New edition of Art. 219 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. Violation of fire safety requirements, committed by a person who was responsible for complying with them, if this negligently resulted in the infliction of serious harm to human health, -
shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to eighty thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to six months, or by restriction of freedom for a term of up to three years, or by forced labor for a term of up to three 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 three 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.
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 219 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The social danger of a crime lies in undermining the public security of Russia, causing harm to a person’s health, or causing his death.
The main and qualified elements of the crime are described respectively in parts 1 and 2 of the commentary. articles and reveal socially dangerous acts included in the category of careless crimes of moderate gravity. A particularly qualified crime is described in part 3 of the comment. article and also provides for socially dangerous acts included in the category of reckless crimes of average gravity.
2. The main object of the criminal attack is public safety, regulated by fire safety rules. An additional object of the encroachment provided for in Part 1 of the comment. article is human health, someone else's property. Human life is an additional object in a qualified and especially qualified crime.
2.1. Fire safety is the state of protecting individuals, property, society and the state from fires. A fire is an uncontrolled combustion that causes material damage, harm to the life and health of citizens, and the interests of society and the state. Fire safety requirements are special conditions of a social and (or) technical nature established in order to ensure fire safety by the legislation of the Russian Federation, other regulatory documents or an authorized government body (Article 1 of the Federal Law of December 21, 1994 N 69-FZ “On Fire Safety” (in ed. dated August 22, 2004) <1>). ——————————— <1> NW RF. 1994. N 35. Art. 3649; 2004. N 35. Art. 3607.
3. The objective side of the crime is expressed in the form of action or inaction - failure to comply or improper compliance with fire safety rules. Active criminal behavior may manifest itself, for example, in the operation of an electrical installation contrary to the requirements of regulatory documents on fire safety, technical operation or safety regulations that prohibit the operation of an electrical installation in the current conditions, or in carrying out flammable work near fuel and lubricants. Passive criminal behavior can be expressed, for example, in failure to measure the insulation resistance of live parts of power (lighting) equipment during the operation of electrical networks of buildings (structures) for three years, in failure to provide fire extinguishing means to an enterprise (institution, organization).
4. The disposition of the article has a reference-blanket nature, since in order to properly qualify a socially dangerous act as a crime, it refers the law enforcement officer to other laws and by-laws, including: Federal Law “On Fire Safety”; Fire safety rules in forests of the Russian Federation, approved. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 09.09.1993 N 886 (as amended on 27.12.1994) <1>; Fire safety rules for railway transport, approved. By order of the Ministry of Railways of Russia dated November 11, 1992 N TsUO-112 (as amended on December 6, 2001) <2>. ——————————— <1> SAPP RF. 1993. N 39. Art. 3612; NW RF. 1995. N 3. Art. 190.
<2> M.: Transport, 1994; BNA. 2002. N 6.
5. According to the legislative structure, the elements of the crime are material. The crime is completed (by the elements) at the moment of material socially dangerous consequences as a result of violation of fire safety rules: a) serious harm to human health (Part 1); b) the death of one person (part 2); c) death of two or more persons (Part 3).
5.1. When qualifying a socially dangerous act as a crime, the law enforcement officer must establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the violation of fire safety rules and the resulting material socially dangerous consequence. In this case, the cause of the fire may be related to the behavior of both the culprit and other persons, the elements, an accident, etc.
5.2. For serious harm to human health, see paragraph 9.1 comment. to Art. 216 and comment. to Art. 111.
5.3. For the death of a person, see paragraph 11.2 of the commentary. to Art. 247.
5.4. Attraction to the MA by comment. The article may not be related to the occurrence of a fire. Violation of fire safety requirements, which entails the specified consequences <1>, is sufficient. ——————————— <1> BVS of the Russian Federation. 2002. N 11. P. 21.
6. The subjective side of the crime is characterized by guilt in the form of negligence. Moreover, we should talk about the merger of administrative-legal and criminal-legal guilt (mixed guilt), since the perpetrator can violate fire safety rules intentionally. However, this intent will be a sign of an administrative offense (Article 11.16 of the Code of Administrative Offences) until serious harm to human health is caused (by negligence), or the death of one person or several persons occurs, transforming the administrative offense into a crime. The attitude towards the resulting consequences may be in the form of criminal frivolity or criminal negligence.
