1. Failure to install a radio-electronic device and (or) a high-frequency device at the place specified during registration of a radio-electronic device and (or) a high-frequency device, or to install a radio-electronic device and (or) a high-frequency device outside the place specified during registration of a radio-electronic device and (or) high-frequency device high frequency device -
entails a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of three hundred to five hundred rubles; for officials - from five hundred to one thousand rubles; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from five hundred to one thousand rubles; for legal entities - from five thousand to ten thousand rubles.
2. Use without registration of a radio-electronic device and (or) high-frequency device subject to registration -
shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of five hundred to one thousand rubles with or without confiscation of radio-electronic equipment and (or) high-frequency devices; for officials - from one thousand to two thousand five hundred rubles; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from one thousand to two thousand rubles with or without confiscation of radio-electronic equipment and (or) high-frequency devices; for legal entities - from ten thousand to twenty thousand rubles with or without confiscation of radio-electronic equipment and (or) high-frequency devices.
3. Violation of the conditions for the use of the radio frequency spectrum established by the decision on the allocation of a radio frequency band and (or) permission to use radio frequencies or radio frequency channels (including violation of the deadline for registration of radio electronic equipment and (or) high frequency device), violation of the rules of radio exchange or use of radio frequencies, or non-compliance standards or parameters of radio emission -
entails a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one thousand to one thousand five hundred rubles with or without confiscation of radio-electronic equipment and (or) high-frequency devices; for officials - from one thousand five hundred to three thousand rubles; for persons carrying out entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity - from one thousand five hundred to three thousand rubles with or without confiscation of radio-electronic equipment and (or) high-frequency devices; for legal entities - from fifteen thousand to thirty thousand rubles with or without confiscation of radio-electronic equipment and (or) high-frequency devices.
Notes:
1. When imposing an administrative penalty for committing an administrative offense provided for in Part 1 of this article, the installation location of a radio-electronic device and (or) high-frequency device is determined by the geographical coordinates specified when registering the radio-electronic device and (or) high-frequency device. A fact confirming the failure to install a radio-electronic device and (or) a high-frequency device is the repeated absence of a radio-electronic device and (or) a high-frequency device at the location specified during registration of the radio-electronic device and (or) a high-frequency device within three months from the date of first detection.
2. When imposing an administrative penalty for committing an administrative offense provided for by this article or Article 13.7 of this Code, the following circumstances aggravating administrative liability are taken into account:
1) committing a continuing administrative offense, the duration of which exceeds three months;
2) creating, as a result of an administrative offense, radio interference with the radio electronic equipment of other users of the radio frequency spectrum.
3. The use of radio-electronic equipment and (or) high-frequency devices intended for individual reception of television and radio broadcasting programs, as well as for the use of consumer electronics products that do not contain radio-emitting devices, does not entail administrative liability.
- Article 13.3. Manufacturing or installation of radio-electronic equipment and (or) high-frequency devices without special permission (license)
- Article 13.5. Violation of rules for the protection of communication lines or structures
Commentary to Art. 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
In Art. 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation reveals the content of the principle of justice, according to which punishment and other measures of a criminal legal nature applied to a person who has committed a crime must be fair, i.e. correspond to the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission and the identity of the perpetrator.
The content of the principle of justice also includes the provision that no one can be criminally liable twice for the same crime.
Thus, justice is expressed primarily in the correspondence and adequacy of punishment and other measures of a criminal legal nature to the crime committed. When establishing such compliance, the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed are taken into account.
The nature of the public danger of a crime depends on the object of the attack, the form of guilt and the classification of the criminal act by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation into the corresponding category of crimes (Article 15), and the degree of public danger of the crime is determined by the circumstances of the crime (for example, the degree of implementation of the criminal intention, the method of committing the crime, the amount of harm or the severity of the consequences, the role of the perpetrator in the commission of a crime in complicity).
For example, murder differs from theft both in the object of the attack and in the severity of the harm.
Punishment cannot be fair if its application does not take into account the circumstances of the commission of the crime: time, place, method, motive, purpose, etc. Thus, by law (clauses “a”, “d” part 1 of article 61 of the Criminal Code RF) such circumstances as the first commission of a crime of minor gravity due to a random combination of circumstances or the commission of a crime due to a combination of difficult life circumstances or motivated by compassion are recognized as mitigating circumstances.
The identity of the perpetrator is also of great importance in determining a fair punishment. For example, I think it would be fair if a person who committed a crime for the first time or as a minor, other things being equal, receives a less severe punishment compared to a person who has been repeatedly convicted and continues to lead an antisocial lifestyle.
It should be noted that justice is a very capacious concept that includes many factors. For example, a punishment cannot be considered fair if it is illegal, if the equality of citizens before the law has been violated, if the punishment is excessively harsh, etc. Therefore, we can say that the principle of justice, as it were, accumulates the content of all other principles and is aimed at achieving maximum individualization of punishment and other measures of a criminal legal nature. To individualize punishment, the law provides ample opportunities: the presence of sanctions with different types and limits of punishment, special rules for imposing punishment under various circumstances, the possibility of assigning a more lenient punishment, applying a suspended sentence, etc. Speaking about justice, one should also keep in mind the fact that justice can be understood differently by different people and their social groups. Therefore, the only general criterion of justice can only be the law and its correct application.
Regulations of Part 2 of Art. 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that no one can be held criminally liable twice for the same crime, reproduces the norm of Part 1 of Art. 50 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In this regard, we can talk about the constitutionality of the principle of criminal law under consideration.
The principle of non bis in idem, as established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and regulated by the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation, excludes the repeated conviction and punishment of a person for the same crime, the qualification of the same criminal event under several articles of the criminal law, if the provisions contained in them correlate with each other as general and special or as a whole and a part, as well as double consideration of the same circumstance simultaneously when qualifying a crime and when determining the type and measure of responsibility.
