CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF HOLOCAUST DENIAL IN GERMANY

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 115-120
Author(s):  
ANNA SEREBRENNIKOVA
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
World War ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Holocaust Denial ◽  
Judicial Practice

Currently, they are attracting public attention and causing public resonance problems associated with the reassessment of the feat of the Soviet people in World War II. Various kinds of insinuations arise related to the denial of the persecution and mass extermination of Jews living in Germany, in the territory of its allies and in the territories occupied by them during the Second World War; the systematic persecution and extermination of European Jews by Nazi Germany and collaborators during 1933-1945. Practice shows that those guilty of Holocaust denial try to avoid criminal liability and influence judicial practice, referring to freedom of speech enshrined in Art. 5 Abs. 1 of the Basic Law of Germany. The purpose of the article. Investigate the institution of criminal responsibility for Holocaust denial in Germany. Based on an analysis of the norms of criminal law and judicial practice in Germany in specific criminal cases, investigate the difficulty of delimiting criminal liability for denying the Holocaust freedom of expression. Methodology and methods. For the purposes of this article, the author uses the methods of analysis, synthesis, induction, diduction, as well as comparative legal, historical legal and historical comparative methods. Conclusions. After conducting a study, the author concludes that in Germany the issue of criminal liability for Holocaust denial is complex. The article points out the fact of heterogeneity of court decisions, analysis of judicial practice shows that this issue is resolved extremely ambiguously. Despite this, the author points out the high role of the legislator and the practice of law enforcement in shaping the right attitude to historical events, the high role of peoples in certain significant facts that are part of the foundation of historical and cultural heritage. Scope of the results. This work may be of interest to students of higher educational institutions, as well as graduate students interested in criminal law of foreign countries. The article can be used by teachers of law schools as an addition to the educational material.

scholarly journals Consequences of failure to pay a court fine

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 639-650
Author(s):  
Nina Yu. Skripchenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legislative Regulation

The article discusses issues that arose during enforcement of the new grounds for exemption from criminal responsibility, enshrined in 2016, in connection with a court fine (Article 76.2 of the Criminal Code). Despite the criticism of its legislative regulation, demand for a new way of ceasing criminal prosecution began to appear in connection with the non-payment of a fine. Having determined the voluntary execution of a court fine, the legislator did not settle the issue of the further execution of the fine in cases where there are valid reasons for non-payment. After analyzing the existing proposals to solve this problem, the author confirms that the elimination of the gap would be facilitated by the legislative obligation of the bailiff to establish the circumstances by which the judicial penalty is not paid, as well as the addition of the list of decisions made by the bailiff to suspend enforcement proceeding. Analysis of judicial practice showed that Art. 76.2 of the Criminal Code began to be applied in cases where the court has justification for implementing less onerous grounds for the defendant to be exempt from criminal liability. Legislative duplication of the conditions under which criminal prosecution can be terminated for various reasons calls into question the wide alternative of the latter, as well as the embodiment of the idea of humanizing criminal law, which is the basis for securing a new ground for exemption from criminal liability. The article substantiates the proposal to supplement the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court dated June 27, 2013 with a provision allowing the release of a person from criminal responsibility with a judicial fine in cases where the court has no basis for suspending criminal prosecution for unconditional types of exemption from criminal liability. The author draws attention to the gap in the legislation, part 3 of Article 78 of the Criminal Code, which is related to the renewal of the statute of limitations for criminal liability when an individual avoids paying a court fine.

scholarly journals The History of the Development of the French Laws on Criminal Liability of Legal Entities

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 46-56
Author(s):  
Aleksandr V. Fedorov ◽  
◽  
Mikhail V. Krichevtsev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Economic Crime ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Entities

