ST 112 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
1. Intentional infliction of moderate harm to health, not dangerous to human life and not entailing the consequences specified in Article 111 of this Code, but causing long-term health disorder or significant permanent loss of general working capacity of less than one third, is punishable by restriction of freedom for a term of up to three years, or forced labor for a term of up to three years, or arrest for a term of up to six months, or imprisonment for a term of up to three years.
2. The same act committed: a) in relation to two or more persons; b) in relation to a person or his relatives in connection with the performance of official activities by this person or the performance of public duty; c) in relation to a minor or another person who is known to be in a helpless state by the perpetrator, as well as with special cruelty, humiliation or torture for the victim; d) by a group of persons, a group of persons by prior conspiracy or an organized group; e) for hooligan reasons; f) for reasons of political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or for reasons of hatred or enmity towards any social group; g) has lost its force; h) with the use of weapons or objects used as weapons - is punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to five years.
Second commentary to Art. 112 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The main elements of this crime are provided for in Part 1 of Art. 112 of the Criminal Code. Its objective side differs from the main element of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm only in its consequences.
Pathological signs of moderate harm to health are based on the opposition and denial of similar signs of serious harm to health - harm to health that is not life-threatening and does not entail the consequences specified in Art. 111 of the Criminal Code.
These signs also include the duration of the health disorder, which is defined as lasting more than 21 days (but not more than 120 days). When establishing this sign, the victim’s illnesses and the capabilities of the medical institution are not taken into account. It is determined only by the nature of the injury.
Economic signs of moderate severity of harm to health are a significant persistent loss of total working capacity of less than one third. A significant permanent loss of total working capacity of less than one third assumes that its degree does not exceed 30% (according to the Table of Percentage Loss of Working Capacity from 10% to 30%).
2. The subjective side of this crime is characterized by direct or indirect intent.
3. Subject - a person who has reached the age of 14 years.
4. The qualifying features (Part 2) are similar to those contained in qualified offenses of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm. To understand the content of these signs, you need to refer to the explanations given in the commentary to Article 105 of the Criminal Code.
5. When qualifying the actions of the perpetrator under paragraph “z”, one should be guided by the provisions of the Federal Law of December 13, 1996 No. 150-FZ “On Weapons”. If there are grounds, the actions of such a person must be additionally qualified under Article 222 of the Criminal Code.
6. Objects used as weapons mean any material objects that could cause death or harm to the health of the victim (a penknife or kitchen knife, an ax, etc.), as well as other objects, the use of which created a real danger to life or the health of the victim, for example, mechanical sprayers, aerosols and other devices filled with irritating substances.
7. The use of weapons or objects used as weapons during robbery should be understood as their deliberate use by a person both for physical influence on the victim and for mental influence on him in the form of a threat of violence dangerous to life or health.
Art. 112 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, acquittal and the right to rehabilitation!
Dear Alexey Vladimirovich, congratulations to you! And the court did a great job: ↓ Read in full ↓ According to parts 1 and 2 of Article 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the preliminary investigation begins from the moment the criminal case is initiated, about which the investigator, inquiry officer, or inquiry body issues a corresponding resolution. When considering the case, the magistrate established that, in violation of paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 40.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, in the materials of criminal case No. 11801711065054390 there is no document confirming the withdrawal of the specified criminal case from the proceedings of the investigator of the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the city of Nyagan Kharlamova O.Yu. . and transferring it to acting investigator of the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the city of Nyagan, Kopytov A.A. for the conduct of an inquiry, respectively, confirming the competence of Kopytov A.A. of this criminal case to its proceedings and conduct further procedural actions on legal grounds. In support of the legitimacy of the investigation, investigator A.A. Kopytov criminal case No. 11801711065054390, the prosecution presented his testimony as a witness, who explained to the magistrate that the criminal case against Zim D.V. was handed over to him in May 2022, due to personal inattention, he printed out the resolution on the seizure and transfer of the criminal case with an error. He was supposed to print the