1. Poisoning, contamination or other damage to land by harmful products of economic or other activities due to violation of the rules for handling fertilizers, plant growth stimulants, pesticides and other dangerous chemical or biological substances during their storage, use and transportation, resulting in harm to human health or the environment - shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of up to two hundred thousand rubles, or in the amount of the wages or other income of the convicted person for a period of up to eighteen months, or by deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years, or by compulsory labor for a term of up to four hundred eighty hours. , or correctional labor for up to two years.
2. The same acts committed in an environmental disaster zone or in an environmental emergency zone are punishable by restriction of freedom for a term of up to two years, or forced labor for a term of up to two years, or imprisonment for the same term.
3. Acts provided for in parts one or two of this article, resulting in the death of a person through negligence, are punishable by forced labor for up to five years or imprisonment for the same term.
Second commentary to Art. 41 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. Analysis of criminal legislation (Article 41 of the Criminal Code) allows us to identify the conditions for the legitimacy of justified risk, discussed below.
2. The risk is taken to achieve a socially useful goal, i.e. one that, when implemented, will bring benefits, favorable returns to society or the state, including in the interests of a specific organization, group of people, or the interests of all citizens. A socially useful goal can be expressed in strengthening law and order in a specific region and by specific means, in achieving new results in any scientific or scientific-technical field, in creating new technologies, in an effort to discover a new means of combating a specific disease, etc.
The risk of causing harm to legally protected interests in order to achieve a useful, but purely personal goal is unacceptable; it entails criminal liability on a general basis.
A socially useful goal must be sufficiently specific and in principle achievable, taking into account existing developments in this area and attempts to solve the problem.
3. A socially useful goal could not be achieved through actions (inaction) that did not involve risk. Risk is forced; the risk-taker has no more behavioral options to achieve it.
4. The risk consists of possible harm to interests protected by criminal law. Harm at risk is probable, sometimes even highly probable. However, causing harm with a justifiable risk cannot be one hundred percent, otherwise the very concept of risk is not applicable.
5. The person who allowed the risk took sufficient measures to prevent possible harm. The question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the measures taken is resolved in each specific case with the participation of specialists; An appropriate examination is required here.
6. The risk can be expressed in any harm, but cannot be knowingly associated with a threat to the lives of many people, with the threat of an environmental disaster or social disaster. The harm caused by a reasonable risk may be less than, equal to, or even greater than the harm prevented, subject to other conditions for the legitimacy of the risk. Although from the meaning of the law, from the fact that a person, taking risks, strives for a socially useful goal, the harm caused, as a rule, should be less than the harm prevented.
Commentary on Article 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The public danger of a crime is expressed in violation of control over the movement of a transport unit, entailing the possibility of accidents and grave consequences (Tokyo Convention on Crimes and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (1963) <1>; Hague Convention against unlawful seizure of aircraft (1970) <2>; Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (1988) <3>, etc.). ——————————— <1> Sat. international treaties of the USSR. Vol. XLIV. M., 1990. S. 218 - 225.
<2> Sat. existing treaties, agreements and conventions concluded by the USSR with foreign states. Vol. XXVII. M., 1974. S. 292 - 296.
<3> BMD. 2002. N 1.
2. The object of the criminal encroachment is the relationship to ensure a safe procedure for citizens to move sources of increased danger - air, water and rail transport.
3. The objective side of the crime provided for in Part 1 is the hijacking or seizure of an air transport vessel (helicopter, airplane and other aircraft used for air transportation), water transport (a watercraft intended for water transportation, regardless of displacement and type of transported objects: passenger - motor ship, hovercraft, etc.; cargo - barge, tanker, etc.; military - torpedo boat, submarine, etc.) or railway rolling stock (object moving on rails and under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Railways of Russia: carriage, locomotive, etc.). Departmental affiliation and form of ownership of the vehicle do not matter for qualification.
