Countering Nazism and Extremism: A Selective Study of Judicial Practice under Part 1 of Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in the Context of Current Legislation

The paper analyzes the results of the application of Part 1 of Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, reflected in judicial statistics in Russia as a whole, and makes proposals to improve the forms of statistical accounting in this part. The paper presents and systematizes the results of a selective analysis of final court decisions issued in cases of administrative offenses involving the public display or propaganda of Nazi emblems or symbols, or emblems or symbols similar to Nazi ones to the point of confusion, or emblems or symbols of extremist organizations, as well as other emblems, symbols, propaganda or public display of which are prohibited by federal laws. The gaps and contradictions in the legislation on issues of liability for the said public demonstration and propaganda are noted, and it is shown how these shortcomings manifest themselves in specific court cases. The locations and objects of illegal actions in the cases included in the sample are described and summarized, and the courts’ justifications (or the lack of justification) for classifying these objects as prohibited symbols or attributes are presented. The approaches used by the courts to the study and consideration of the subjective side of acts qualified under Part 1 of Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation are analyzed. It was concluded that, as a rule, courts avoid determining the form of guilt of persons to whom punishment is assigned and do not establish the motives for the act. The logic of sentencing for the acts in question, reflected in the studied judicial acts, is summarized, and proposals for adjusting the amount and types of punishment provided for in the law are substantiated. Based on empirical material, individual problems of providing legal assistance to persons held liable under Part 1 of Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation are examined, and issues of other legal consequences for those found guilty, in addition to the actual punishments, are also touched upon.

1. Vodolazskiy B. F., Vakutin Yu. A. Prestupnye gruppirovki, ikh obychai, traditsii, «zakony» (Proshloe i nastoyashchee). — Omsk: Omskaya vysshaya shkola militsii MVD SSSR, 1979. — 38 s.

2. Gurov A. I. Professionalnaya prestupnost: proshloe i sovremennost. — M.: Yurid. lit., 1990. — 304 s.

3. Davydov K. V. Dlyashchiesya i prodolzhaemye administrativnye pravonarusheniya: problemy teorii i sudebnoy praktiki // Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya «Pravo». — 2015. — № 1. — S. 207–213.

4. Zhdanova A. N. Kharakter administrativnogo pravonarusheniya i individualizatsiya otvetstvennosti // Psikhopedagogika v pravookhranitelnykh organakh. — 2006. — № 3 (27). — S. 110–112.

5. Ravnyushkin A. V. Problemy kvalifikatsii soversheniya v obshchestvennykh mestakh administrativnogo pravonarusheniya, predusmotrennogo ch. 1 st. 20.3 KoAP RF // Uchenye zapiski Krymskogo federalnogo universiteta imeni V. I. Vernadskogo. Yuridicheskie nauki. — 2022. — T. 8 (74). — № 2. — S. 111–118.

6. Skoblikov P. A. Vysshee polozhenie v prestupnoy ierarkhii: ugolovnyy zakon, ego osnovaniya, tolkovanie i primenenie: monografiya — M.: Norma: Infra-M, 2021. — 168 s.

7. Khomenko A. N., Cheremnova N. A. Otgranichenie ekstremistskikh proyavleniy ot pravomernogo povedeniya v kontekste st. 20.3, 20.3.1 KoAP RF i st. 280, 282 UK RF // Vestnik Vostochno-Sibirskogo instituta MVD Rossii. — 2019. — № 3 (90). — S. 44–56.

8. Yavorskiy M. A. Protivodeystvie administrativno nakazuemomu ekstremizmu v penitentsiarnoy sisteme Rossii: teoreticheskie aspekty // Vestnik Samarskogo yuridicheskogo instituta. — 2017. — № 1 (23). — S. 84–90.

9. Yavorskiy M. A. Protivodeystvie administrativno nakazuemomu ekstremizmu v penitentsiarnoy sisteme Rossii: prakticheskie aspekty // Pravo i obrazovanie. — 2017. — № 6. — S. 84–95.

10. Yavorskiy M. A., Kurushin S. A. Protivodeystvie administrativno nakazuemomu ekstremizmu: teoreticheskie i prakticheskie aspekty (na primere penitentsiarnykh uchrezhdeniy Rossii) // Pravovaya mysl. — 2021. — № 1 (2). — S. 50–54.