second sheet, but the first and second sheets were printed. I put the first sheet in the file (incorrect decision), and put the correct version in the storage drive. From the testimony of witness P.G. Yuzbekov, it follows that the criminal case against Zim D.V. was initiated on April 11, 2022 by investigator Erdniev, later transferred to investigator Kharlamova O.Yu. Then, on May 28, 2022, it was confiscated from her and handed over to investigator A.A. Kopytov. At the same time, the witness entered information about the transfer of the case into the journal and prepared an act on its seizure. He records each criminal case in the journal on the progress of criminal cases and transfers it to the investigator against signature. The fact that the wrong form of the decision on the seizure and transfer of the criminal case was printed is a technical error, there is a reliable decision in the storage device, but the decision with an error was included in the file. In addition, the prosecution as the legality of the proceedings and.o. investigator Kopytov A.A. investigative actions in this criminal case, the alleged original of the resolution to confiscate the criminal case from the investigator O.Yu. Kharlamova is attached. and transferring it to acting investigator Kopytov A.A. dated May 28, 2022. Also presented is a book of records of criminal cases accepted for proceedings and initiated by investigators of the inquiry department of the Department of Internal Affairs for the city of Nyagan, in which, according to the prosecution, there is information about the transfer of the criminal case to investigator A.A. Kopytov. However, the magistrate cannot accept this evidence for the following reasons. So, according to Kopytov A.A. due to personal inattention, he printed out the resolution on the seizure and transfer of the criminal case with an error. He was supposed to print the second sheet, but the first and second sheets were printed. I put the first sheet in the file (incorrect decision), and put the correct version in the storage drive. Witness Yuzbekov P.G. explained to the court that on May 28, 2022, the criminal case was seized from O.Yu. Kharlamova. and handed over to investigator A.A. Kopytov. At the same time, Yuzbekov P.G. entered data on the transfer of the case into the journal, prepared an act on its seizure. Thus, there are significant contradictions in the testimony of witnesses about the origin of the decision presented to the court on the seizure of the criminal case dated May 28, 2022. So, Kopytov A.A. claims that this document was prepared and printed by him, whereas paragraph 2 of part 1 of article 40.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the publication of this document falls within the competence of the head of the inquiry unit, and not the investigator. And Yuzbekov P.G. claims that he is the author of the resolution on the seizure and transfer of the case. After the investigation was completed and the indictment was drawn up, before the criminal case was sent to court, the case was checked by the head of the inquiry unit, the head of the inquiry body, as well as the supervising prosecutor. However, the above persons did not indicate the absence of the resolution of May 28, 2022 in the case materials. Also unconvincing, in the opinion of the court, is the argument that the original resolution of May 28, 2022 was mistakenly placed in the so-called “storage” Thus, by the decision of the magistrate of the judicial district ... Nyagansky judicial district of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug-Ugra dated 31 On July 2022, the present criminal case was returned to the prosecutor in accordance with paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, including on the basis of the absence in the case materials of a resolution to confiscate the case from investigator O.Yu. Kharlamova. and transferring it to acting investigator Kopytov A.A. The deputy prosecutor of the city of Nyagan filed an appeal against the court decision and by the decision of the Nyagan City Court of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Yugra dated September 17, 2018, it was canceled and the case was sent for a new trial. At the same time, neither in the court of first instance, nor in the court of appeal, representatives of the prosecutor's office of the city of Nyagan declared the existence of the original resolution of May 28, 2022. The said resolution in an unknown way arose during the consideration of the case on the merits and was added at the court hearing on November 29, 2018. Analyzing these circumstances, the magistrate comes to the conclusion that this resolution did not exist at all at the time the case was sent to court. Reference by the prosecution to the presence of the signature of Kopytov A.A. about his acceptance of the case for proceedings in the “Book of Criminal Cases...” also does not indicate the legal transfer of the case to him, since it is impossible to reliably establish the date of its appearance there, and this transfer is not formalized in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Thus, when transferring a criminal case, l: within the meaning of the criminal procedure law, an act must be adopted indicating the termination of the powers of a particular investigator or interrogator to conduct proceedings in this case, which is a written resolution on the seizure and transfer of the case to another investigator or interrogator, which nothing was done during the investigation of this criminal case. Consequently, the above violations of