4. Stealing a ship consists of taking possession of the corresponding ship with its subsequent movement from its proper location to a place chosen at the discretion of the subject of the crime. Hijacking is completed at the moment of the beginning of this movement (setting the vessel in motion, evading a given route) regardless of its duration. When illegally crossing the State Border of the Russian Federation on a hijacked ship, the act is classified as a set of crimes (Articles 211 and 322).
5. Seizure of a ship consists of establishing control over the ship, making it possible to illegally dispose of it as a means of transportation at the discretion of the perpetrator. The seizure is complete when appropriate control over the vessel is established.
6. Theft and seizure, qualified under part 1 comment. Articles can be either non-violent in nature or carried out with the use of violence that is not dangerous to life or health (beatings, infliction of physical pain, restriction of freedom), or with the threat of its use, expressed in any form.
7. The subjective side of the crime is characterized by guilt in the form of direct intent. Motives do not matter for qualifications (personal, nationalistic, political, hooligan, etc.). The seizure of the vessel must be carried out with the purpose of subsequent hijacking. If there is a goal of holding persons on board the ship as hostages, the act is covered by the elements of hostage-taking (Article 206) and does not require qualification under commentary. article. The hijacking or seizure of a water transport vessel, committed for the purpose of taking possession of someone else's property on board the vessel, entails classification as a set of crimes (Articles 211 and 227).
8. The subject of a criminal offense is a sane person who has reached 16 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime.
9. Qualifying features provided for in part 2 of the commentary. articles include the hijacking or seizure of a vessel: a) by a group of persons by prior conspiracy (see commentary to Article 35); c) with the use of violence dangerous to life or health or with the threat of using such violence (see commentary to Article 126); d) using weapons or objects used as weapons. The use of weapons (see the concept of weapons in the commentary to Article 63) involves the use of weapons in accordance with their design purpose. The use of objects used as weapons (see the concept of these objects in the commentary to Article 126) involves their use to cause injury to the victim.
10. Particularly qualifying features provided for in Part 3 of the commentary. Articles include the hijacking or seizure of a vessel by an organized group (see commentary to Article 35), which through negligence resulted in the death of a person or other grave consequences.
11. Hijacking or seizure of a ship, resulting in the death of a person (crew member, ship passenger or other person) or other grave consequences (disabling the ship, destruction or damage to transported cargo, etc.), is a crime with two forms of guilt, where the person’s attitude to the consequences is expressed in the form of negligence. No additional qualification of the offense is required. The hijacking or seizure of a vessel, associated with the intentional infliction of death on a person, entails qualification in combination (Article 211 and Article 105).
12. The crime provided for in Part 1 is classified as grave, and Parts 2 and 3 are especially grave.
Commentary to Art. 250 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The main direct object of the crime is public relations in the field of ensuring environmental safety, protection and rational use of water. Additional - relations to protect human life and health (parts 2 and 3 of the commented article).
The subject of the crime is surface or underground water, sources of drinking water supply.
Comparative analysis of the commented article and art. 252 of the Criminal Code allows us to conclude that the waters of internal seas and territorial waters of the Russian Federation are not the subject of the crime in question.
Water from storage facilities that do not have environmental significance (septic tanks, pools, reservoirs, wells, etc.) also do not apply to it. Their contamination, poisoning, depletion, depending on the nature of the act, can be qualified under Art. Art. 143, 236, 281 and articles ch. 16 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Relations regarding water protection are regulated by the Laws on Environmental Protection, on Sanitary and Epidemiological Welfare, the Water Code, and other federal laws; laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation; other numerous regulatory legal acts that must be applied in accordance with the CC. These include, for example: Rules for the use of public water supply and sewerage systems in the Russian Federation, approved. Fast. Government of the Russian Federation dated 02/12/1999 N 167; SanPiN 2.1.5.980-00 “Hygienic requirements for the protection of surface waters”, approved. Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation 06/22/2000; Sanitary rules and standards for the protection of groundwater from pollution (SanPiN 2.1.5.1059-01), approved. Chief Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation 07/16/2001; Fast. Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation dated January 22, 2008 N 3 “On approval of sanitary and epidemiological rules SP 3.4.2318-08” (together with SP 3.4.2318-08. Sanitary protection of the territory of the Russian Federation. Sanitary and epidemiological rules); SanPin 2.1.4.2580-10 “Drinking water. Hygienic requirements for water quality in centralized drinking water supply systems. Quality control. Sanitary and epidemiological rules and regulations”, approved. Fast. Chief Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation dated February 25, 2010 N 10.
