ST 237 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
1. Concealment or distortion of information about events, facts or phenomena that create a danger to the life or health of people or to the environment, committed by a person obliged to provide the population and bodies authorized to take measures to eliminate such danger with the specified information, is punishable by a fine of in the amount of up to three hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to two years, or forced labor for a period of up to two years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years or without it, or imprisonment for a term of up to two 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 acts, if they are committed by a person holding a public office of the Russian Federation or a public office of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, as well as the head of a local government body, or if as a result of such acts harm is caused to human health or other grave consequences have occurred, are punishable by a fine in the amount from one hundred thousand to five hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of one to three years, or forced labor for a term of up to five years with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of up to three years such, or imprisonment for a term of up to five 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.
Commentary to Art. 237 Criminal Code
1. The subject of the crime is information about events, facts or phenomena that create a danger: a) to the life or health of people; b) for the environment.
2. The objective side of the crime is expressed in the commission of one of the alternative actions: a) concealment of information, i.e. its failure to communicate to the population, persons representing bodies entitled to receive it and obliged to receive it in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation; b) distortion of information, i.e. providing incomplete, partially or completely incorrect information regarding facts that constitute a danger to people or the environment.
3. The subjective side under Part 1 of the commented article is characterized by the presence of direct intent; under Part 2, intent can also be indirect.
4. Special subject of the crime: persons vested with special powers or official duties, who, due to their duty of service, are obliged to provide the population, bodies authorized to take measures to eliminate the danger, with the information specified in the law (Part 1); persons holding a public position in the Russian Federation or a public position in a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, the head of a local government body (Part 2; see commentary to Article 285 of the Criminal Code).
Article 237. Compensation for moral damage caused to an employee
Review of judicial practice, Appendix to the letter of the FSS of the Russian Federation dated March 21, 2005 N 02-18/07-2407 Representative of the defendant for the amount of the claim - 7320 rubles. did not present any objections during the trial. In accordance with Article 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, moral damage caused to an employee by unlawful actions or inaction of the employer is compensated to the employee in cash in amounts determined by the announcement of the parties to the employment contract.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated November 24, 2005 N 418-O
In his complaint to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, N.S. Kolpakov asks to check the constitutionality of articles , , , , , , 122, 123, 135, 154, 166, 167, 168, 169, 236, 237, 394, 395 and 396 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, indicating that his constitutional rights have been violated not by these - corresponding, in his opinion, to the Constitution of the Russian Federation - provisions of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, but by the employer and the courts of general jurisdiction, which did not apply in his case those norms of the Code that were subject to application, and thereby denied him judicial protection. In addition, N.S. Kolpakov asks the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to interpret Article 154 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, since he believes that it was incorrectly interpreted by the judicial panel for civil cases of the Moscow City Court when considering his cassation appeal.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated November 17, 2009 N 1384-О-О
AND PART OF THE SECOND ARTICLE 237 OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation composed of Chairman V.D. Zorkin, judges N.S. Bondar, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M. Zharkova, G.A. Zhilina, S.M. Kazantseva, M.I. Cleandrova, S.D. Knyazeva, L.O. Krasavchikova, S.P. Mavrina, N.V. Melnikova, Yu.D. Rudkina, N.V. Selezneva, A.Ya. Plums, V.G. Strekozova, O.S. Khokhryakova,
Determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 04/09/2014 No. VAS-4238/14 in case No. A47-2853/2013
Refusing to satisfy the demands stated by the company, the courts, guided by the provisions of Part 1 of Article, Articles, Part 1 of Article of the Law of July 24, 2009 N 212-FZ, Articles 129, 146, 147, 219, 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, Articles 59, 151, 307, 1099, 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, legal positions set out in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 20, 1994 N “Some issues of application of legislation on compensation for moral damage” and the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 4, 2012 N 10151/2012, came to the conclusion that the said payments were made by the company to its employees within the framework of labor relations and were in the nature of compensation for work in harmful and difficult working conditions, since the company paid the disputed sums of money to its employees in the actual absence of statutory provisions then the grounds for the employer’s obligation to compensate for moral damage. Consequently, these payments were subject to inclusion in the base for calculating insurance contributions for compulsory pension insurance.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 2, 2015 N 55-KG15-3
