1. Judges consider cases of administrative offenses provided for in Articles 5.1 - 5.26, parts 2, 5 and 7 of Article 5.27, part 5 of Article 5.27.1, Articles 5.35.1, 5.37 - 5.43, 5.45 - 5.52, 5.56 - 5.69, 6.1 - 6.2, parts 2 and 3 of article 6.3, articles 6.8, 6.9, 6.9.1, 6.11 - 6.16, 6.17, 6.16.1, 6.18 - 6.22, 6.26, 6.27, part 4 of article 6.29, article 6.33, part 1 of article 6.34, articles 6.36, 7.5, part 2 of article 7.11, articles 7.12 - 7.17, 7.19, part 2 of article 7.23.2, articles 7.24, 7.27, 7.27.1, 7.28, part 1 of article 7.31, part 7 of article 7.32, part 2 of article 7.32.3 , Part 2 of Article 7.32.5, Article 7.35, Part 2 of Article 8.28, Articles 8.28.1, 8.32.2, Parts 1.2 and 1.3 of Article 8.37, Part 2 of Article 8.49, Part 3 of Article 9.1 (in terms of gross violation of the terms of licenses to carry out types of activities in the field of industrial safety), Part 2 of Article 9.1.1, Article 9.5.2, Article 9.13 (in terms of evading the requirements for ensuring accessibility of educational facilities and services provided in the field of education for disabled people), Article 9.14, Parts 5 and 6 of Article 9.23, Articles 10.5.1, 10.11, Part 2 of Article 11.3, Part 7 of Article 11.5, Article 11.7.1, Part 2 of Article 11.14.3, Parts 2 and 3 of Article 11.15.1, Parts 2 and 3 of Article 11.15.2 , part 4 of article 11.17, articles 11.21, 11.22, 11.24, 11.32, part 4 of article 12.2, part 2.1 of article 12.3, parts 1, 2, part 3 (in cases of illegal application of the color scheme of a passenger taxi) article 12.4, parts 3, 4 - 7 of Article 12.5, Part 2 of Article 12.7, Article 12.8, Part 7 of Article 12.9 (except for cases of recording an administrative offense by special technical means operating automatically, having the functions of photography, filming, video recording), Part 3 of Article 12.10, Part 5 of Article 12.15 (except for cases of recording an administrative offense by special technical means operating in automatic mode, having the functions of photographing, filming, video recording, or means of photographing, filming, video recording), Part 3.1 of Article 12.16 (except for cases of recording an administrative offense using special technical means operating in automatic mode technical means having the functions of photography and filming, video recording, or means of photography and filming, video recording), Articles 12.24, 12.26, parts 2 and 3 of Article 12.27, Articles 12.34, 12.35, 13.2.1, parts 1 and 2 of Article 13.5, articles 13.10, 13.11, 13.11.1, part 5 of article 13.12, articles 13.14 - 13.16, part 2 of article 13.18, article 13.19.1, part 2 of article 13.19.2, article 13.19.3 (except for administrative offenses committed by the developer, officials persons of the developer), Articles 13.19.4, 13.20, 13.21, 13.23, Part 2 of Article 13.25, Articles 13.27, 13.28, Parts 1.1, 2 - 4 of Article 13.31, Articles 13.33, 13.34, Part 2 of Article 13.35, Part 2 of Article 13.36, Part 2 articles 13.37, articles 13.38, 13.39, parts 2.1 and 4 of article 13.40, articles 13.41 - 13.46, 14.1, 14.1.1, 14.1.1-1, 14.1.2, 14.1.4, parts 3, 4, 6 and 7 of article 14.4.1, Article 14.4.3, Part 3 of Article 14.5, Part 2 of Article 14.9, Articles 14.10 - 14.12, Parts 1 - 4.1, 5.1 - 8 of Article 14.13, Articles 14.14, 14.15.2, 14.15.3, Parts 1 and 2 Article 14.16, Articles 14.17, 14.17.1, 14.17.2, 14.18, 14.23, Parts 1, 2, 5, 8 of Article 14.25, Articles 14.25.1, 14.27, Part 6 of Article 14.28, Part 2 of Article 14.31.2, Parts 1 and 5 of Article 14.34, Articles 14.35 - 14.37, Part 2 of Article 14.38, Part 3 of Article 14.43, Part 3 of Article 14.43.1, Article 14.46.1, Part 5 of Article 14.46.2, Articles 14.47, 14.48, 14.51, Article 14.53.1 , part 2 of article 14.54, part 3 of article 14.55, articles 14.56, 14.58, 14.59, 14.60, 14.62, part 2 of article 14.63, articles 14.65, 15.3 - 15.12, part 11 of article 15.23.1, parts 5.1 and 5.2 of article 15. 