Binding Nature of Clarifications from the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

The paper is devoted to the question of whether the clarifications of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation have binding force. According to the author, the obligatory conditions for their binding nature are relevance, consistency and theoretical impeccability. The paper provides examples of clarifications that have lost relevance due to changes in the criminal law, as well as clarifications that do not comply with the letter of the law (for example, on the classification of violent crimes and threats of violence against other persons during rape). The inconsistency of the legal positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is seen in the assessment of the use of defective, fake or toy weapons, on the one hand, in banditry and robbery, and on the other hand, in hooliganism, as well as in the assessment of the helpless state of the victim of murder and rape. The position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the subject of violation of labor protection rules, in the author’s opinion, does not correspond to the position of the legislator on the same issue. The clarification as to the qualification of giving and receiving a bribe in a significant, large or especially large amount as a completed crime according to the intent, if there were several stages planned for the transfer of such, but the crime was interrupted before it was finalized, seems inconsistent with the law and the doctrine of criminal law. Violation of the requirements of relevance, consistency and theoretical impeccability is incompatible with the binding clarifications of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

1. Andreeva L. A. Kvalifikatsiya iznasilovaniy: ucheb. posobie. — SPb., 1999. — 41 s.

2. Andreeva L. A., Tsengel S. D. Kvalifikatsiya iznasilovaniy: ucheb. posobie. — 3-e izd. — SPb., 2005. — 67 s.

3. Bibik O. N. Istochniki ugolovnogo prava Rossiyskoy Federatsii. — SPb.: Yuridicheskiy tsentr-Press, 2006. — 240 s.

4. Bogdanova M. Yu. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost za khuliganstvo po rossiyskomu ugolovnomu zakonodatelstvu. — Tomsk, 2019. — 89 s.

5. Voloshin I. A., Suvilekh A. M. Iznasilovanie s ispolzovaniem bespomoshchnogo sostoyaniya poterpevshey // Uchenye zapiski Krymskogo federalnogo universiteta imeni V.I. Vernadskogo. Yuridicheskie nauki. — 2018. — T. 4 (70). — S. 124–129.

6. Klenova T. V. O fakticheskoy konkurentsii ugolovnogo zakona i sudebnoy praktiki // Ugolovnoe zakonodatelstvo: strategiya razvitiya v XXI veke: materialy XIX Mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii, 20–21 yanvarya 2022 g. — M.: MGYuA; Prospekt, 2022. — S. 79–85.

7. Konyakhin V. P. Teoreticheskie osnovy postroeniya Obshchey chasti rossiyskogo ugolovnogo prava. — SPb.: Yuridicheskiy tsentr-Press, 2002. — 346 s.

8. Kropachev N. M. Ugolovno-pravovoe regulirovanie. Mekhanizm i sistema. — SPb., 1999. — 260 s.

9. Obrazhiev K. V. Sistema formalnykh (yuridicheskikh) istochnikov rossiyskogo ugolovnogo prava: dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — M., 2014. — 587 s.

10. Rarog A. I. Pravovoe znachenie razyasneniy Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda RF // Gosudarstvo i pravo. — 2001. — № 2. — S. 51–57.

11. Rarog A. I. Rol Verkhovnogo Suda RF v formirovanii sudebnoy praktiki po ugolovnym delam // Ugolovnoe pravo: strategiya razvitiya v XXI veke: materialy IV Mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii, 25–26 yanvarya 2007 g. — M.: Velbi, 2007. — S. 4–10.

12. Rarog A. I. Rol sudebnoy praktiki v razvitii nauki ugolovnogo prava // Ugolovnoe pravo: strategiya razvitiya v XXI veke: materialy VI Mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii, 29–30 yanvarya 2009 g. — M.: MGYuA, 2009. — S. 3–9.

13. Rarog A. I., Nurkaeva T. N. Postanovlenie Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 27.01.1999 № 1 «O sudebnoy praktike po delam ob ubiystve (st. 105 UK RF)» nuzhdaetsya v obnovlenii // Vestnik Akademii Generalnoy prokuratury Rossiyskoy Federatsii. — № 4 (66). — S. 48–52.

14. Rybalka A. A. Ugolovno-pravovaya okhrana trudovykh prav lichnosti: mezhdunarodnye standarty i problemy realizatsii v rossiyskom zakonodatelstve: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Krasnodar, 2016. — 30 s.

15. Sidorenko E. L. Vooruzhennoe khuliganstvo: paradoksy kriminalizatsii // Obshchestvo i pravo. — 2015. — № 1 (51). — S. 69–72.

16. Sypachev A. Yu. Bespomoshchnoe sostoyanie poterpevshego kak priznak iznasilovaniya (po materialam sudebno-sledstvennoy praktiki Tyumenskoy oblasti) // Nauchno-metodicheskiy elektronnyy zhurnal «Kontsept». — 2016. — T. 15. — S. 1931–1935.

17. Ugolovnoe pravo Rossii: uchebnik dlya vuzov: v 2 t. T. 1: Obshchaya chast / pod red. A. N. Ignatova, Yu. A. Krasikova. — M.: Norma, 2006. — 591 s.