Проблемы обеспечения прав и законных интересов осужденных к наказаниям и иным мерам уголовно-правового характера, не связанным с лишением свободы, в сфере труда

The article discusses the evolution of views on administrative responsibility and tendencies of development of this type of legal liability. In the Soviet and modern Russian law administrative liability has been considered as various legal phenomena - the administrative procedure of bringing to responsibility, responsibility for administrative offences and the overall legal responsibility for offences characterized by intrinsic differences. Thus, the administrative procedure of bringing to responsibility is characterized by sentencing in simplified procedures by an administrative body acting outside the field of judicial review, and as its purpose has the rapid enforcement of regulations of local and Central Government through punitive measures. The article notes that since the 60-ies of the XX century the law has provided for judicial appointment of individual punishment (corrective labour, administrative arrest, eviction in specially designated area, etc.), judicial control over the administrative authorities when inflicting a fine and has been determined by the features of guilt of a wrongful act as a basis for responsibility. By this, they limit the accountability of the administrative order, create conditions for the emergence of a new mechanism - the responsibility for administrative offences, which was finally formed with the systematization of legislation and the adoption of the Basis of Legislation of the USSR and the Union republics on Administrative Offences and the Administrative Offences Code of the RSFSR 1984. The author analyzes key concepts related to administrative responsibility, and finds that a Soviet legislator semantically matched the concept of 'administrative offence' with the term 'offence', introduced into the Administrative Offences Code 2001,which became a system error that led to the loss of the scope and criteria for regulation and eventually transformed the responsibility for administrative offences into the overall legal responsibility for a wrongdoing. Such changes from distorting mechanisms of legal liability and legislation on administrative offences has been turned into a platform for widespread use of disproportionate sanctions. This article takes an opportunity to address the problem and identifies the need for a substantial revision of all legislation, including the Criminal Code, on the basis of the principle of proportionality of punishments.

In the contemporary criminal law, a prison sentence is the basic and most important type of criminal sanction which may be imposed on criminal offenders for the purpose of preventing and counteracting crime. All criminal legislations recognize different models of imposing and executing the unconditional prison sentence. These are different substitutes or alternatives applicable in cases where unconditional imprisonment is not considered necessary. Thus, we can distinguish two forms of suspension of the prison sentence or some other kind of punishment: full and partial suspension. Full suspension of a prison sentence is known as a suspended sentence. It implies a complete exemption from the execution of a prison sentence (and/or some other punishment or measure) imposed by the competent court, for a specified period of time (probation period) and under specific conditions. In case the convicted offender who has been imposed a suspended sentence not meet the general and specific, mandatory or optional requirements, criminal law provides for the mandatory or optional revocation of the suspended sentence. In addition to the suspended sentence as a form of executing the imposed prison sentence, some modern criminal laws also recognize the suspended sentence as a special kind of criminal penalty, i.e. as a warning measure. Partial suspension of the imposed prison sentence (or any other criminal sanction of institutional character) is called a conditional release. It implies a partial suspension of prison sentence under certain conditions and for a specified period, but only after the convicted offender has already served part of the imposed prison sentence. In order to be granted a conditional release, the convicted offender has to cumulatively meet the prescribed requirements. These criteria are used for assessing the scope of attained special prevention pertaining to the convicted offender, particularly in terms of the impact exerted on his/her correction, re-education and re-socialization. The prerequisite for implementing these measures is the fulfillment of the formal requirements (including the type and duration of the imposed and served prison sentence), as well as the requirements related to the discretionary court assessment that prison sentence is no longer necessary in the specific case because the goals (purpose) of punishment may be achieved even without the enforcement of prison sentences in whole or in part. In this paper, the author discusses the concept, characteristics, requirements and methods of implementing these forms of prison sentence suspension in the criminal law of the Republic of Serbia from the perspective of legal theory, practice and comparative law.