25, Article 15.26 , part 1 of article 15.26.1, part 1 of article 15.26.2 (in terms of limiting operating hours), parts 1.1 - 3 (on administrative offenses in the field of purchase, purchase and sale of precious metals and precious stones, jewelry made from them and scrap of such products), part 4 of article 15.27, articles 15.27.1, 15.27.2, 15.32, 15.33, 15.33.1, part 1 of article 15.33.2, article 15.36 (except for administrative offenses committed by a credit organization), article 15.42, part 1 Article 15.44, Article 15.45, Part 2 of Article 16.1, Articles 17.1 - 17.13, Parts 2 and 2.1 of Article 17.14, Parts 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3 and 4 of Article 17.15, Article 17.17, Parts 1.1, 3.1 - 5 of Article 18.8, Parts 2 and 3 of Article 18.10, Articles 18.11 - 18.13, Parts 2 and 3 of Article 18.19, Article 19.1, Parts 1, 1.1, 4 - 6 of Article 19.3, Parts 1, 3 and 7 of Article 19.4, Article 19.4.1, Parts 1, 7.3, 12 - 16, 18, 19, 20.1, 24 - 32, 37 of Article 19.5, Articles 19.5.1, 19.6, 19.6.1, 19.6.2, 19.7, Part 3 of Article 19.7.1, Parts 1 and 2 of Article 19.7.5 -1, articles 19.7.5-2, 19.7.5-3, 19.7.5-4, 19.7.7, parts 2 and 3 of article 19.7.9, articles 19.7.10-3, 19.7.12, part 1 (in part of administrative offenses committed by officials of the federal executive body in the field of state regulation of tariffs), part 2 of article 19.8.1, articles 19.9, 19.11 - 19.13, 19.20, 19.21, 19.23, part 3 of article 19.24, articles 19.26, 19.28 - 19.30. 2, 19.32, 19.33, 19.34, 19.34.1, 19.35, 19.36, 19.37, parts 3 - 5 of article 20.1, articles 20.2, 20.2.2, 20.2.3, 20.3, 20.3.1, 20.3.2, 20.5 - 20. 7, parts 2, 4.2 - 4.5 of article 20.8, articles 20.9, 20.10, part 4 of article 20.12, articles 20.13, 20.15, part 1.1 of article 20.16, articles 20.18, 20.19, part 3 of article 20.20, article 20.23, article 20.24 (in relation to private detectives ( security guards), Articles 20.25 - 20.35 of this Code.
1.1. Cases of administrative offenses provided for in Articles 7.32.6, 15.1, 15.14 - 15.15.16 and part 20 of Article 19.5 of this Code are considered by judges in cases where the case of such an administrative offense was initiated by an inspector of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, or an authorized official of the control accounting body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, or an authorized official of the municipal financial control body.
1.2. Cases of administrative offenses provided for in Part 1 of Article 6.3, Articles 8.1, 9.4, 9.5 and 9.5.1, Part 3 of Article 9.16, Article 14.44, Part 6 of Article 19.5, Parts 1, 2, 2.1, 6 and 6.1 of Article 20.4 of this Code, are considered by judges in cases where a case of such an administrative offense is initiated by an official of the State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom.
1.3. Cases of administrative offenses provided for in Part 1 of Article 20.8 of this Code are considered by judges, except for cases where the case of such an administrative offense was initiated by an official of the National Guard of the Russian Federation.
1.4. Cases of administrative offenses provided for in Article 15.47 of this Code are considered by judges in cases where the case of such an administrative offense was initiated by an official of a state institution subordinate to the federal executive body exercising the functions of developing state policy and legal regulation in the field of production, processing and circulation of precious metals and precious stones.
