According to expert conclusion No. 374 from DD.MM.YYYY, the death of FULL NAME10 occurred from a thermal burn 111A -1U degree of 100% of the body surface, a thermal burn of the upper respiratory tract, accompanied by the development of shock 3 degrees, degenerative changes in the internal organs. This damage is caused by the action of the flame. These injuries entail serious harm to health, due to the danger to life. The damage was received several days before death, possibly DD.MM.YYYY Death FULL NAME10 occurred DD.MM.YYYY
Defendant Melnik A.V. admitted his guilt in full. He agreed with the accusation. He supported his request, made during the preliminary investigation of the case, to consider the case in a special manner and pronounce a sentence without a trial. The petition was submitted voluntarily, consciously, after consultation with the defense lawyer and in his presence. Melnik A.V. understands the consequences of the stated petition, that the imposed punishment cannot exceed two-thirds of the maximum term or the amount of the most severe type of punishment provided for the crime committed, and the verdict cannot be appealed in cassation due to the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions set out in the verdict with the actual circumstances of the criminal case cases established by the court.
The victim, FULL NAME6, did not object to the consideration of the criminal case in a special manner. He has no claims against the defendant. He asks the court to impose a non-custodial sentence on the defendant.
The representative of the victim, FULL NAME12, did not object to the consideration of the criminal case in a special manner. He has no claims against the defendant. He asks the court to impose a non-custodial sentence on the defendant.
The state prosecutor and defense attorney did not object to the special procedure for making a court decision, without a trial.
These circumstances provide the court with grounds for passing a sentence in a special manner, without examining and evaluating the evidence collected in the case to substantiate the charges.
The charge brought by Melnik A.V. which he agreed with is confirmed by the evidence collected in the case.
The court qualifies the actions of Melnik A.V. according to Art. 217 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, (as amended by Federal Law No. 420 dated DD.MM.YYYY), as a violation of safety rules at explosive objects, resulting in the death of two persons through negligence.
The court has no grounds to change the defendant Melnik A.V. category of crime to a less serious one, in accordance with Art. 15 Part 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account what is established by law under Art. 217 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the severity of the crime committed, the actual circumstances of the crime and the degree of its public danger.
Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed, the sanctions of Art. 217 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court has no grounds for imposing on the defendant a type of punishment not related to imprisonment. The court believes that a less severe type of punishment will not be able to achieve the goals of punishment, correction and re-education of the defendant.
The court takes into account the impact of the imposed punishment on the defendant’s correction and on the living conditions of his family.
When assigning punishment, the court took into account the nature and degree of social danger of the crime committed, and the positive characteristics of his personality. The absence of aggravating circumstances provided for in Art. 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The presence of a mitigating circumstance provided for in Art. 61 h. 1 p.p. “g, k” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - the presence of young children with the perpetrator, partial compensation for property damage and other actions aimed at making amends for the harm caused to the victim. In accordance with Art. 61 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court considers to recognize as mitigating circumstances: the petition of the defendant’s neighbors Melnik A.V. and residents of <address>, characterizing the defendant from the positive side, an appeal from the team of the Central District Hospital <address> with a request not to deprive the defendant of his freedom, according to which the defendant is characterized from the positive side, statements of the victim FULL NAME6 and a representative of the victim FULL NAME12 asking the court not to deprive the defendant freedom, they were partially compensated for property damage, the defendant apologized to them.
The court believes that the correction and re-education of Melnik A.V. is not possible without isolation from society. The defendant Melnik should be sentenced to serve in prison, in compliance with the requirements of Art. 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation on the amount of punishment.
Considering the fate of the material evidence, the court considers: orders for employment and transfer to another job, job description and a copy of the senior operator, passports, a copy of the certificate of conformity, an information letter with the data of the owners of subscriber numbers of the Beeline network, a connection protocol from subscriber numbers, a fragment of AZK No. 1 fitting assembly and a steel fitting, a fragment of AZK No. 2 fitting assembly, (vol. 7 pp. 72-75), stored in the criminal case, should be destroyed after the verdict enters into legal force.