Specific standards for maximum permissible concentrations of emissions and discharges of pollutants into water bodies approved. specially authorized federal executive authorities in the field of environmental protection and sanitary and epidemiological supervision. Beyond acceptable levels, pollution becomes dangerous and entails criminal or administrative liability (Articles 8.13 - 8.16 of the Administrative Code).
2. The objective side of the crime consists of pollution, clogging, depletion of surface or ground water, sources of drinking water supply, or other change in their natural properties by action or inaction.
Pollution of water bodies is the discharge or otherwise entering water bodies, as well as the formation of harmful substances in them, which, when dissolved, deteriorate the quality of surface and groundwater, limit their use or negatively affect the condition of the bottom and banks of water bodies.
Clogging is the discharge or otherwise entering into water bodies of insoluble or poorly soluble objects or suspended particles that worsen the condition and impede the drinking use of water bodies.
Water depletion is a steady reduction in reserves with deterioration in the quality of surface and groundwater (Article 1 of the Water Code).
Any other change in the natural properties of water is understood as any other change in their physical, chemical or biological properties.
Sources of pollution of a reservoir can be any: industrial, municipal, agricultural, domestic objects. Methods (discharge, discharge, leakage, diffuse pollution, i.e. through the surface of the earth and air) and type of pollutant (wastewater, garbage, waste, fuels and lubricants, chemicals, garbage, mixtures, etc.) also don't matter. Radioactive substances can also serve as a means of contaminating water. Moreover, if the actions of the perpetrator contain signs of a crime under Art. 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the deed forms a set of crimes and is subject to qualification under Art. Art. 250 and 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in paragraph 7 of the Post. dated 10/18/2012 N 21 explained that pollution, clogging, depletion of surface or groundwater, sources of drinking water supply, or other changes in their natural properties can be the result of a violation not only of water use rules (for example, during the operation of industrial, agricultural, municipal and other facilities with faulty treatment facilities and devices, shutdown of treatment facilities and devices), but also other rules in the field of environmental protection and natural resource management (in particular, transportation, storage, use of mineral fertilizers and preparations).
For the definition of significant environmental harm, see the commentary to Art. 247.
In relation to the commented article, the issue of recognizing harm to flora or fauna, fish stocks, forestry or agriculture as significant is decided in each specific case, taking into account the actual circumstances of the case: the amount of loss or damage, its environmental value, cost, area of pollution.
Thus, significant damage to agriculture and forestry means the destruction of crops or grazing for livestock over large areas, the death of livestock; drying out of forests, damage to a significant number of coastal plantings.
Damage to wildlife or fish stocks includes recording: the number of dead fish (including juveniles) or other aquatic animals, aquatic vegetation, the ecological significance of the reservoir (drinking source, resting place, spawning area, waterfowl habitat, specially protected natural object, etc.) ; the value of lost or damaged goods in monetary terms according to the appropriate rates and methods; areas of distribution of pollutants; the amount of lost or damaged feed stocks; animal habitats (spawning area, wintering pit, feeding area). The consequences are also expressed in the form of a significant change in the taste of fish or other aquatic biological resources, their loss of value as food and feed, and harm caused to wild or domestic waterfowl and fur-bearing animals. When calculating damage, special techniques should be used. ——————————— See, for example: Methodology for calculating the amount of damage caused to water bodies due to violation of water legislation, approved. By Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia dated April 13, 2009 N 87; Order of Rosrybolovstvo dated November 25, 2011 N 1166 “On approval of the Methodology for calculating the amount of damage caused to aquatic biological resources.”