the criminal procedural law, in the opinion of the magistrate, are significant, entailing the recognition as legally void of the investigative and procedural actions carried out by the investigator Kopytov A.A., accordingly, the preliminary investigation was carried out by him in the absence of legal grounds, and the evidence he received are unacceptable, obtained in violation of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Taking into account the above, the magistrate, guided by Article 75 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, recognizes the following evidence as inadmissible: - testimony of witness S.V. Shchukina dated June 21, 2018, announced in accordance with Part 3 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; - testimony of witness Mubarakov D.Kh. dated 06/08/2018, announced in accordance with Part 1 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; — protocol of inspection of items dated June 7, 2022, during which a disk with video recording was inspected; - protocol of the confrontation between the victim R.V. Shchukin. and suspects Zima D.V.; - protocol of confrontation between witness S.V. Shchukina. and suspects Zima D.V.; - protocol of the confrontation between the victim R.V. Shchukin. and witness Zim A.V.; - protocol for checking the testimony of the victim R.V. Shchukin. dated July 09, 2022; - protocol for checking the testimony on the spot dated July 9, 2022 of witness S.V. Shchukina... Other evidence presented by the prosecution, in the opinion of the magistrate, does not confirm the guilt of D.V. Zim. in the act incriminated by the investigative body. Thus, the testimony of the victim R.V. Shchukin. at the court hearing that it was the defendant who caused him the bodily injuries specified in the indictment, is not supported by other evidence. Testimony of witness Munipov R.A. at a court hearing cannot serve as evidence of the guilt of Zim D.V. in causing bodily harm to R.V. Shchukin, since he did not see whether Zim D.V. was struck during the fight between him and the victim. Witness Zima A.V. denied the fact of striking the victim by the defendant, explaining that Zima D.V. separated them from the victim, standing between them and pushing them to the sides. Witness Shchukina S.V. refused to testify at the trial, using Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Witnesses Yuzbekov P.G., Kopytov A.A., Kharlamova O.Yu. were questioned at the court hearing about the circumstances of the investigation of this criminal case, and are also not eyewitnesses of the allegedly intentional infliction of Zim D.V. bodily harm to the victim Shchukin}' R.V., i.e. those actions that are charged with Zima D.V. by the prosecution. Report of the UUP OUUP and PDN of the Department of Internal Affairs of Russia for the city of Nyagan Mubarakova D.Kh. about the discovery of signs of a crime under Part 1 of Article 112 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the actions of D.V. Zim, who on October 25, 2022, at about 1... hours and 15 minutes, while at the shopping mall, located at the address: Nyagan, street Peter the Great, house 1, inflicted bodily injuries on R.V. Shchukin, causing moderate harm to health, written from the words of the victim, an eyewitness to these events, Mubarakov D.Kh. didn't show up. From the forensic medical examination report No. 0130 dated February 19, 2022 and expert report No. 0264 dated April 18, 2018, it follows that Shchukin R.V. at the time of seeking medical help on October 25, 2022, there were bodily injuries: dislocation of the 4th finger of the right hand, fracture-dislocation of the main phalanx of the 5th finger of the right hand, which caused moderate harm to health (due to a long-term health disorder). At the same time, in both cases the expert was presented with incorrect information about the circumstances of the infliction of R.V. Shchukin. bodily harm. In particular, in the referral for a forensic medical examination and in the resolution ordering the examination, it is indicated that R.V. Shchukin. There was one blow to the face and one kick to the right hand. Whereas from the indictment it follows that Shchukin R.V. one blow was struck with the right foot, shod in shoes, on the fifth finger of the right hand, as well as one blow with the inner base of the palm of the right hand on the fourth finger of the right hand. Thus, the examination and examination were carried out without taking into account the circumstances that are incriminated against Zim D.V., which raises doubts about their reliability and validity. Expert Vasiliev V.F. at the court hearing he showed that the injuries the victim had could have been caused by the impact of a hard, blunt object, either from a blow or from a collision. At the same time, the expert does not indicate the person who caused the damage to R.V. Shchukin, but only provides explanations about the mechanism of the formation of bodily injuries. Thus, the magistrate considers the defendant’s testimony about his innocence to be truthful, since the totality of the prosecution’s arguments does not refute them. Thus, the investigator of the Department of the Department of Internal Affairs of Russia for the city of Nyagan, Kharlamova O.Yu. On May 4, 2022, Zima Dmitry Vasilyevich was interrogated as a suspect in the absence of defense attorney A.V. Dvizov, since the protocol of interrogation of the suspect does not contain the signature of lawyer A.V. Dvizov. At the same time, Zima D.V. did not refuse the services of a defense lawyer; accordingly, the right of Zima D.V. was