Semenov V.A. filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Khakassia (hereinafter referred to as the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Khakassia) for the recovery of a one-time benefit, taking into account indexation in the amount of ... rubles. on the basis of Part 5 of Article 43 of the Federal Law of February 7, 2011 No. 3-FZ “On the Police” (hereinafter referred to as the Law “On the Police”), the collection of penalties provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the Federal Law of March 28, 1998 No. 52 -FZ “On compulsory state insurance of life and health of military personnel, citizens called up for military training, private and commanding officers of the internal affairs bodies of the Russian Federation, the State Fire Service, bodies for control of the circulation of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, employees of institutions and criminal authorities -executive system”, for the period from August 26 to October 8, 2014 in the amount of ... rub., as well as compensation for moral damage on the basis of Article 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in the amount of ... rub.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 21, 2015 N 67-KG15-9
Canceling the decision of the court of first instance and making a new decision in the case to partially satisfy the claims of Savkin A.P. on compensation for moral damage caused by an occupational disease at work, the appellate court indicated that the amount paid to Savkin A.P. lump sum benefit in the amount of ... rub. (without deduction of personal income tax - ... rub.) is not compensation for moral damage, since the defendant has not provided evidence indicating that this payment is payment for compensation for moral damage caused by an occupational disease. Considering the plaintiff’s occupational disease and loss of professional ability as a result, the appellate court came to the conclusion that Savkin A.P. has the right to compensation for moral damage caused by an occupational disease, in accordance with Art. 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph 3 of Art. 8 of the Federal Law of July 24, 1998 N 125-FZ.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 25, 2016 N 67-KG15-13
In addition, the courts of first and appellate instances, as a basis for partial satisfaction of the claims of Malanin V.I. on compensation for moral damage caused by an occupational disease at work, they referred to Article 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, according to which moral damage caused to an employee by unlawful actions or inaction of the employer is compensated to the employee in cash in amounts determined by agreement of the parties to the employment contract. At the same time, the courts, in violation of Part 3 of Article 196 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes that the court makes a decision on the claims made by the plaintiff, did not take into account the fact that Malanin V.I. when going to court with the above-mentioned demands, he did not refer to this provision of the law in support of his claim, and therefore the claimant did not submit claims for compensation for moral damage on the basis of Article 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 25, 2016 N 67-KG15-17
In addition, the courts of first and appellate instances, as a basis for partial satisfaction of the claims of Abakumov A.M. on compensation for moral damage caused by an occupational disease at work, they referred to Article 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, according to which moral damage caused to an employee by unlawful actions or inaction of the employer is compensated to the employee in cash in amounts determined by agreement of the parties to the employment contract. At the same time, the courts, in violation of the requirements of Part 3 of Article 196 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes that the court makes a decision on the claims stated by the plaintiff, did not take into account the fact that Abakumov A.M. when going to court with the above-mentioned demands, he did not refer to this provision of the law in support of his claim, and therefore the claimant did not submit claims for compensation for moral damage on the basis of Article 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02/01/2016 N 67-КГ15-14
In addition, the courts of first and appellate instances, as a basis for partial satisfaction of the claims of Volmer V.Yu. on compensation for moral damage caused by an occupational disease at work, they referred to Article 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, according to which moral damage caused to an employee by unlawful actions or inaction of the employer is compensated to the employee in cash in amounts determined by agreement of the parties to the employment contract. At the same time, the courts, in violation of Part 3 of Article 196 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes that the court makes a decision on the claims stated by the plaintiff, did not take into account the fact that Folmer V.Yu. when going to court with the above-mentioned demands, he did not refer to this provision of the law in support of his claim, and therefore the claimant did not submit claims for compensation for moral damage on the basis of Article 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 02/08/2016 N 67-КГ15-19
In addition, the courts of first and appellate instances, as a basis for partial satisfaction of the claims of V.A. Kadnikov. on compensation for moral damage caused by an occupational disease at work, they referred to Article 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, according to which moral damage caused to an employee by unlawful actions or inaction of the employer is compensated to the employee in cash in amounts determined by agreement of the parties to the employment contract. At the same time, the courts, in violation of Part 3 of Article 196 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes that the court makes a decision on the claims stated by the plaintiff, did not take into account the fact that V.A. Kadnikov when going to court with the above-mentioned demands, he did not refer to this provision of the law in support of his claim.