2. Cases of administrative offenses provided for in parts 1, 3, 4 and 6 of article 5.27, parts 1 - 4 of article 5.27.1, part 3 of article 5.35, article 5.53, part 1 of article 6.3, articles 6.4 - 6.6, part 2 of article 6.7 , Part 1 of Article 6.31, Articles 6.35, 7.6, 7.23.3, 7.32.2, 7.32.6, Parts 1 - 6 of Article 8.2, Articles 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.3, 8.3, Part 2 of Article 8.6, Part 4 of Article 8.7, Part 2 of Article 8.12, Article 8.12.1, Part 2 of Article 8.13, Part 1 of Article 8.14, Articles 8.17 - 8.20, Parts 1 and 3 of Article 8.21, Parts 2 and 3 of Article 8.26, Parts 2 and 3 of Article 8.31 , articles 8.34, 8.35, parts 1, 1.1, 2 and 3 of article 8.37, articles 8.38, 8.39, parts 3 and 4 of article 8.42, part 2 of article 8.45, article 8.45.1, parts 2 and 4 of article 8.50, part 3 of article 8.51 , articles 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, parts 2 and 3 of article 9.4, article 9.5, part 3 of article 9.5.1, articles 9.6, 9.9, 9.11, 9.13, parts 1 and 2 of article 9.16, articles 9.17, 9.18, part 2 of article 9.21 , Article 9.22, Part 5 of Article 9.24, Articles 10.3, 10.6, Part 3 of Article 10.8, Articles 11.1, 11.4, Parts 1 - 3 and 5 of Article 11.5, Parts 1 - 4 of Article 11.7, Article 11.9, Part 6 of Article 11.17, Articles 11.20 , 11.20.1, part 1.1 of article 12.1, part 2 of article 12.2, parts 4 and 5 of article 12.9, part 1 of article 12.10, part 3 of article 12.12, part 4 of article 12.15, part 3 of article 12.16, part 2 of article 12.17, parts 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12.21.1 (except for cases of recording an administrative offense by special technical means operating automatically, having the functions of photography, filming, video recording, or means of photography, filming, video recording), part 1 of article 12.21.2, part 5 Articles 12.23, Articles 13.2, 13.3, 13.4, 13.6 - 13.8, parts 2 and 4 of Article 13.12, Article 13.13, Part 2 of Article 13.19.3 (in terms of administrative offenses committed by officials of the developer), Articles 13.22, 13.29, 13.30, 14.1 .3, 14.2, part 2 of article 14.4, parts 1 and 2 of article 14.6, part 2 of article 14.7, part 2 of article 14.9.1, parts 2.1 - 3 of article 14.16, articles 14.17.3, 14.19, part 1 of article 14.20, parts 3 — 5 of Article 14.24, Articles 14.26, 14.29, 14.31, Part 1 of Article 14.31.2, Articles 14.32, 14.33, Part 6 of Article 14.40, Parts 1 and 2 of Article 14.43, Parts 1 and 2 of Article 14.43.1, Articles 14.44 - 14.46, Part 4 of Article 14.46.2, Article 14.49, Part 1 of Article 14.54, Articles 14.57, 14.61, 15.14, Parts 1 and 2 of Article 15.15.2, Article 15.15.3, Part 1 of Article 15.15.4, Parts 1 and 1.1 of Article 15.15. 5, articles 15.15.12, 15.15.13, parts 1 and 2 of article 15.19, article 15.21, parts 1 - 2.1 of article 15.22, parts 1 - 10 of article 15.23.1, article 15.24.1, parts 2, 2.1, 2.2 and 3 Article 15.27, Parts 1 - 7, 9, 10, 10.2 and 11 of Article 15.29, Article 15.30, Parts 1 and 4 of Article 15.35, Article 15.37, Parts 1 and 3 of Article 16.1, Articles 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.7, Part 1 of the Article 16.9, Article 16.16, Part 1 of Article 16.18, Parts 1 - 3 of Article 16.19, Part 1 of Article 16.20, Article 16.21, Part 2 of Article 16.24, Parts 2 and 3 of Article 18.1, Part 1.1 of Article 18.2, Part 2 of Article 18.3, Part 2 of Article 18.4, Article 18.7, Parts 1, 2 and 3 of Article 18.8, Part 1 of Article 18.10, Parts 1 - 4 of Article 18.15, Articles 18.16 - 18.17, Part 2 of Article 19.3, Parts 2 - 2.3, 2.6, 2.7, 3, 5, 6 , 8.1, 11, 17, 20, 23, 35, 39 of Article 19.5, Article 19.7.3, Part 2 of Article 19.7.10, Article 19.7.11, Part 1 of Article 19.24, Parts 1 and 3 of Article 19.27, Parts 1 and 2 Article 20.1, parts 2.1, 6, 6.1 and 9 of Article 20.4, parts 3, 4, 4.1, 5 and 6 of Article 20.8, parts 1 and 3 of Article 20.12, Articles 20.14, 20.17, part 2 of Article 20.20, Article 20.21 of this Code are considered judges in cases where the body or official who received the case of such an administrative offense transfers it to the judge for consideration.