Based on the above, guided by art. 316 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, court
PRI G O V O R I L:
Find Andrey Valerievich Melnik guilty of committing a crime under Art. 217 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, (as amended by Federal Law No. 420 dated DD.MM.YYYY) and impose a sentence of one year and six months of imprisonment, to be served in a penal colony, without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities.
The preventive measure for Melnik Andrey Valerievich, a written undertaking not to leave the place and proper behavior, will be changed to detention, after the sentence enters into legal force, from the day the convict arrives at the colony-settlement. After the sentence enters into legal force, the convicted person goes to a settlement colony at the expense of state funds independently, in the manner prescribed by Part 1. 1, 2 tbsp. 75.1 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation, as prescribed, through the territorial body of the penal system (Branch at <address> FKU UII GUFSIN of Russia for the RO). The term of serving the sentence is calculated from the date of arrival of the convicted person Melnik A.V. to a colony-settlement. The time the convicted person travels to the place of serving the sentence, in accordance with the instructions (Branch at <address> of the Federal Penitentiary Institution of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the Republic of Russia), is counted towards the term of imprisonment at the rate of one day for one day.
Oblige the territorial body of the penal system (Branch at <address> FKU UII GUFSIN GUFSIN Rossii RO), no later than 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the court verdict to hand over to the convicted Melnik A.V. order and ensure its direction to a colony - settlement.
Physical evidence: orders for hiring and transfer to another job, job description and its copy of the senior operator, passports, a copy of the certificate of conformity, information letter with data of the owners of subscriber numbers of the Beeline network, protocol of connections from subscriber numbers, fragment of AZK No. 1 fitting assembly and a steel fitting, fragment of AZK No. 2 fitting assembly, (vol. 7 pp. 72-75), stored in the criminal case, should be destroyed after the verdict comes into force.
The verdict can be appealed in cassation to the Rostov Regional Court within 10 days from the date of its proclamation, in compliance with the requirements of Art. 317 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. If a cassation appeal is filed, the convicted person has the right to petition for his participation in the consideration of the criminal case by the court of cassation.
Judge Nosov A.V.
Basic Concepts
Failure to comply with prescribed safety rules in particularly dangerous enterprises always results in appropriate punishment.
The main provisions of the amended version of Art. 217 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended in 2013):
- Failure to comply with safety rules in places that are considered explosive, if this could lead to the loss of a person or a large loss to a company, results in a fine of about 80,000 rubles, or payment of labor or other earnings of the defendant for up to six months. It is also punishable by imprisonment for three years with removal from previously held positions for the same period.
- The same action, which by chance circumstances led to the death of one person, is punishable by community service for a period of up to 5 years. A convicted citizen is deprived of the right to hold similar positions in the future for up to 3 years. In addition, there is a penalty of up to 3 years in prison or without it.
- In Art. 217 Part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation states that if the actions of a convicted person for failure to comply with safety rules at an explosive facility led to the death of more than two people, he is punished with community service for up to 5 years. Just as in the previous paragraphs, a person is deprived of the right to hold such positions for a period of up to 7 years. In addition, a prison sentence of the same period is provided.
For any offense on three counts, criminal punishment is provided, which includes not only forced labor or a fine, but also imprisonment with the impossibility of holding similar positions in the future.
Lawyers' answers
Question: At the time of the accident at work, a friend was replacing me, but this was not officially recorded. Will the blame fall on me?
Answer: The employee has the right:
- not be at work while on sick leave, on vacation or on your day off;
- in the absence of these circumstances, the blame will lie between two.
Question: The manager did not instruct me on some points that are indicated in the safety rules. As a result of this, I made a mistake that led to damage to the company. Am I guilty?
Answer: No, the scientific director of the department will be held liable to the fullest extent of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for failing to explain this or that rule at the enterprise.