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 11, 2016 N 67-KG15-23
Resolving the dispute and partially satisfying the claims of Ibe A.V., the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that between Ibe A.V. occupational disease and the negative impact on his body of harmful production factors during work, the defendant has a cause-and-effect relationship, since the defendant did not create safe working conditions for the plaintiff, thereby causing him moral harm as a result of the occupational disease, and therefore, on the basis of Art. 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and paragraph two of paragraph 3 of Art. 8 of the Federal Law of July 24, 1998 N 125-FZ “On compulsory social insurance against accidents at work and occupational diseases,” the defendant had an obligation to compensate for moral damage caused to the plaintiff by an occupational disease.
Second commentary to Art. 237 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The immediate object is the health of the population.
2. The subject of the crime is information about events, facts or phenomena that pose a danger to human health or the environment.
In accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 10 of the Federal Law “On Information, Informatization and Information Protection” of February 20, 1995, it is prohibited to classify as restricted access information documents containing information about emergency situations, environmental, meteorological, sanitary-epidemiological and other information necessary to ensure the safe functioning of populated areas, production facilities, the safety of citizens and the population as a whole (SZ RF, 1995, No. 8, Art. 609).
3. The objective side of this crime can be expressed both in actions and inaction.
Inaction consists of concealing information about events, facts and phenomena that pose a danger to the life or health of the population.
The action is expressed in the distortion of the specified information when it is provided to the population or bodies authorized to take measures to eliminate the danger to the life or health of people or to the environment. Distortion of information may mean concealing part of it, or falsifying factual data that constitutes the essence of information, or distorting forecasts about the development of events or phenomena dangerous to the life or health of people or to the environment.
4. The crime is considered completed from the moment of inaction (concealment of information) or action (distortion) of the perpetrator, regardless of whether the addressees received this information from other sources and whether the threatening danger was eliminated.
5. The subjective side of the crime is characterized by direct intent.
6. The subject of the crime is a special one: a person obliged to provide the population and bodies authorized to take measures to eliminate danger with information about events, facts or phenomena that pose a danger to the life or health of people or to the environment.
7. Qualified types (Part 2) mean: a) the commission of a crime by a person holding a public position in the Russian Federation, a public position in a constituent entity of the Russian Federation (see notes 2 and 3 to Article 285 of the Criminal Code), as well as the head of a local government body (see paragraph 10 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 16, 2009 No. 19); b) causing harm to human health or other grave consequences as a result of the crime committed.
Criminal liability for concealing crimes
Concealing a crime is one of the forms of a person’s involvement in its commission and is often the reason why law enforcement agencies fail to solve the crime.
In this regard, the legislator established criminal liability for concealment of a particularly serious crime that was not promised in advance, as provided for in Article 316 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
This provision provides for liability only for concealment of a particularly serious crime that was not promised in advance; the same actions committed by a person in relation to a different category of crime (minor gravity, moderate gravity, serious crime) do not entail criminal liability.
For example, particularly serious crimes include: murder (Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim through negligence (Part 4 of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), rape (Parts 3-5 of Article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) RF), robbery (parts 3-4 of Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and others.
In accordance with Part 5 of Art. 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, intentional acts are recognized as particularly serious crimes, the commission of which is punishable by imprisonment for a term of over ten years or a more severe punishment by this Code.
Concealment of a crime is primarily expressed in the active actions of a person aimed at concealing the crime itself, its instruments and objects, traces, as well as concealing the person who committed the crime.
Thus, harboring a criminal is hiding the person who committed the crime, providing him with shelter, a vehicle, helping him change his appearance, providing him with a fake or someone else’s passport, and other actions.
Concealment of means or instruments for committing a crime also means either their concealment, namely transfer to another place, hiding, etc., or their destruction or change in appearance. It should also be noted that hiding traces of a crime means destroying them.
A crime is considered completed from the moment an action is committed aimed at concealing the crime or the person who committed it, regardless of whether it turned out to be effective.
The criminal law does not determine how long after the commission of a particularly serious crime it can be concealed, however, within the meaning of the law, this is possible during the statute of limitations until the crime is disclosed.