3. The crime is completed from the moment the criminal consequences occur. The corpus delicti is material. A causal connection must be established between the act and the consequences.
4. From the subjective side, a crime can be either intentional or careless (clause 4 of the Post. Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated October 18, 2012 N 21).
5. The subject of the crime is a sane individual who has reached the age of 16. Both officials or persons performing these functions in a commercial or other organization, as well as other persons who committed this crime (ordinary employees, citizens), can be brought to criminal liability.
6. The qualifying criteria in Part 2 of the commented article are: causing harm to human health, mass death of animals, committing the acts specified in Part 1 of this article on the territory of a reserve or wildlife sanctuary or in an environmental disaster zone or an environmental emergency zone.
For information about health hazards, see commentary to Art. 246. On the concepts of mass death of animals, zones of environmental disaster and environmental emergency, see the commentary to Art. 247. The concepts of a reserve and a wildlife sanctuary - see the commentary to Art. 262 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Pollution, contamination, depletion of surface or groundwater, sources of drinking water supply, or any other change in their natural properties, committed on the territory of a reserve or wildlife sanctuary or in an environmental disaster zone or in an environmental emergency zone, must be qualified under Part 2 of Art. 250 of the Criminal Code only in the case when the act caused significant harm to the animal or plant world, fish stocks, forestry or agriculture (clause 7 of the Post. Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated October 18, 2012 N 21).
In our opinion, this explanation is not controversial. When speaking in Part 2 of the commented article about “the same acts,” the legislator, in our opinion, means actions (inaction), and not the entire corpus delicti provided for in Part 1 of this article. Based on this, these acts committed in an environmental disaster zone or in an environmental emergency zone (i.e. in territories that are already in a critical condition) have a formal composition. The crime is over from the moment they are committed, regardless of the consequences. He similarly interpreted the situation in relation to the corpus delicti provided for in paragraphs “a” and “c” of Part 2 of Art. 260 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in paragraph 18 of the Post. dated October 18, 2012 N 21. ——————————— The point of the explanation is that the qualifying features of the composition provided for in paragraphs “a” and “c” of Part 2 of Art. 260 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, apply regardless of whether the illegal felling of forest plantations or non-forest trees, shrubs and vines was committed in a significant amount, which is a mandatory sign of the main composition.
Taking this into account, the norm of Part 2 of the commented article is a special norm in relation to the norms of Art. 260 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and the deed must be qualified only under Part 2 of Art. 250 of the Criminal Code, regardless of the significant harm caused by pollution of these territories.
7. From the subjective side, these crimes can also be intentional or careless.
8. Particularly qualifying feature in part 3 of the commented article: causing by negligence the death of a person (one or more) as a result of the acts specified in parts 1 and 2 of this article.
9. The commented article competes with Art. Art. 8.13, 8.14 Code of Administrative Offences.
10. The elements of administrative offenses consisting of water pollution, according to the objective side, are similar to the wording used in the commented article. However, all of them are constructed as “threats” (i.e. formal) and provide for liability for acts that may lead to consequences in the form of pollution, clogging or depletion of water.
In Part 5 of Art. 8.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses provides for liability for pollution of glaciers, snowfields, ice cover of water bodies, etc. Moreover, pollution itself here is an act that is completed from the moment it is committed, whereas in the article under comment it is an act that entails the above-mentioned consequences. The norm of Part 2 of the commented article differs from the misdemeanor in the place where the offense was committed: it provides for liability for water pollution in a nature reserve, wildlife sanctuary, zone of environmental disaster or zone of environmental emergency, whereas in Art. Art. 8.13 and 8.14 of the Code of Administrative Offences, the place where the offense was committed is not named.
Second commentary to Art. 211 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The subject of the crime is an air or water transport vessel, as well as railway rolling stock.
For the characteristics of these crime subjects, see the commentary to Art. 263 CC.