At the same time, this principle does not prevent the federal legislator, for example, by establishing a criminal record and the associated institution of recidivism of crimes entailing legal consequences provided for by criminal law, from taking into account the nature of the crime, its danger to the values protected by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and criminal law, intensity, causes and other the circumstances of its commission, as well as information about the person who committed the crime, provided that the regulation of these institutions and their application are adequate to the constitutional principles of legal responsibility and guarantees of the individual in his public legal relations with the state.
On the contrary, the constitutional prohibition of discrimination and the principles of justice and humanism expressed in the Constitution of the Russian Federation would be contrary to the legislative establishment of criminal liability and punishment without taking into account the identity of the perpetrator and other circumstances that have an objective and reasonable justification and contribute to an adequate assessment of the social danger of both the criminal act itself and the person who committed it. crime of a person, and the application of identical measures of responsibility for crimes of different degrees of social danger without taking into account the intensity of participation of a particular person in a crime, his behavior after the commission of a crime and after serving a sentence, if one has already been imposed previously, and other circumstances characterizing the individual.
Another comment on Art. 13.8 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses
1. The object of the offense provided for in this article is the procedure for protecting radio reception from industrial radio interference.
2. The objective side of this offense consists of the action of manufacturing, selling or operating technical equipment that does not comply with the standards or regulations governing permissible levels of industrial radio interference. Industrial interference, in accordance with Article 33 of the Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 “On the Mass Media,” refers to artificial interference that occurs during the operation of technical devices in the process of economic activity. The Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 8, 1997 approved the Regulations on the protection of radio reception from industrial radio interference.
3. Subjects of the administrative offense provided for by this article can be citizens, as well as officials and legal entities.
4. Guilt in committing this offense can be either intentional or careless.
Judicial practice under Article 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 09/05/2017 N 45-UD17-19
The punishment was imposed on the convicted person in accordance with the requirements of Art. Art. , , part 2 art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime committed, the specific circumstances of the case, data on the identity of the perpetrator. Issues related to the execution of a sentence in the presence of other unexecuted sentences, if this is not resolved in the latest sentence in accordance with Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, are resolved by the court that passed the sentence in the manner prescribed by Art. 396, 397 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 11, 2017 N 11-UD17-39
In accordance with Art. According to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the punishment applied to a person who has committed a crime must be fair, that is, correspond to the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission and the identity of the perpetrator. In accordance with Part 3 of Art. When imposing punishment, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation takes into account the nature and degree of social danger of the crime, including circumstances mitigating and aggravating the punishment, the identity of the perpetrator, as well as the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of the convicted person and on the living conditions of his family.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06.06.2018 N 48-APU18-10
Punishment for the convicts was imposed in accordance with the requirements of the articles and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, contrary to the arguments of the complaints, the court took into account as circumstances mitigating the punishment of the convicted, confession and active assistance in solving the crime. Along with this, the court rightfully recognized as aggravating circumstances the commission of crimes while intoxicated, as well as the presence of recidivism in their actions.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/07/2018 N 50-APU18-8
Punishment for convicted Nurimbetov B.I. and Yusupov M.A. both for each crime individually and for a combination of crimes, assigned in accordance with the requirements of Art. and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - fair, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crimes committed, information about individuals, including those indicated in appeals, all the circumstances of the case, as well as the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction of convicts and the living conditions of their families.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/05/2018 N 18-APU18-6sp
This decision is based on the provisions of Part 4 of Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It is consistent with the requirements of Part 1 of Art. and part 2 of Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. At the same time, one cannot ignore his commission of two particularly serious crimes from the point of view of the availability of data indicating the danger of V.F. Klimentov. for society.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 17, 2018 N 4-APU18-18SP
Shabunin's punishment was imposed in accordance with the requirements of Art. , , of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of the crime, personal data, the presence of mitigating circumstances, and the jury’s recognition of him as deserving leniency. The court fully justified the conclusion regarding the non-recognition of Shabunin’s “sincere confession” as his confession and active assistance, with which the Judicial Panel finds no reason to disagree.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 24, 2018 N 201-APU18-19
Punishment for Dzhumaev N.M. assigned taking into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, information about the identity of the convicted person, other circumstances taken into account when assigning punishment, including mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances. Requirements of Art. Art. , the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation were complied with by the court.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/07/2018 N 4-APU18-21
As follows from the verdict, assigning punishment to the convicted Yuldoshev, Karakulova and Ibrogimov, in accordance with the provisions of Art. and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the court took into account the nature and degree of public danger of the crimes they committed, information about their personality, as well as other circumstances affecting the amount of the imposed punishment.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 16, 2018 N 5-APU17-108SP
When imposing a sentence, the court took into account all the circumstances relevant in accordance with Art. Art. , the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, including everything provided for in Part 1 of Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, mitigating circumstances that are seen in the case materials. The punishment for the convicted person was imposed fairly, there were grounds for mitigating it, including on the grounds provided for in Art. Art. , Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Collegium does not see it.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06.06.2018 N 41-APU18-7sp
The punishment of the convicted person was imposed by the court in accordance with the requirements of Art. and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Guided by Art. Art. 389.20 and 389.28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Panel determined: the verdict of the Rostov Regional Court of December 5, 2022 in relation to Inessa Vasilievna Tarverdieva is left unchanged, and the victim’s appeal is not satisfied.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 21, 2018 N 205-APU18-11
Thus, the punishment assigned to Kaplanov by virtue of Art. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is proportionate and fair. The panel of judges agrees with the conclusions of the court of first instance that there are no grounds for changing the category of the crime to a less serious one in accordance with Part 6 of Art. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