The article reviews the history of development of French laws on criminal liability of legal entities. The authors note that the institution of criminal liability of legal entities (collective criminal liability) dates back to the ancient times and has been forming in the French territory for a long time. Initially, it was established in the acts on collective liability residents of certain territories, in particular, in the laws of the Salian Franks. This institution was inherited from the Franks by the law of the medieval France, and got transferred from the medieval period to the French criminal law of the modern period. The article reviews the laws of King Louis XIV as an example of establishment of collective criminal liability: the Criminal Ordinance of 1670 and the Ordinances on Combating Vagrancy and Goods Smuggling of 1706 and 1711. For the first time ever, one can study the Russian translation of the collective criminal liability provisions of the said laws. The authors state that although the legal traditions of collective liability establishment were interrupted by the transformations caused by the French Revolution of 1789 to 1794, criminal liability of legal entities remained in Article 428 of the French Penal Code of 1810 as a remnant of the past and was abolished only as late as in 1957. The publication draws attention to the fact that the criminal law codification process was not finished in France, and some laws stipulating criminal liability of legal entities were in effect in addition to the French Penal Code of 1810: the Law on the Separation of Church and State of December 9, 1905; the Law of January 14, 1933; the Law on Maritime Trade of July 19, 1934; the Ordinance on Criminal Prosecution of the Press Institutions Cooperating with Enemies during World War II of May 5, 1945. The authors describe the role of the Nuremberg Trials and the documents of the Council of Europe in the establishment of the French laws on criminal liability of legal entities, in particular, Resolution (77) 28 On the Contribution of Criminal Law to the Protection of the Environment, Recommendation No. R (81) 12 On Economic Crime, the Recommendation No. R (82) 15 On the Role of Criminal Law in Consumer Protection and Recommendation No. (88) 18 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States Concerning Liability of Enterprises Having Legal Personality for Offences Committed in the Exercise of Their Activities. The authors conclude that the introduction of the institution of criminal liability of legal entities is based on objective conditions and that research of the history of establishment of the laws on collective liability is of great importance for understanding of the modern legal regulation of the issues of criminal liability of legal entities.

Criminal law measures to combat provocation of crimes and falsification of criminals

2021 ◽  
pp. 127
Author(s):  
Viktor N. Borkov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Actual Problem ◽  
The Individual

The article examines the criminal-legal aspects of the actual problem of protecting the inviolability of the individual from the unacceptable activity of state representatives in the exercise of law enforcement functions. Topical issues for theory and practice of the legal nature of the provocation of crime and the falsification of criminals remain debatable. There are no unified approaches to the qualification of provocative and inflammatory actions and cases of "throwing" objects to citizens, for the turnover of which criminal responsibility arises, there is no theoretical justification for the criminal legal status of persons provoked to commit a crime. The article shows that the qualification of common cases of provocation of crimes and falsification of criminals according to the norms providing for liability for abuse of official authority, falsification of evidence or the results of operational investigative activities should be recognized as not accurate. At the same time, responsibility for these actions committed by subjects who are not officials, and without the participation of the latter, has not been established at all. The author proposes a draft criminal law provision providing for liability for inducing to commit a crime or its staging in order to illegally create grounds for criminal prosecution. The paper questions the approach according to which a person provoked by law enforcement officers to commit a crime is not subject to criminal liability regardless of the specifics of the encroachment.

scholarly journals Criminal Liability for Knowingly Unlawful Sentence, Decision or Other Judicial Act

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 93-102
Author(s):  
Pavel Metelsky ◽  
Nadezhda Verchenko
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
The Public ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Considerable Complexity

Introduction. The publication is devoted to the corpus delicti, provided for by Art. 305 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which, being, in fact, a special type of official abuse, stands out as the direct object of a criminal assault and a special subject, since it can be committed exclusively by professional judges. The main features of the objective and subjective parties, qualifying signs of the offense are revealed, some problems that arise when applying this criminal law are outlined. Purpose. The goal is to analyze the design features of the crime and issues that arise when applying this rule. Methodology. The method of a formal legal analysis of the norms of the criminal law and theoretical provisions on problems directly related to the application of this rule was used. Results. The public danger of a criminal act that undermines the very foundations of justice is obvious, in connection with which it stands out as an independent crime by all the Russian Criminal Codes, starting in 1922, the history of criminal responsibility for its commission can be traced in our country in general since the 16th century. The current criminal law prohibition is characterized by considerable complexity, due to both the blanket nature of the disposition of the norm itself and the presence of discrepancies in the understanding of the signs embodied in it. Conclusion. The implementation of criminal liability for this crime involves the establishment of not only circumstances directly related to the corpus delicti that lie in the criminal law field. The subject of an infringement, a judicial act, must be subjected to procedural review without fail, after which, subject to the consent of the Higher Qualification Collegium of Judges of the Russian Federation, in fact, and the mechanism of criminal prosecution is “launched”. That is, a truly “multi-way” combination of actions is necessary, carried out in several stages, and the problem itself to some extent becomes interdisciplinary, going beyond only criminal law.