2. Hijacking is the unlawful unauthorized movement of an air, water transport vessel or a train and its use at one’s own discretion. The illegal unauthorized use by a criminal of, for example, an aircraft for a flight when the take-off and landing locations coincide should also be recognized as hijacking.
Seizure is the unlawful forcible seizure of specified vehicles for the purpose of theft. Seizure involves establishing control over a vehicle, which would allow the vehicle to be used to move to any geographical point desired by the criminal, or would exclude the possibility of the vessel following a previously planned route. Seizure precedes the theft and may be carried out using violence that is not dangerous to life or health, or the threat of using such violence (Part 1 of Article 211).
3. The subjective side is characterized by direct intent; for capture, the obligatory goal is the hijacking of a ship. If the seizure is carried out for another purpose (for example, for the purpose of sale), then relations in the field of public security do not suffer damage. Such an act must be qualified under other articles of the Criminal Code.
4. The subject of the crime is a person who has reached the age of 16 years. The hijacking of a vessel (air or water) located on the ground (or in a port) can be committed by a member of the ship’s crew, service personnel of an airline (or port), as well as strangers who have illegally entered its board.
5. The content of qualifying features (Part 2 of Article 211) is similar to the content of the qualifying features of the same name provided for in Art. 206 of the Criminal Code.
6. A particularly qualified crime (Part 3 of Article 211) involves the commission of an act by an organized group (Article 35 of the Criminal Code), causing the death of a person through negligence or other grave consequences.
Other serious consequences include a wreck, a vehicle accident, significant damage to cargo, property, serious harm to the health of several persons, significant environmental pollution, etc.
7. Criminal liability arises under Part 4 of Art. 211, if the hijacking was associated with the commission of a terrorist act or other terrorist activity.
Judicial practice under Article 250 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
The appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 20, 2018 N 5-АПУ18-78
is being processed by the Investigative Department of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan. There is a criminal case on charges against K.V. Sviridov. in committing crimes under Art. 250, paragraph 1, part 3, art. 189 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. On May 13, 2017, the accused was put on the wanted list and detained on the territory of the Russian Federation on August 1, 2022.
Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 3, 2019 N 87-AD19-13
At the same time, as follows from the case materials, by a resolution of the senior investigator of the Kostroma Interdistrict Investigation Department of the Investigative Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Kostroma Region dated August 31, 2022, a criminal case was opened on the grounds of the crime provided for in Part 2 regarding the mass death of fish in the Solonitsa River Article 250 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes criminal liability for pollution, contamination, depletion of surface or ground water, sources of drinking water supply, or other changes in their natural properties, resulting in harm to human health or mass death of animals, as well as committed on the territory of a nature reserve or wildlife sanctuary, or in an environmental disaster zone or in an environmental emergency zone.
Judicial practice: sentences and punishment under Art. 250 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 27, 2002 N 29 ON JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES OF THEFT,...
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION of November 15, 2016 N 48 ON THE PRACTICE OF APPLICATION BY COURTS OF LEGISLATION GOVERNING FEATURES...
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENAUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated June 25, 2022 N 18 ON JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES OF CRIMES,...
- Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 5, 2018 N 126-P18 ON RESUMING PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE DUE TO NEW...
- Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated... PLENAUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION DECISION dated December 17, 2022 N 43 ON SOME ISSUES OF JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES...
- Ruling of the ECtHR dated 02/14/2017 EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE “MASLOVA VS. RUSSIAN FEDERATION” (Complaint No. 15980/12) JUDGMENT…
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Resolution No. 310P13 dated... DECISION OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 310-P13 Moscow January 23, 2014 Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination N 203-APU17-21... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Case No. 203-APU17-21 APPEAL DECISION Moscow August 31, 2022 Judicial Collegium for Military Personnel of the Supreme...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 56-КГ16-46 dated... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION No. 56-КГ16-46 DETERMINATION Moscow March 6, 2017 Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court...
- Decision of the Supreme Court: Determination No. 56-КГ16-46 dated... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION No. 56-КГ16-46 DETERMINATION Moscow March 6, 2017 Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court...