3. Cases of administrative offenses specified in parts 1 - 2 of this article and committed by military personnel and citizens called up for military training are considered by judges of garrison military courts.
Cases of administrative offenses, which are specified in parts 1 - 2 of this article and proceedings for which are carried out in the form of an administrative investigation, cases of administrative offenses committed by employees of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, as well as cases of administrative offenses entailing administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation , administrative suspension of activities or disqualification of persons holding positions in the federal state civil service, positions in the state civil service of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, positions in the municipal service are considered by judges of district courts.
Cases of administrative offenses provided for in Article 5.38, Parts 2 and 3 of Article 6.3, Articles 7.13 - 7.16, Parts 2.1 - 2.4 of Article 13.15, Parts 1 and 4 of Article 14.57, Article 19.3, Parts 18 and 19 of Article 19.5, Articles 19.7.5- 2 - 19.7.5-4, Article 19.28 (regarding administrative offenses committed outside the Russian Federation), Articles 19.34, 19.34.1, 20.1 - 20.3.2, 20.6.1, 20.18, Part 2 of Article 20.28, Articles 20.29, 20.31, 20.33, 20.34 of this Code are considered by judges of district courts.
Judges of arbitration courts consider cases of administrative offenses provided for in Articles 6.33, 7.24, parts 2 and 3 of Article 9.4, Articles 9.5, 9.5.1, 13.33, 14.1, 14.10, 14.11, 14.14, parts 1 and 2 of Article 14.16, Article 14.17, part 2 articles 14.17.1, articles 14.17.3, 14.18, 14.23, 14.27, 14.36, 14.37, part 2 of article 14.38, articles 14.43 - 14.50, part 1 of article 15.10, parts 2 and 2.1 of article 17.14, parts 6 and 15 of article 1 9.5, Article 19.33 of this Code, committed by legal entities, as well as individual entrepreneurs.
Arbitration court judges consider cases of administrative offenses provided for in Part 2 of Article 14.9, Articles 14.9.1, 14.12, Parts 1 - 4.1, 5.1 - 8 of Article 14.13, Articles 14.31, 14.31.2, 14.32, 14.33, Parts 2 and 3 of Article 14.57 , 14.61 of this Code.
In other cases, cases of administrative offenses specified in parts 1 - 2 of this article are considered by magistrates.
- Article 22.3. Jurisdiction of cases of administrative offenses in the event of abolition, reorganization or renaming of bodies (positions of officials) authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses
- Article 23.2. Commission on Minors' Affairs and Protection of Their Rights
Commentary to Art. 23 Criminal Code
1. The commented norm applies to all types of intoxication, with the exception of pathological intoxication, which, as a temporary mental disorder, can serve as a basis for declaring a person’s insanity.
2. For criminal prosecution, the degree of intoxication and whether the person retained conscious control over his actions does not matter. However, if a person is brought into a state of intoxication by another subject fraudulently and commits a crime in a state of deep intoxication, depriving him of the ability to realize the actual nature and social danger of his actions (inaction) or to direct them, he is not subject to criminal liability (Part 1 of Art. 28 CC). In this situation, the rules of Part 2 of Art. 33 of the Criminal Code on mediocre performance.
Commentary to Art. 23.1 Code of Administrative Offenses
1. The commented part establishes in general the competence of judges to consider cases of administrative offenses. The commented article contains a list of more than 100 articles containing indications of administrative offenses, cases of which are considered only by judges.
