Immediately on parole

Supreme Court upholds parole cases

On April 30, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a new (No. 2) “Review on Certain Issues of Judicial Practice Related to the Application of Legislation and Measures to Counter the Spread of Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) in the Russian Federation”, which looks much more energetic than the previous one (No. 1 ) review dated 21 April.

Several clarifications, given in the form of questions and answers, are really welcome, and now the courts at the district level have to catch up (in about a month).

Thus, according to reports from the regions, under quarantine conditions, almost everywhere the courts stopped considering applications from convicts for release on parole and for the replacement of the unserved part of the sentence with a milder one (except for the Sverdlovsk region, where the practice was going on as usual thanks to the Commissioner for Human Rights Tatyana Merzlyakova).

From now on, the Supreme Court equated such cases with "urgent",

pointing out (paragraph 18 of the review) that this right of convicts “cannot be limited by any circumstances, including those related to the spread of a new coronavirus infection.”

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (paragraph 19), referring to the well-known, but often ignored in practice, Art. 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that pre-trial detention should be used for minor crimes in exceptional cases, clarified that the risk of contracting a coronavirus infection in a pre-trial detention center should be taken into account “along with other circumstances” and taking into account “carrying out quarantine measures” in isolation wards temporary detention and pre-trial detention center.

The Supreme Court was very strict on the application of Art. 236 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as amended on April 1, 2020, adopted “under quarantine” and established for violation of sanitary and epidemiological rules that caused a mass disease or created such a threat (part 1), a fine of 500 to 700 thousand rubles. instead of the previous 80 thousand with the threat of imprisonment up to 2 years. And in the event of the death of a person, the maximum punishment increases to 5 years, several persons - from 5 to 7 years.

The problem is that this is not an intentional, but a careless crime, and although its composition did not previously provide for the so-called special subject, in reality this article was applied (and even then infrequently) in relation to officials or those who were engaged in certain types of activities (for example, food trade). Quarantine practice has already taken the path of holding any natural persons liable for unintentional infection (there are already such cases).

Theoretically, for infecting a wife or husband, you can sit down for 5 years, and with a cane reporting system in the police and the UK, you can expect such or almost such cases.

In theory (and hence in the comments of the Supreme Court), the concept of gross negligence is permissible, for sure this option was discussed, but the Supreme Court did not say this word.

In review No. 2, a larger and the first part is devoted to the practice of civil cases, the timely resolution of which depends on the way out of the economic crisis after the removal of quarantine. The clarifications relate mainly to government decrees of April 2 and 3, Nos. 424 and 434, respectively. The first is devoted to the collection of debts and penalties for rent and utility bills, the second is about relief for enterprises and organizations whose activities are carried out in areas “hardest hit” by the epidemic (transport, catering, healthcare, trade in non-food products, tourism). , hotels, etc.).

An important clarification is that those “non-working days” for which, according to the decisions of regional authorities, quarantine can be extended are not days off or holidays in the usual sense, that is, the day of the due date may fall on these days. However, the courts should, depending on the circumstances in each particular case, extend or restore (or not restore) the general procedural time limits (this issue was covered in more detail in “review” No. 1).

The issues of revising the terms of loan agreements and the circumstances under which the debtor may demand a reduction in interest rates on loans are explained in detail - here it is important to understand that not everyone will be able to take advantage of the benefits, but only those, in particular, whose income upon exiting quarantine will be reduced by more than 30 percent. Reduced rates for tenants, including as a result of the actual inability to use property (including non-residential premises), will also depend on whether their activities fall into the approved “list of affected industries”.

At the same time, the Law of April 1, 2020 No. 98-FZ and the Government Decree No. 424 adopted on its basis establish a moratorium on the accrual of penalties for all types of payments for accommodation and utilities in apartment buildings, including both citizens and homeowners associations, and others their association until January 1, 2021.

All these, of course, are some kind of benefits and deferrals, but so far they are by no means great and not durable. And what will happen in the courts after they are canceled, when lawsuits from creditors and applications for bankruptcy of individuals and legal entities can be poured in en masse, still remains unclear.