In contemporary criminal law, a prison sentence is the basic and most important type of criminal sanction imposed on criminal offenders in order to prevent and combat crime. In addition to the unconditional prison sentence, all criminal legislations also recognize different modalities of its imposition or execution. Different forms of substitute or alternative measures are awarded in cases where unconditional detention is not necessary. Thus, we can distinguish full or partial suspension of the prison sentence or some other kind of punishment. In the first case, it involves the suspended sentence. This is a complete exemption from the execution of a court-awarded prison sentences (and/or other types and forms of punishment), or determined for a specified time (probation period) and under certain conditions. In case the conditionally convicted person does not meet the set of general and special, mandatory or optional requirements, criminal law provides for mandatory or optional revocation of the suspended sentence. However, in addition to the suspended sentence as a form or modality of executing the imposed prison sentences, some modern criminal laws also recognize the suspended sentence as a special kind of criminal penalty - as a measure of warning. A prerequisite for the implementation of these measures is the fulfillment of the formal requirements, pertaining to the type of offence and prison sentence duration, or material conditions - the court assessment that the application of penalties in the particular case is not necessary because the goals (purpose) of punishment can be achieved without effective enforcement of prison sentences in whole or in part. This paper discusses the concept, characteristics, conditions and methods of implementation of these forms of prison sentence suspension, with various systems of probation supervision in the European criminal law.

The fact that a person serving the suspended sentence avoids the duties, as well as commits some administrative offenses determines the presence of prescriptions in the criminal law that regulate responsibility for such unlawful behavior. As one of the consequences of committing a misdemeanor, along with the cancellation of the suspended sentence, is the extension of the probationary period. Meanwhile, in the process of assessing both the very fact of deviant behavior and the need to apply adequate response measures significant problems arise that do not have a uniform solution, neither in science nor in judicial practice. On the basis of the provisions of the current criminal and penal legislation, a documentary study of materials of judicial practice, a critical assessment of the achievements of the criminal law doctrine, the article proposes a solution to problem situations, proves the need to exclude from the list imposed by the courts of some unnecessary in the author’s opinion duties that are not directly provided by criminal law.

The article raises the problem associated with criminal punishment for juvenile offenders in the form of labor as a method of correction. Definitions of the concepts of correctional labor and compulsory labor are given, and an analysis of a number of articles of criminal legislation regulating these issues is carried out. It is concluded that correctional labor and compulsory labor as a punishment for minors are the optimal punishment for their correction. It is also proposed to amend some articles of the criminal law, namely to add clauses where convicted minors will have the opportunity to exercise the right to parole from punishment and select the type of work as work during the period of serving their sentence, depending on the physical and psychological capabilities of the convict.

The article is dedicated to the issues of introduction of criminal liability of legal entities in Hungary. Attention is paid to the fact that the establishment of criminal liability of legal entities in this country has been largely caused by the need for bringing its national laws in compliance with the provisions of a number of acts of the European Union (EU) and its membership in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The Hungarian legal acts on criminal liability of legal entities are reviewed; the main of them are the special omnibus law On Measures Applicable to Legal Entities within the Framework of Criminal Law 2001 which came into effect on May 1, 2004, and contains provisions of criminal and criminal procedure law as well as the Hungarian Criminal Code 2012 which came into effect on July 1, 2013. It is indicated that under the Hungarian laws, a legal entity is a criminal liability subject criminal law measures are applicable to. At the same time, it is highlighted that not all legal entities can be held criminally liable. It is noted that criminal liability of legal entities is possible in case of any willful violation of the Hungarian Criminal Code by an individual acting in the interests of a legal entity in case of the presence of conditions stipulated by the law. Criminal law measures applicable to legal entities are named: liquidation, fine, restriction of activity. A conclusion is made that in Hungary, criminal liability of a legal entity is understood as application of criminal law measures to a legal entity by court in the course of a criminal procedure in the event of a willful crime (criminally punishable act) committed by an individual acting in the interests of the corresponding legal entity upon the presence of conditions stipulated by the law On Measures Applicable to Legal Entities within the Framework of Criminal Law 2001.