2. The commented part contains elements of administrative offenses, cases of which can be referred to judges by authorized bodies or officials. Such transfer is carried out if the authorized body or official considering the case believes that in this case it is necessary to apply an administrative penalty, the imposition of which falls within the competence of judges. In this case, he draws up a determination in accordance with clause 1, part 2, art. 29.9 Code of Administrative Offences.
The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its Resolution No. 5 of March 24, 2005 “On some issues that arise for courts when applying the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses” noted that, given that the transfer of cases of this category to a judge falls within the competence of the above-mentioned above the bodies (officials), the judge in this case is obliged to accept the case for consideration on the merits.
3. The commented part delineates the jurisdiction of cases of administrative offenses between different courts. When using it, you must keep the following in mind:
- according to the general rule, cases of administrative offenses provided for by the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, under the jurisdiction of judges of courts of general jurisdiction, are considered by magistrates. The jurisdiction of cases by magistrates is determined by excluding categories of cases falling within the competence of judges of district courts, military courts and arbitration courts (paragraph “d”, paragraph 3 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 24, 2005 No. 5);
- cases of administrative offenses specified in part 1 of Article 23.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, as well as those referred to a judge in accordance with Part 2 of Article 23.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, are subject to consideration by judges of district courts if the proceedings in these cases are carried out in the form of an administrative investigation , and also if administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation is provided as a sanction for their commission (letter of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 22, 2003 N 717-5/obshch);
- judges of courts of general jurisdiction do not have the right to consider cases of administrative offenses listed in paragraph three of part 3 of article 23.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, committed by legal entities, as well as individual entrepreneurs, since these cases are within the jurisdiction of judges of arbitration courts. The list of types of offenses specified in this norm is exhaustive and is not subject to broad interpretation. The cases specified in paragraph three of part 3 of Article 23.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation are not within the jurisdiction of judges of courts of general jurisdiction even in the case when an administrative investigation was carried out on them in accordance with Article 28.7 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, as well as when an individual entrepreneur who committed an administrative offense from among those named in paragraph three of part 3 of article 23.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, lost the status of an individual entrepreneur (paragraph “d”, paragraph 3 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 24, 2005 No. 5);
— the jurisdiction of arbitration courts in cases of bringing to administrative liability is established by paragraph three of part 3 of article 23.1 of the Code. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that, by virtue of this norm, cases of offenses provided for in the articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses listed therein are subject to the jurisdiction of arbitration courts only if the relevant offenses were committed by legal entities or individual entrepreneurs. It is necessary to take into account that the case specified in paragraph three of part 3 of Article 23.1 of the Code is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration court even in the case when, on the basis of Article 28.7 of the Code of Administrative Offences, an administrative investigation is carried out on it (clause 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of January 27 2003 No. 2 “On some issues related to the implementation of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences”).
Second commentary to Art. 23 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The use of alcohol, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and their analogues, new potentially dangerous psychoactive substances or other intoxicating substances affects the intellectual and volitional spheres of human behavior. Part 1 of this article formulates a fundamental legislative position, according to which the state of intoxication does not exclude criminal liability.
2. The use of alcohol and other intoxicating substances may be regarded by the court as an aggravating circumstance in accordance with Part 1.1 of Article 63 of the Criminal Code. In Article 264 of the Criminal Code, committing a crime while intoxicated is a sign of increased punishability. Guilty use of intoxicating substances, preceding the commission of a crime (or accompanying it) and the state of intoxication caused by it, although it limits the volitional and intellectual spheres of human behavior, is antisocial behavior. Therefore, committing a crime while intoxicated is not usually considered as a circumstance mitigating punishment.
3. The negative social significance of intoxication does not relieve the court of the obligation to establish the mental status of the person who committed the crime. The court is obliged to assess the state of intoxication from the point of view of medical and legal criteria of insanity in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 of the Criminal Code. In cases where the use of, for example, alcohol has caused a painful state of a person’s psyche, resulting in an inability to account for or control one’s actions, the issue of the responsibility of such a person is resolved in accordance with Article 22 of the Criminal Code.