History of development of modern concepts of criminal responsibility of artificial intelligence in Spain

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (03) ◽  
pp. 259-264
Author(s):  
Viktor Shestak
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Cyber Security ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Legal Capacity ◽  
History Of Development ◽  
History Of ◽  
Legal Entities

This research proves the failure to address theoretically fundamental issues of robots' legal capacity and cyber security and as a result crudity of issues concerning criminal liability of robots for their actions. The proposals of a number of Spanish scientists on the possibility of non-proliferation of the sphere of criminal law on robots in connection with the existing possibility of criminal prosecution of legal entities in Spain have been worked out. In retrospect, the Spanish concepts of criminal responsibility of artificial intelligence were studied: their novels, shortcomings and problems of application in modern conditions were revealed.

LEGAL CONTENT OF CATEGORY“PREPARATION FOR PERFORMANCE OF AN INTENTIONAL CRIME”

2020 ◽  
pp. 39-45
Author(s):  
V. F. Lapshin ◽  
E. H. Nadiseva
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Special Part ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Principle Of Legality

The implementation of criminal liability for an unfinished crime, interrupted at the stage of preparation, is not consistent with the basic criminal law requirements, since the act committed at the stage of preparation, clearly does not contain any signs of a crime or its composition. At the same time, the imposition of punishment is carried out in accordance with the sanction of the norms of the Special part of the criminal code, which indicates the existence of an act not actually committed by the convicted person. This allows us to raise questions about the legality and necessity of bringing a person to criminal responsibility for an act recognized as preparation for the Commission of an intentional crime. The analysis of provisions of the current criminal legislation, sources of scientific literature, and also materials of judicial practice on criminal cases about incrimination of preparatory actions, allowed to draw a conclusion according to which attraction of the person to responsibility for Commission of the act characterized as preparation for Commission of crime, contradicts the principle of legality and justice. In this regard, it is proposed to change the current criminal legislation, eliminating the rules on the preparation of the Institute of unfinished crime.

scholarly journals The criminal responsibility for defamation of knowingly innocent

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (44) ◽  
pp. 241-251
Author(s):  
Vira Navrotska ◽  
Oksana Bronevytska ◽  
Galyna Yaremko ◽  
Roman Maksymovych ◽  
Vita Matolych
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Innocent Person ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Self Disclosure ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
The Right

The scientific article analyzes the acute discussion in law enforcement practice and procedural science of the problem of the possibility of criminal prosecution of a suspect, accused of defaming a knowingly innocent person in the commission of a crime. The theoretical basis of the article are scientific works on criminal law and criminal procedural law (both domestic researchers and foreign experts). A set of general scientific, special scientific and philosophical methods of scientific knowledge has been used while preparing the scientific article, in particular dialectical, historical, comparative, dogmatic (formal-logical), system-structural analysis, modeling. It is substantiated in the article that the behavior of the suspect, accused, which is manifested in slandering of a knowingly innocent person, does not constitute the right to freedom from self-disclosure. It is also proved that both freedom from self-disclosure and the right to defense in criminal proceedings must have certain limits, in particular, it is rights and interests of other subjects protected by criminal law. We stated that the suspect or accused should be liable for misleading the court and pre-trial investigation bodies even if such deception was used to protect against the suspicion (or accusation), to avoid criminal liability.