The article notes that, according to official statistics, only six types of punishments provided for in Article 44 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are applied to convicted foreign citizens (CIS): fine, compulsory labor, correctional labor, restriction of freedom, forced labor, and imprisonment for a certain period. Moreover, the last type of punishment was imposed on every second convicted foreign citizen, while there is a positive trend in the rate of its growth, which is a characteristic feature of the last five years. Non-custodial punishments were rarely imposed, due to the inconsistency of certain provisions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and CIS countries, and as a result, they need to be compared from the point of view of their legal regulation. The purpose of the study is a criminal law analysis of convicted foreign citizens based on statistical data from the Office of the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for 2019–2023. The study uses the statistical method to build tables and dynamic series — the analysis of collected and grouped information about the types of punishments imposed on foreign citizens (CIS) in Russia, the method of expert assessments, the study of documents in the generalization and analysis of empirical material. The study showed that the omission in the activities of law enforcement agencies to prevent and suppress offenses and crimes committed by foreign citizens for the first time contributed to an increase in the number of their repeated crimes. It is concluded that the transfer of foreign citizens for the execution of punishment to the states, their affiliation, on the one hand, will contribute to the interests of justice, on the other hand, their effective social rehabilitation, the preservation of socially useful ties at home, as well as adaptation to public life and, as a result, the prevention of repeated crimes.

ntroduction: the paper analyzes the amendments made by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation no. 797 of December 14, 2020 to the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 28, 2001 no. 1500 “On commissions for pardon in the territories of constituent entities of the Russian Federation” and the norms of the new Regulation on the procedure for considering petitions for pardon in the Russian Federation. Methods: comparative legal method and method of interpretation of legal norms. Results: having analyzed legal documentation on the activities of the commissions and having considered convicts’ petitions for pardon, we point out the following positive changes: an increase in the rotation period of members of the commissions for pardon; clarification of their analytical and control functions; inclusion of social adaptation in the number of circumstances taken into account when considering the issue of pardon; exclusion of personal data of individuals recommended for pardon by the highest official of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation from publication in the mass media; taking into account the opinions of the victims of the crime. We think that negative changes are those that have created new problems in the form of contradictions with the norms of criminal and penal legislation. These include the possibility of granting pardon to persons serving other criminal law measures, and applying for pardon directly to the commission on pardons, bypassing the administration of institutions and bodies that execute sentences. Conclusion: the current task to expand the practice of granting pardon cannot be solved by adopting a new Regulation on the procedure for considering petitions for pardon in the Russian Federation. Keywords: criminal legislation; penal legislation; convict; pardon; criminal punishment; other measures of a criminal legal nature; President of the Russian Federation; commissions on pardons.

The constitutional principles of a democratic and legal state guide the development of Ukraine in the direction of people’s rule and a legal state. Therefore, the subsystem of legal norms regulating homogeneous relations in the sphere of public and state maintenance of law and order acquires special importance for the materialization of formal and declarative norms about a democratic and legal state. Therefore, it is relevant to substantiate the need to separate the rules (norms) of public (public) order and disciplinary responsibility for their violation from the branches of administrative legislation into a separate branch according to the postulates of law. It is appropriate that the state regulation of behavior in public (public) places should be set out in the Code of Public Order. And the norms regulating responsibility for land, forest, air, etc. misdemeanors were transferred to the basic codes regulating legal relations in the relevant spheres of socio-economic life. At the same time, the primary task is to update and reform legislation based on the postulates and axioms of legal theories. The formation and development of civil society, organized into a democratic, social, legal state, in accordance with the principle of popular sovereignty, leads to changes in the very essence of delictological legal relations, a return to the postulates of legal theory (in the context of revived natural law). The separation of prescriptions and sanctioned customs of public order into an independent branch of law by including public rules regulating this order in its institutions forms a system of norms of public legal order. The proposed differentiation and systematization of legal responsibility is the basis for bringing the legal system into compliance with the axioms of the theory of law (jurisprudence) based on the postulates of Roman civil law. This will contribute to the improvement of both public order, in particular, and the development of civil society institutions, democracy, and the establishment of the rule of law in general. As well as the humanization of legal responsibility, the spread of educational and psychological measures of social (moral) responsibility, the strengthening of the discipline of social coexistence, the education of citizens’ self-discipline as a component of individual legal awareness. The transfer of norms regarding the responsibility for land offenses of private law officials and citizens to the basic land code will allow to systematize and separate the norms regarding the direct administrative responsibility of public law officials (state authorities, local self-government bodies) for illegal actions (inaction), land offenses in the field of management. Key words: legal responsibility, criminal offense, administrative offense, land offenses, land offenses in the field of management, public order, public misdemeanor.