violated. for his defense in this criminal case. In addition, the indictment was drawn up in violation of the requirements of Article 225 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, since it was drawn up by a person to whom the criminal case was not transferred for preliminary inquiry. Analyzing the above facts, the magistrate has irremovable doubts about the guilt of D.V. Zim, which he interprets in favor of D.V. Zim. and comes to the conclusion that he was not involved in causing bodily harm to R.V. Shchukin, and, therefore, in committing a crime under Part 1 of Article 112 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. to the intentional infliction of moderate harm to health, not dangerous to human life and not entailing the consequences specified in Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but causing long-term health disorder, and therefore he is subject to acquittal, has the right to rehabilitation and compensation for property and moral damage in the manner prescribed by Articles 135-136 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The criminal case is not subject to return to the prosecutor in accordance with Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation for the following reasons. The list of grounds for returning the case to the prosecutor is clearly established by Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Indeed, the indictment in this case was drawn up in violation of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, however, a prerequisite for returning the case on the basis of paragraph 1 of part 1 of Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is the impossibility for the court to pass a sentence or other judicial decision on the basis of this indictment. In this criminal case, there are no obstacles to the court’s verdict; accordingly, there are no legal grounds for returning the case to the prosecutor in accordance with Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The preventive measure in the form of a recognizance not to leave the place and proper behavior is subject to cancellation. The criminal case must be sent to the head of the inquiry agency for conducting a preliminary investigation and identifying the person to be brought in as an accused. Taking into account the gross violations of the criminal procedural law committed during the investigation of this criminal case, the magistrate considers it necessary to send a private resolution to the head of the Department of Internal Affairs of Russia for the city of Nyagan. Grounds for issuing a private ruling against defender Dvizov A.V. The magistrate does not see it. SENTENCED: To find Dmitry Vasilyevich Zim not guilty and acquit Zim of the charge of intentionally causing moderate harm to health, not dangerous to human life and not entailing the consequences specified in Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but causing long-term health problems, i.e. for committing a crime under Part 1 of Article 112 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, for his non-involvement in the commission of this crime. The preventive measure in the form of a recognizance not to leave the place and proper behavior is subject to cancellation. Recognize Dmitry Vasilyevich Zim's right to rehabilitation in connection with the acquittal, which includes the right to compensation for property damage and elimination of the consequences of moral damage. The criminal case should be sent to the head of the inquiry body to conduct a preliminary investigation and identify the person to be brought in as an accused. Procedural costs shall be attributed to the federal budget
Article 112. Non-working holidays
Review of judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02/09/2005 On amendments to Article 112 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The Federal Law was adopted by the State Duma on December 24, 2004 (Law of the Russian Federation 2005, N 1 (part 1) Art. 27) On the entry into force of the Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation
Determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 29, 2009 No. VAS-6676/09 in case No. A32-911/2008-16/6
Article 112 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes that January 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are non-working holidays. Since 01/01/2008, the last day for filing a claim, is a non-working holiday, and also taking into account that 01/05/2008 is a holiday and fell on a Saturday (day off), and in accordance with the clarification of the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation dated 12/29/1992 N 5 if a weekend and a holiday coincide, the day off is transferred to the next working day after the holiday, that is, 01/05/2008 is transferred to 01/08/2008. Therefore, the first working day is 01/09/2008.
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated September 15, 2009 N 6676/09 in case N A32-911/2008-16/6
Article 112 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes that January 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are non-working holidays. Since 01/01/2008, the last day for filing a claim, is a non-working holiday, and 01/05/2008 is a holiday and fell on a Saturday (day off), in accordance with the explanation of the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation dated 12/29/1992 N 5 that that if a weekend and a holiday coincide, the day off is transferred to the next working day after the holiday; 01/05/2008 was postponed to 01/08/2008. Therefore, the first working day was 01/09/2008.
Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 31, 2011 N 49-11-57
Dulov S.K. appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan with an application to invalidate paragraphs 3 and 4 of paragraph 1 of this article, citing a contradiction with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of the Republic of Bashkortostan, articles , , 112, 113 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, article 3 of the Federal Law of September 26 1997 N 125-FZ “On freedom of conscience and religious associations.”
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 21, 2011 N 20-ПВ11
In the supervisory complaint, the State Assembly - Kurultai of the Republic of Bashkortostan asks to cancel the ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 31, 2011 and to uphold the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan dated June 27, 2011, since the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court The Russian Federation made an unfounded conclusion that the legislator of the Republic of Bashkortostan exceeded its rule-making competence. The panel of judges incorrectly interpreted the provisions of paragraph 7 of Article 4 of the Federal Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations,” which provides for the right of the relevant government bodies in the Russian Federation in the relevant territories, at the request of religious organizations, to declare religious holidays as non-working (holiday) days. The Board’s conclusion that this norm does not indicate the rule-making competence of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation on this issue was made without taking into account the requirements of Part 3 of Article 5, Articles 11, 72, 76, 77 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 1 of the Federal Law “On General Principles of Organization legislative (representative) and executive bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.” The supervisory complaint also points out that the conclusions of the Board are erroneous, namely that the challenged norms contradict the norms of labor legislation, in particular Articles 112 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, and also that there is uncertainty in understanding the provisions of paragraph 7 of Article 4 of the Federal Law “On Freedom conscience and religious associations."
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated May 23, 2012 N AKPI12-565
Orlova Yu.V. appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation with a statement in which she asks to invalidate the contested normative legal act, as adopted in violation of the publication period established by part five of Article 112 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and violating her right to rest.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated December 21, 2011 N 1846-О-О
ARTICLE 112 OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND PARAGRAPH 7 OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE FEDERAL LAW “ON FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATIONS” The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation composed of Chairman V.D. Zorkin, judges K.V. Aranovsky, A.I. Boytsova, N.S. Bondar, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M. Zharkova, G.A. Zhilina, S.M. Kazantseva, M.I. Cleandrova, S.D. Knyazeva, A.N. Kokotova, L.O. Krasavchikova, N.V. Melnikova, Yu.D. Rudkina, V.G. Yaroslavtseva,
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated May 29, 2012 N 999-O
ARTICLE 112 OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, composed of Chairman V.D. Zorkin, judges K.V. Aranovsky, A.I. Boytsova, N.S. Bondar, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M. Zharkova, G.A. Zhilina, S.M. Kazantseva, M.I. Cleandrova, A.N. Kokotova, L.O. Krasavchikova, S.P. Mavrina, N.V. Melnikova, Yu.D. Rudkina, N.V. Selezneva, O.S. Khokhryakova, V.G. Yaroslavtseva,
Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 15, 2014 N 6500/14 in case N A73-14736/2012
According to Article 112 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, November 4, National Unity Day, is a non-working holiday in the Russian Federation. If a day off coincides with a non-working holiday, the day off is transferred to the next working day after the holiday, with the exception of weekends coinciding with non-working holidays specified in paragraphs two and three of part one of this article. The Government of the Russian Federation transfers two days off from the number of days off that coincide with non-working holidays specified in paragraphs two and three of part one of this article to other days in the next calendar year in the manner established by part five of this article.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated May 25, 2017 N 1109-O
As for challenging A.A. Having considered the constitutionality of the resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation “On the transfer of days off in 2014”, it was adopted by the Government of the Russian Federation in pursuance of the provisions of part five of Article 112 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, which granted the Government of the Russian Federation the authority to transfer days off to other days. Such legal regulation is enshrined for the purpose of rational use by employees of weekends and non-working holidays, does not imply increased wages for a day that, in accordance with the regulatory legal act of the Government of the Russian Federation, becomes a working day, and cannot be regarded as violating the rights of the applicant who received salary for working day February 24, 2014.
Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/07/2018 N 7-AAD18-1
Article 112 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes that January 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8—New Year holidays—are non-working holidays. According to this norm and Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 14, 2017 N 1250 “On the transfer of weekends in 2022,” January 8, 2022 was a non-working holiday.