LEGAL CONTENT OF CATEGORY“PREPARATION FOR PERFORMANCE OF AN INTENTIONAL CRIME”

2020 ◽  
pp. 39-45
Author(s):  
V. F. Lapshin ◽  
E. H. Nadiseva
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Special Part ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Principle Of Legality

The implementation of criminal liability for an unfinished crime, interrupted at the stage of preparation, is not consistent with the basic criminal law requirements, since the act committed at the stage of preparation, clearly does not contain any signs of a crime or its composition. At the same time, the imposition of punishment is carried out in accordance with the sanction of the norms of the Special part of the criminal code, which indicates the existence of an act not actually committed by the convicted person. This allows us to raise questions about the legality and necessity of bringing a person to criminal responsibility for an act recognized as preparation for the Commission of an intentional crime. The analysis of provisions of the current criminal legislation, sources of scientific literature, and also materials of judicial practice on criminal cases about incrimination of preparatory actions, allowed to draw a conclusion according to which attraction of the person to responsibility for Commission of the act characterized as preparation for Commission of crime, contradicts the principle of legality and justice. In this regard, it is proposed to change the current criminal legislation, eliminating the rules on the preparation of the Institute of unfinished crime.

scholarly journals LEGAL CONTENT OF CATEGORY“PREPARATION FOR PERFORMANCE OF AN INTENTIONAL CRIME”

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-45
Author(s):  
V. F. Lapshin ◽  
E. H. Nadiseva
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Special Part ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Principle Of Legality

The implementation of criminal liability for an unfinished crime, interrupted at the stage of preparation, is not consistent with the basic criminal law requirements, since the act committed at the stage of preparation, clearly does not contain any signs of a crime or its composition. At the same time, the imposition of punishment is carried out in accordance with the sanction of the norms of the Special part of the criminal code, which indicates the existence of an act not actually committed by the convicted person. This allows us to raise questions about the legality and necessity of bringing a person to criminal responsibility for an act recognized as preparation for the Commission of an intentional crime. The analysis of provisions of the current criminal legislation, sources of scientific literature, and also materials of judicial practice on criminal cases about incrimination of preparatory actions, allowed to draw a conclusion according to which attraction of the person to responsibility for Commission of the act characterized as preparation for Commission of crime, contradicts the principle of legality and justice. In this regard, it is proposed to change the current criminal legislation, eliminating the rules on the preparation of the Institute of unfinished crime.

scholarly journals Exemption of person from criminal liability and correlation with the principle of presumption of innocence

Legal Ukraine ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 44-50
Author(s):  
Mariia Sirotkina
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Initial Position ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Guilty Verdict ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Right

This article examines the institution of exemption from criminal liability as an alternative to criminal prosecution and correlation with the principle of presumption of innocence on the basis of current criminal procedure legislation, scientific researches and judicial practice (case law). It is established that the initial position of scholars, who adhere to the opinion of contradiction of the institution of exemption from criminal liability with the principle of presumption of innocence, is that, in itself, the fact of exemption from criminal liability indicates a guilty plea and requires sentencing in accordance with Part 1 of the Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine. It was found out that reference of some scholars to commitment of a crime by a person is possible only due to availability of guilty verdict, not a court ruling. Because, there are many norms in legislation which may restrict certain citizens’ rights on the basis of ceasing a criminal case under «non-rehabilitative» circumstances. Other ones propose to abandon the institution of exemption from criminal liability in general and advocate expanding the scope of the institution of release from punishment, improving other means of criminal law regulation of the crime which is established by a guilty verdict of a court. It is being proved that the principle of presumption of innocence while exempting from criminal liability is not restricted: the prescriptions of presumption of innocence should be assessed, firstly, as not included into the mechanism of criminal liability, and secondly – as criminal law measures which are an alternative to punishment. Exemption of a person from criminal liability remains to be an effective means to resolve a criminal law dispute in cases prescribed by law. A person who has committed a criminally punishable act is, in no way, limited in their rights, much less in the right to implement the principle of the presumption of innocence. Key words: alternative, liability, exemption (release), punishment, presumption of innocence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document