On fair law and flawed judicial practice

Abstract

The author critically evaluates the interpretation of Article 15 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Categories of crimes”) by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in relation to unfinished crimes. The wording of the law that the categories of crime are determined by the maximum penalty provided for the committed act by this Code, the Constitutional The Court of the Russian Federation, in its refusal rulings on citizens ‘ complaints, without any justification, replaced “the maximum penalty provided for by the sanction of the relevant article of the Special Part of the Code with the maximum penalty provided for by the sanction of the relevant article of the Special Part of the Code”. And as for the provisions of Article 66 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on reducing the maximum penalties for any unfinished crimes relative to the maximum penalties corresponding to the article of the Special Part of the Code for completed Crimes, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation indicated that they are not subject to application in determining the category of crime.

The author believes that the category of unfinished crime should be determined based on the maximum term (size) of punishment provided for by the sanction of the article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code, using the coefficients stablished by h. h. 2 or 3 of Article 66 of the Criminal Code.