Article 23. Criminal liability of persons who committed a crime while intoxicated
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated October 25, 2018 N 2765-O Formulating the general characteristics of the subject of a crime, the federal legislator provided in an article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that a person who committed a crime while intoxicated caused by the use of alcohol, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues, new potentially dangerous psychoactive substances or other intoxicating substances are subject to criminal liability (thus physiological alcohol intoxication is not classified as a state of insanity). Moreover, by virtue of part one.1 of Article 63 of this Code, depending on the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission and the identity of the perpetrator, the court imposing punishment may recognize as an aggravating circumstance the commission of a crime while intoxicated, caused by the use of these drugs and substances . Consequently, establishing the fact of committing a crime while intoxicated does not exclude criminal liability, but can be taken into account when individualizing it (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of April 25, 2022 N 17-P).
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 24, 2017 N 51-APU17-9
In accordance with the provisions enshrined in the articles and the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, the crime provided for in Article 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR was a particularly serious crime. Considering that Tishkov K.P. has a criminal record for a crime under paragraph “c” of Article 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. has not been extinguished, his commission of a new especially serious crime, for which he was convicted by the appealed verdict, forms, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph “b” of part 3 of Article 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, a particularly dangerous recidivism of crimes.
Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 04/03/2018 N 5-APU18-7
The act of which L.A. Kuzmenko is accused is criminally punishable under the criminal law of the Russian Federation (part 3 of Art., paragraphs “g”, “z”, part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and Germany (paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 211, Art., Para. and Art., Paragraph of Art. of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated September 29, 2020 N 1969-O
Formulating the general characteristics of the subject of a crime, the federal legislator provided in an article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that a person who committed a crime while intoxicated caused by the use of alcohol, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues, new potentially dangerous psychoactive substances or other intoxicating substances is subject to criminal liability (thus, physiological alcohol intoxication is not classified as a state of insanity). Moreover, by virtue of part one.1 of Article 63 of this Code, depending on the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission and the identity of the perpetrator, the court imposing punishment may recognize as an aggravating circumstance the commission of a crime while intoxicated, caused by the use of these drugs and substances . Consequently, establishing the fact of committing a crime while intoxicated does not exclude criminal liability, but can be taken into account when individualizing it (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of April 25, 2022 N 17-P).
Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 03/09/2021 N 44-UDP21-3-K7
The cassation submission also correctly drew attention to a significant violation of the criminal law, since the court made an error in determining the category of the incriminated act. Taking into account the provisions of the articles and the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, as well as the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, set out in Determination No. 54-O-O of January 24, 2008, the crime provided for in Art. 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, is especially grave, and not grave, as the court of first instance erroneously indicated.
Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated April 25, 2018 N 17-P
3. Formulating the general characteristics of the subject of a crime, the federal legislator provided in an article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that a person who committed a crime while intoxicated caused by the use of alcohol, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues, new potentially dangerous psychoactive substances or other intoxicating substances is subject to criminal liability (thus physiological alcohol intoxication is not classified as a state of insanity). Moreover, by virtue of part one.1 of Article 63 of this Code, depending on the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission and the identity of the perpetrator, the court imposing punishment may recognize as an aggravating circumstance the commission of a crime while intoxicated, caused by the use of these drugs and substances . Consequently, establishing the fact of committing a crime while intoxicated does not exclude criminal liability, but can be taken into account when individualizing it.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated July 18, 2019 N 1883-O
Formulating the general characteristics of the subject of a crime, the federal legislator provided in an article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that a person who committed a crime while intoxicated caused by the use of alcohol, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues, new potentially dangerous psychoactive substances or other intoxicating substances is subject to criminal liability (thus, physiological alcohol intoxication is not classified as a state of insanity). Moreover, by virtue of part one.1 of Article 63 of this Code, depending on the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission and the identity of the perpetrator, the court imposing punishment may recognize as an aggravating circumstance the commission of a crime while intoxicated, caused by the use of these drugs and substances . Consequently, establishing the fact of committing a crime while intoxicated does not exclude criminal liability, but can be taken into account when individualizing it (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of April 25, 2022 N 17-P).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated September 27, 2019 N 2304-O
Formulating the general characteristics of the subject of a crime, the federal legislator provided in an article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that a person who committed a crime while intoxicated caused by the use of alcohol, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues, new potentially dangerous psychoactive substances or other intoxicating substances is subject to criminal liability (thus, physiological alcohol intoxication is not classified as a state of insanity). Moreover, by virtue of part one.1 of Article 63 of this Code, depending on the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission and the identity of the perpetrator, the court may recognize as an aggravating circumstance the commission of a crime while intoxicated, caused by the use of these drugs and substances. Consequently, establishing the fact of committing a crime while intoxicated does not exclude criminal liability, but can be taken into account when individualizing it (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of April 25, 2022 N 17-P).
