Uniform Application of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: Reality or Fiction?

Current legislation grants the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the authority to issue clarifications based on the analysis and synthesis of judicial practice in order to ensure its uniform application. These clarifications are regularly issued in the form of resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on judicial practice concerning particular categories of crimes or specific offenses. The binding nature of such clarifications is effectively recognized by both law enforcement officials and legal scholars, yet it is not codified anywhere in legislation. The paper shows that the resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are not always followed in criminal case practice, making it difficult to speak of ay uniformity in such practice. In the author’s view, such a situation cannot be considered normal, since Russia has only one criminal law (the Criminal Code), and therefore the practice of its application should be uniform. A possible exception of criminal law norms can be norms containing the element of property damage, the amount of which cannot be uniform given the differences in the economic situation in Russian regions). On this basis, the paper proposes that the binding nature of the resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation be codified in legislation, and that failure to comply with them should be recognized as an independent basis for reversing lower court decisions in criminal cases.

1. Bakradze A. A. Vverennoe imushchestvo kak predmet prisvoeniya ili rastraty // Rossiyskiy sledovatel. — 2009. — № 8. — S. 12–14.

2. Boytsov A. I. Polnyy kurs ugolovnogo prava: v 5 t. T. 3 / pod red. A. I. Korobeeva. — SPb.: YuTs Press, 2008. — 784 s.

3. Zharikov Yu. Realizatsiya otsenochnykh ponyatiy v ugolovnom prave // Zakonnost. — 2007. — № 9. — S. 45–47.

4. Kalyuzhnyy Yu. N. Povtornost kak kvalifitsiruyushchiy priznak administrativnykh deliktov v oblasti dorozhnogo dvizheniya // Politseyskaya i sledstvennaya deyatelnost. — 2019. — № 2. — S. 55–62.

5. Kangaspuro L. Ugolovnyy kodeks Finlyandii 1889 g. kak zakonodatelnyy istochnik evropeyskoy integratsii // Peterburgskiy istoricheskiy zhurnal. — 2015. — № 4. — S. 218–226.

6. Kommentariy k Ugolovnomu kodeksu Rossiyskoy Federatsii: v 4 t. (postateynyy) / A. V. Brilliantov, A. V. Galakhova, V. A. Davydov [i dr.]; otv. red. V. M. Lebedev. — M.: Yurayt, 2017. — T. 1: Obshchaya chast. — 316 s.

7. Kononov P. I. Aktualnye problemy administrativnogo prava: uchebnik. — M.: Knorus, 2023. — 314 s.

8. Minnikes I. A., Minnikes I. V. Autenticheskoe (avtorskoe) tolkovanie: teoretiko-pravovoy i konstitutsionnopravovoy aspekty // Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. — 2021. — № 3. — S. 36–55.

9. Sevryukov A. P. Ponyatie vverennogo imushchestva // Rossiyskiy sledovatel. — 2010. — № 5. — S. 15–18.

10. Serebryakov V. V. O podkhodakh ponimaniya povtornosti v administrativnom zakonodatelstve Rossiyskoy Federatsii i Respubliki Belarus // Administrativnoe pravo i protsess. — 2024. — № 3. — S. 76–78.

11. Ugolovnoe ulozhenie Tsarstva Polskogo 1818 goda: Obshch. chast Knigi o prestupleniyakh / per. stud. F. Taranovskogo; pod red. prof. V. Esipova. — SPb.: Tip. A. F. Marksa, 1895. — 31 s.