The criminological analysis of juveniles who are sentenced without isolation from society is an important aspect of the study of modern criminal policy. This approach is aimed at minimizing the negative impact of criminal liability on juvenile offenders and at the same time ensuring their social rehabilitation. Minors who have committed criminal offenses usually come from socially vulnerable groups. They often grow up in dysfunctional families and have limited access to quality education and a positive social environment. The main factors contributing to their deviant behavior include: low level of family financial security; insufficient control and attention from parents or guardians; influence of criminal environment or antisocial companies; psycho-emotional and behavioral problems. Alternative punishment measures that are applied to minors without isolating them from society include: probation supervision, which provides control over the behavior of the convicted person and promotes his or her social adaptation; community service and correctional labor, which promote the development of a sense of responsibility and integration into society; fines and suspended sentences, which are used as additional measures to prevent repeat offenses. The use of such penalties has both advantages and disadvantages. Positive aspects include reducing recidivism rates, preserving family ties, and supporting social adaptation. At the same time, the disadvantages include possible insufficient severity of punishment and risks to public safety. One of the key principles in working with juvenile offenders is individualization of punishment. Taking into account the age, level of socialization, circumstances of the offense and psycho-emotional state allows to ensure a fair approach and promote effective rehabilitation of a minor. Keywords: criminological characteristics, juvenile, age, without isolation from society, punishment.

The path that the Latvian normative regulation in criminal law and the Latvian criminal law doctrine took to arrive at the possibility of turning against legal entities by criminal law measures was neither fast nor simple. The initial position was that regulation like this would be incompatible with the basic principles of Latvian criminal law since, historically, psychological understanding of guilt has been characteristic in the Latvian criminal law, guilt is identified with a person's mental attitude towards the criminal offence, and guilt also is one of the grounds for criminal liability. It was not clear how this understanding of guilt could be compatible with punishing such "legal fiction" as a legal person in the framework of criminal law. Ways, in which Latvia could adjust its legal regulation to various international normative documents that Latvia had acceded to, at the same time leaving the dominant basic institutions of the Latvian criminal law theory unaffected, were sought rather reluctantly. Discussions that lasted for years resulted in the inclusion into the Criminal Law coercive measures, existing outside the system of criminal penalties, applicable to legal persons, likewise, several criteria were defined as the grounds for applying these coercive measures to legal persons, the central of which was a criminal offence, committed by a natural person who was connected to the legal person, in the interests of the legal person or as the result of insufficient control by this legal person. Accordingly, criminal procedural regulation was created, which to a large extent equalled a legal person to an accused natural person in criminal proceedings. Although the criminal law and criminal law regulation, which provides for the possibility to apply criminal law coercive measures to legal persons in the framework of criminal proceedings has existed in Latvia for already 16 years, these criminal law instruments have started taking their place in the practice of applying law only in recent years, simultaneously also revealing deficiencies in the legal regulation, already now providing sufficient material for analysis to be used for improving these legal norms.