6.1. Deliberate destruction or damage to someone else's property by arson must be qualified under Part 2 of Art. 167. If the perpetrator, by destroying (damaging) someone else’s property by arson, desires the death of another person or consciously allows this socially dangerous consequence or is indifferent to it, then the act must be qualified under the totality of Part 2 of Art. 167 and the corresponding paragraph (including paragraph “e”, part 2, article 105). The issue in connection with causing harm to the victim’s health is resolved in a similar way (Article 111 (Part 2, paragraph “c”), 112, 115). For more details, see paragraph 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated June 5, 2002 N 14.
7. The subject of a criminal offense is a sane individual who has reached the age of 16 at the time of its commission, and is obliged to comply with fire safety rules, and in some cases, to ensure their compliance. These are heads of enterprises or organizations of all forms of ownership, persons authorized by them, as well as property owners, including homes, employers, tenants, etc. (see paragraph 3 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated 06/05/2002 N 14).
8. If as a result of a fire that occurred in connection with a violation of fire safety rules, socially dangerous consequences occurred as provided for in parts 1 and 2 (or 3) of the comment. article, then the final qualification should be carried out upon the occurrence of the most serious consequences, i.e. under Part 2 (or 3) Art. 219.
8.1. In the event of a fire due to a violation of safety rules at nuclear power facilities, at explosive sites, during mining, construction or other work, or as a result of violation of the rules of accounting, storage, transportation, use of explosives, flammable substances, pyrotechnic products, etc. the act is qualified according to special standards (Articles 215, 216, 217, 218, etc.) and additional qualifications under Art. 219 is not required (clause 4 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated 06/05/2002 N 14).
9. Violation of fire safety rules in forests (Article 219) differs from the destruction or damage of forest (or other) plantings as a result of careless handling of fire or a source of increased danger (Part 1 of Article 261): firstly, the specific object of the criminal encroachment, which in the first case is expressed in public safety from fires and in the second - in the environmental safety of society; secondly, the subject of the attack. The subjects of violation of fire safety rules (Article 219) are not defined, and in case of destruction or damage to forests (Article 261), these are forest and other plantings. In the crime provided for by the comment. Article, the subjects are persons in charge of certain work areas or facilities, persons directly responsible for complying with fire safety rules or ensuring their compliance in these areas or facilities, property owners, including homes, employers, and tenants. The subjects of the encroachment described in Art. 261, are persons supervising work on forest areas or objects; persons responsible for holding cultural and other events in the forest; persons who have the right to use the forest fund, but at the same time show a frivolous or careless attitude towards the possible consequences of a fire, for example, when using a tractor in the forest without a spark arrester, leaving an unattended stove or fire unattended.
Violation of fire safety rules is a crime and is classified as a comment. article, if as a result of an intentional or unintentional violation of the rules through negligence, serious harm to human health is caused, the death of one person or several persons occurs. Destruction (damage) of forest or other plantings becomes a crime as a result of careless handling of fire or a source of increased danger (Part 1 of Article 261), as a result of arson, use of another generally dangerous method, due to pollution or other negative impact (Part 2 Article 261).
Finally, to qualify a socially dangerous act under Art. 261 it is enough to destroy or damage forest or other plantings. To qualify a criminal act according to the comment. In the article, human life and health come to the fore.
Which article does it belong to?
Deliberate arson is considered in Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It is also an article for arson of a car, since this act involves causing significant damage as a result of a fire.
Arson also appears as a consequence of such an offense as violation of fire safety rules , therefore it is also interpreted by Art. 219 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Attention! If a person died as a result of the incident, then the actions of the perpetrator will be qualified under Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which determines preventive measures for killing a person through negligence. The crime in this case will be considered in conjunction with Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Let's say that as a result of the incident some property of a citizen , then Art.
167 will be used in conjunction with Art. 168 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which qualifies damage to property. The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation has Art. 20.4, which provides for a fine in case of grass burning (from the point of view of the legislation of the Russian Federation, this is not such a serious crime).
There is a separate article for arson of a forest - Art. 261 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It consists of two parts that determine the punishment for intentional and unintentional arson.
Depending on the circumstances of the incident, this act may also be qualified under these articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation:
- Part 1 Art. 205, if the arson took place during a terrorist act;
- Part 1 Art. 212 - if committed during mass riots;
- when causing serious harm to health - Art. 112 or lung - Art. 115.