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated January 29, 2019 N 53-O
Formulating the general characteristics of the subject of a crime, the federal legislator provided in an article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation that a person who committed a crime while intoxicated caused by the use of alcohol, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues, new potentially dangerous psychoactive substances or other intoxicating substances is subject to criminal liability (thus physiological alcohol intoxication is not classified as a state of insanity). Moreover, by virtue of part one.1 of Article 63 of this Code, depending on the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, the circumstances of its commission and the identity of the perpetrator, the court imposing punishment may recognize as an aggravating circumstance the commission of a crime while intoxicated, caused by the use of these drugs and substances . Consequently, establishing the fact of committing a crime while intoxicated does not exclude criminal liability, but can be taken into account when individualizing it (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of April 25, 2022 N 17-P).
“Review of judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 (2020)”
Meanwhile, taking into account the provisions of Art. and the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, as well as the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, set out in the ruling of January 24, 2008 N 54-О-О, a crime under Art. 102 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, is especially grave, and not grave, as the court of first instance erroneously indicated.
Third commentary to Article 23 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The question of the responsibility of persons who commit socially dangerous acts while intoxicated is associated with the problem of sanity - insanity. Alcohol, affecting the central nervous system of a person, affects his consciousness and will. Drunkenness contributes to the manifestation of antisocial views and habits. Some persons who have committed crimes while intoxicated quite often refer to the fact that they did not realize the significance of their actions, could not control them, and do not remember anything about what happened to them.
2. According to the law, intoxication is not a basis for exemption from criminal liability. The state of ordinary alcoholic intoxication differs from painful mental states that influence the recognition of a person as insane in two important circumstances. A person brings himself into a state of intoxication consciously, intentionally. Ordinary alcohol intoxication does not cause disturbances in mental activity and is not a painful mental state.
3. When intoxicated, as a rule, there is no legal criterion for insanity. Even in a severe degree of intoxication, disruption of mental processes does not lead to the complete elimination of control of consciousness and the ability to direct one’s actions. Senselessness, illogicality of actions, lack of visible motives, insignificance or complete absence of a reason for a crime, unjustified cruelty or extreme cynicism are not indicators of this criterion. In these cases, the person does not lose touch with the reality of what is happening, is aware of his actions and is able to correct them.
4. In some cases, the question arises that intoxication may indicate a person’s loss of the intellectual or volitional aspects of his behavior, which leads to his being declared insane.
In the theory of criminal law, in this regard, the state of intoxication is divided into physiological and pathological. Physiological intoxication is not a disease and does not entail permanent changes in the psyche, therefore this type of intoxication does not affect the intellect and will of the person committing the crime, and he is recognized as sane. It should be noted that physiological intoxication is considered as a circumstance that does not exclude criminal liability. It cannot be considered as a circumstance aggravating or mitigating punishment. Ordinary physiological intoxication, as a rule, occurs as a result of voluntary consumption of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances, the doses of which are largely not excessive and determine the behavior of the perpetrator in a state of intoxication as a sane person. If the subject was brought into a state of physiological intoxication against or against his will through violence or threats, the issue of criminal liability must be resolved taking into account the provisions of Art. 40 CC. Pathological intoxication is a rare short-term mental disorder in which a person loses the ability to be aware of or control his actions. It occurs as a result of a number of predisposing factors (mental weakness, physical and mental exhaustion, prolonged exposure to a stressful situation, etc.) and the use of substances specified in the law in large quantities. Pathological intoxication is a type of temporary mental disorder that excludes sanity and criminal liability. Due to the systematic use of intoxicating substances, independent mental illnesses not related to pathological intoxication (delirium tremens, delirium tremens, drug withdrawal, etc.) can arise and develop, which also exclude the sanity of the subject, but this requires a detailed conclusion of a psychiatric examination and a thorough judicial analysis of all the circumstances of the case. ‹ Article 22. Criminal liability of persons with a mental disorder that does not exclude sanityUpChapter 5. Guilt ›