Responsibility for concealing a crime begins at the age of 16; however, the spouse or close relative of a person who has committed a particularly serious crime is not liable.
For committing this crime, liability is imposed in the form of a fine in the amount of up to 200 thousand rubles or in the amount of wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to 18 months, or forced labor for a period of up to 2 years, or arrest for a term of up to 6 months, or deprivation freedom for up to 2 years.
The actions of a person who promised in advance to hide the criminal, the means or instruments of the crime, traces of the crime or objects obtained by criminal means are regarded by the legislator as complicity in the commission of the same crime as the actions of other persons who committed it (perpetrator, organizer or instigator) and are classified as under the same article of the criminal law under which his liability arises.
The article material is taken from open sources
Do you have any questions for your lawyer on this topic?
Ask them right now here, or call us by phone in Moscow +7 (499) 288-34-32 or in Samara +7 (846) 212-99-71 (24 hours a day), or come to our office for a consultation (by pre-registration)!
COVID-19. Legal protection of business
04/07/2020 Practice of application of Art. 237 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Concealment of information about circumstances that pose a danger to the life and health of people”) during the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic
Article 237 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Concealing information about circumstances that pose a danger to the life and health of people.
The actions (inaction) of the guilty person are expressed in concealing or distorting information about events, facts or phenomena that pose a danger to the life and health of people or the environment. The social danger of this crime lies in the fact that concealing such information does not allow the population to take appropriate measures to preserve their health and life.
Concealment means withholding relevant information by any means, including by omission or untimely reporting, as well as by refusing to provide information upon requests from the public, as well as authorities authorized to take measures to eliminate the impending danger. Distortion of information - provision of biased, unreliable, falsified information, reporting of incomplete or unreliable data, official forecasts, estimates, etc.
This article may include the concealment or distortion of information by a citizen, for example, about the citizen’s stay in the territory of a state in which cases of infection with the COVID-19 coronavirus infection have been recorded or the citizen’s concealment of information about the presence of the COVID-19 coronavirus infection. An obligatory element is the fact that hidden or distorted information creates a danger to the life and health of people.
In addition, the subject may also be an individual who is obliged to provide the population and bodies authorized to take measures to eliminate the danger with relevant information. Such an obligation is assigned to them by law or other regulatory legal act or instruction. For example, such persons may be officials of state authorities, local government bodies, employees of special units (owners of information systems, employees and heads of local government bodies, forecast bureaus, sanitary and epidemiological stations, the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia).
Under certain circumstances, the actions of the perpetrators may be collectively qualified under other articles of the Criminal Law of the Russian Federation. Thus, if the act provided for in Article 237 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is committed by an official, liability may also arise under the corresponding articles on official crimes - 285, 286, 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
For example, on March 23, 2020, a criminal case was opened in Stavropol under Art. 237 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in relation to the professor of the department of infectious diseases and phthisiology of the Stavropol State Medical University (at the same time she was the chief freelance specialist in infectious diseases of the Ministry of Health of the Stavropol Territory), who, without the knowledge of the management of the university and the ministry, went on vacation to the Kingdom of Spain, where she was from 6 to 9 Martha. Upon her return, she also did not inform management about her trip to a foreign country, in whose territory cases of coronavirus infection COVID-19 were recorded, and did not take measures for 14-day isolation in order to prevent the spread of infection during the pandemic, and at the same time continued to live as usual life, and a few days later she was diagnosed with COVID-19. When a criminal case is initiated, the act is additionally qualified under Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (negligence).
The Regionservice Bar Association will continue to promptly monitor changes in the current legal regulation of criminal and legal relations arising from them during the fight against the COVID-2022 pandemic and publish analytical reviews.
To receive emergency advice on any issues related to the regulation of legal relations during the period of restrictive measures aimed at combating the COVID - 2019 pandemic, you can write to our hot mail
[email protected] with a note in the subject line "COVID - 2019" .
We will try to accept your request and respond to it within 24 hours. *This material has been prepared for informational and/or educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or opinion. The Regionservice Bar Association, its management, lawyers and employees cannot guarantee the applicability of such information for your purposes and are not responsible for your decisions and related possible direct or indirect losses and/or damages arising from the use of these materials. information or any part thereof.