Another comment on Art. 219 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. Violation of fire safety requirements (see Federal Law of July 22, 2008 N 123-FZ “Technical Regulations on Fire Safety Requirements”) can be committed either by action (storing gasoline cans on the balconies of residential buildings) or by inaction ( failure to provide workplaces with the necessary fire extinguishing means). The crime is considered completed from the moment the consequences occur in the form of causing serious harm to human health.
2. The subjective side is characterized by a careless form of guilt.
3. The subject is the person who has been entrusted with the obligation to comply (permanently or temporarily) with fire safety rules approved and registered in the prescribed manner. Such persons include specially authorized employees of enterprises, organizations, property owners, including homes, tenants, employers (clause 3 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 5, 2002 No. 14 “On judicial practice in cases of violation of fire safety rules , destruction or damage to property by arson or as a result of careless handling of fire").
Article 20.4. Violation of fire safety requirements
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 18, 2017 N 309-KG17-4040 in case N A76-12383/2016 As follows from the presented materials, on October 27, 2015, Deputy Chief State Inspector of Supervisory Activities Department No. 6 for Fire Supervision Balandin A.G. a resolution was issued imposing administrative punishment N 060133, by which the educational institution was found guilty of committing administrative offenses provided for in parts 1, 3, 4 of Article 20.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Offenses Code), with the imposition of an administrative penalty in the form of a fine in the amount of 75 000 rubles.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 6, 2017 N 307-KG17-14242 in case N A52-2275/2016
Guided by Part 3 of Article 69 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the courts also took into account the circumstances established by the judicial decisions of the Pskov Regional Court in cases NN 12-274/2016 and 21-146/2016 on challenging decisions to bring the company to administrative liability under Part 4 Article 20.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 11, 2017 N 45-APG17-18
Clause 372 of the Fire Safety Rules in the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 25, 2012 N 390, establishes fire safety requirements for the placement of banners and banners on the facades of residential, administrative or public buildings. Failure to comply with fire safety requirements entails administrative liability according to the general rule under Part 1 of Article 20.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (violation of fire safety requirements).
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 08/07/2017 N 308-AD17-6640 in case N A63-8932/2016
The arguments set out in the complaint about the need to qualify the act not under Part 2 of Article 14.43 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, but under Part 1 of Article 10.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, are not accepted. In accordance with this norm, violation of veterinary and sanitary rules for the transportation, transportation or slaughter of animals or rules for the procurement, processing, storage or sale of animal products is punishable, except for the cases provided for in parts 2 and 3 of this article. Accordingly, there is no reason to believe that in the situation under consideration, Part 1 of Article 10.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is a special norm in relation to Part 2 of Article 14.43 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, by virtue of which administrative liability is established for violation by the manufacturer, performer (person performing the functions of a foreign manufacturer), seller requirements of technical regulations or subject to application before the date of entry into force of the relevant technical regulations of mandatory requirements for products or for products and the processes of design (including surveys), production, construction, installation, adjustment, operation, storage, transportation, sales and related to the requirements for products recycling or release into circulation of products that do not meet such requirements, except for the cases provided for in Articles 6.31, 9.4, 10.3, 10.6, 10.8, Part 2 of Article 11.21, Articles 14.37, 14.44, 14.46, 14.46.1, 20.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 28, 2020 N 20-AD20-4
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation S.B. Nikiforov, having considered the complaint of the legal representative of the limited liability company "Commander" - director A.A. Akaev. on the ruling of the judge of the Sovetsky District Court of the city of Makhachkala of the Republic of Dagestan dated June 26, 2019 N 12-521/19, the decision of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan dated August 13, 2019 N 21-565/19 and the resolution of the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan dated 10.25.2019 N 4а-587/19, issued in the case of an administrative offense provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in relation to the limited liability company “Commander” (hereinafter referred to as the company)
Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 16, 2017 N 32-AD17-1
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Nikiforov S.B., having considered the complaint of Morozov S.F. on the resolution dated 06/05/2015 N 4231, adopted by the state inspector of the city of Saratov for fire supervision, the decision of the judge of the Frunzensky District Court of the city of Saratov dated 09/22/2015 N 12-93/15, the decision of the judge of the Saratov Regional Court dated 11/16/2015 N, which entered into legal force 21-845 and the resolution of the Deputy Chairman of the Saratov Regional Court dated July 14, 2016 N 4A-405/16, issued against the director of the limited liability company "Picassa" S.F. Morozov. (hereinafter referred to as S.F. Morozov) in the case of administrative offenses provided for in parts 1, 3, 4 of Article 20.4 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences,
Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 16, 2017 N 32-AD17-2
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation S.B. Nikiforov, having considered the complaint of the legal representative of the limited liability company "Picassa" - director S.F. Morozov. on the decision dated 06/05/2015 N 4232, adopted by the chief state inspector of the city of Saratov for fire supervision, the decision of the judge of the Frunzensky District Court of the city of Saratov dated 09/23/2015 N 12-118/15, the decision of the judge of the Saratov Regional Court dated 11/18/2015. N 21-843 and the resolution of the Deputy Chairman of the Saratov Regional Court dated July 14, 2016 N 4A-402/16, issued in relation to the limited liability company "Picassa" (hereinafter referred to as the company) in the case of administrative offenses provided for in parts 1, 3, 4 Article 20.4 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences,
Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated February 16, 2017 N 32-AD17-3
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Nikiforov S.B., having considered the complaint of Morozov S.F. on the decision dated 06/05/2015 N 4233, adopted by the state inspector of the city of Saratov for fire supervision, the decision of the judge of the Frunzensky District Court of the city of Saratov dated 09/22/2015 N 12-92/15, the decision of the judge of the Saratov Regional Court dated 11/16/2015 N, which entered into legal force 21-846 and the resolution of the Deputy Chairman of the Saratov Regional Court dated July 14, 2016 N 4A-403/16, issued against the director of the limited liability company Promtorg N 27 Morozov S.F. (hereinafter referred to as S.F. Morozov) in the case of administrative offenses provided for in parts 1, 3, 4 of Article 20.4 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences,
Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 3, 2017 N 18-AD17-8
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Nikiforov S.B., having considered the complaint of defense attorney Andriyanov I.V. acting on the basis of a power of attorney in the interests of the Joint Stock Company Commercial Bank "GAZBANK", on the decision of the judge of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated July 26, 2016 and the resolution of the Deputy Chairman of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated October 4, 2016, issued in relation to the Joint Stock Company Commercial Bank "GAZBANK" (hereinafter referred to as JSC JSCB "GAZBANK", company) in the case of administrative offenses provided for in parts 1, 4 of Article 20.4 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences,
Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 4, 2017 N 8-AD17-4
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation V.P. Merkulov, having considered the complaint of the director of PKF LLC “Gofropak” V.M. Padyanov. on the decision of the official of the OND and PR for the city of Yaroslavl, the OND and PR of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia for the Yaroslavl region, the deputy chief state inspector of the city of Yaroslavl for fire supervision dated April 22, 2015 N 36, the decision of the judge of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of the city. Yaroslavl dated August 26, 2015, the decision of the judge of the Yaroslavl regional court dated September 29, 2015 and the decision of the chairman of the Yaroslavl regional court dated January 13, 2016, issued against LLC PKF "Gofropak" (hereinafter also referred to as the company) in the case of administrative the offense provided for in Part 4 of Article 20.4 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences,
Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 7, 2017 N 18-AD17-30
Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation S.B. Nikiforov, having considered the complaints of the legal representative of the limited liability company - director G.A. Pazar. on decisions No. 24/360 and No. 24/361 that entered into legal force, issued on December 30, 2015 by the Deputy Chief State Inspector of the city of Anapa for fire supervision, decisions of the judge of the Anapa District Court of the Krasnodar Territory dated February 16, 2016 No. 12-10/16 and No. 12 -19/16, decisions of the judge of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated 08/16/2016 N 12-2764/2016 and N 12-2760/2016 and decisions of the deputy chairman of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated 12/19/2016 N 4а-1308 and N 4а-1307, held in in relation to a limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the company) in cases of administrative offenses provided for in parts 1 and 3 of Article 20.4 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences,
How is the punishment for arson determined?
When determining punishment for arson, a whole range of factors that took place during the incident are considered.
In doing so, the court takes into account both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. If we talk about liability for arson of a car or other property, then, most likely, Part 2 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. It provides for the following preventive measures:
- forced labor for 5 years;
- imprisonment for the same period.
How can you prove lack of intent?
To do this, law enforcement agencies resort to a comprehensive analysis of the items found at the scene, as well as photographs and videos that were taken there.
For proof, they also invite specialists who are able to draw conclusions about the condition of wiring or electrical appliances, if any were present at the fire site. After all, its cause could be an ordinary short circuit.