The article examines the current trends in the dynamics of recidivism in Ukraine, analyzes statistical indicators and identifies the main reasons for the growth of recidivism. The author notes that the statistics also confirm the need to influence and qualitatively change criminal legislation in order to minimize the manifestations of recidivism, in particular, by analyzing the statistics of persons who have committed criminal offenses with a criminal record which has not been removed or not expunged in accordance with the procedure established by law. The purpose of the study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the dynamics of recidivism and, on this basis, to identify effective criminal law and penitentiary prevention measures. The author pays special attention to criminal law and penitentiary measures aimed at preventing recidivism, in particular, improving legislation, applying effective resocialization programs, and strengthening control over persons after release. The article also raises the issue of interaction between law enforcement, judicial and social institutions as a prerequisite for a comprehensive impact on reducing recidivism. In particular, the author emphasizes the need to improve the criminal law provisions relating to the introduction of specific restrictions on parole for recidivists, as well as the need for interagency cooperation, which consists in cooperation between the police, courts, probation authorities, social and medical institutions in order to reduce the manifestations of recidivism. The author suggests ways to increase the effectiveness of preventive measures and resocialization work with persons who already have a criminal record and repeatedly commit criminal offenses.

Serbia is a transit country for migrants on their way to the EU via the Western Balkan route. In 2015-2016, millions of migrants from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia used the Western Balkan route to reach the EU countries. Serbia as the EU candidate country has to fulfil the requirement of cooperation with the EU in the area of managing migratory flows through efficient control of its borders jointly with the EU officers. In order for Serbia to reinforce the border management, it is important to understand the EU migration policy. Although the Tampere European Council Conclusion from 1999 and the European Agenda on Migration from 2015 declared the EU commitments to develop legal access to vulnerable individuals, in practice migration is perceived as a threat to security. As a result of this approach the preventive and repressive criminal law measures were introduced in the immigration law. The European member state authorities selectively use criminal law to achieve the migration policy goals. The criminal law measures that are applied across the EU are detention, arrest, police control, removal from the territory. However, there is criticism that these criminal law measures are not followed by criminal law guarantees, especially procedural rights and human rights protection instruments. The analysis is put in context of the Return Directive 2008/115 that sets the EU standards and procedures on return of illegally staying migrants. In this article the author analyses the effects of immigration criminalization and the development of the Court of Justice jurisprudence in relation to the procedural rights.

The article considers the concept of hooliganism, types of liability. The author made a distinction between hooliganism in criminal and administrative law. The peculiarities of criminal and administrative responsibility for hooligan actions were analyzed. Distinctive features of responsibility for actions of a hooligan nature in administrative law and criminal law are described. In practice, law enforcement officers have difficulties in delimiting petty hooliganism (Article 20.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation) from hooliganism (Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). This explains the need to continue to study the topic. The purpose is to distinguish the crime of hooliganism from the administrative offense of “petty hooliganism”. Research methods: The methodological basis of the study is the universal dialectical method, the system method, and the comparative legal method. Results: The author gives distinctive features of the corpus delicti (Article 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and administrative offense (Article 20.1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation). Conclusions: The author concludes that these acts differ in the object of the attack, the degree of public danger, as well as the types of punishment.

The rule of law in Russian society is its legal basis, the basis for the functioning of state power. A solid rule of law based on the principles of law is a guarantee of the functioning of civil society. In this regard, the maintenance and strengthening of law and order, as well as the fight against crime, represent a special type of social management. Its purpose is to ensure that the entire society as a whole, as well as its constituent social groups and individuals, function and develop within the framework of existing social relations on the basis of certain norms of morality and law accepted in this society. The solution of this problem assumes the presence of specific management methods. In this article, the author examines the specifics of the application of legal measures to protect public morality and public order in the administrative activities of the police. The reasons and conditions for the commission of administrative offenses infringing on public morality and public order, problematic aspects of the prevention of these offenses are revealed, and ways to increase its effectiveness are proposed. Thus, we come to the following conclusions: 1) the fight against administrative offenses in the field of public morality and public order is conducted mainly through the use of repressive methods, which, as the analysis of law enforcement practice shows, is not always justified; 2) the main content of administrative and legal measures to protect public morality and public order is to identify the causes and eliminate the conditions conducive to their commission, and to exert influence on persons in order to prevent their commission. To eliminate the causes and conditions that contribute to the commission of offenses in this area, a whole range of measures, both general and individual, should be taken.