Kazus KS

About what is actually the decision of the Constitutional Court on domestic violence. And where is the "Dadinskaya" article

The Constitutional Court on April 8, as they say in the news, “made an important decision on the issue of domestic violence,” obliging the legislator to amend Art. 166-1 of the Criminal Code. In fact, a story that has reached the Constitutional Court is quite private, and this decision would be exhausted only by news, if not for the hot debate of “domestic violence”, which, in fact, is not in law.

In July 2016, the legislator decriminalized not “domestic violence”, but, along with some other crimes of small gravity, generally beatings that did not cause health disorders. If these actions are not committed from hooligan motives and not “based on political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity”, then from January 1, 2017 they entail administrative responsibility in the form of a fine of up to 30 thousand rubles. or arrest up to 15 days (Article 6.1-1 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation). And only if the same disgrace is repeated during the year from the date of execution of the sentence, liability occurs under Art. 166-1 of the Criminal Code-this is how the mechanism of administrative prejudice, provided for in the Criminal Code, also for a number of other cases.

In such decriminalization, it would be more good than bad if everyone did not understand that this composition is covered by most cases of violence in relation to relatives and friends. Therefore, the dispute acquired such an acute character: the traditionalists, including the Russian Orthodox Church, supported changes in the law, and the feminists and supporters of the “New Ethics” continue to demand to return the reservation (it was in the first edition of the project) that violence in relation to loved ones is punished immediately according to the Criminal Code - without “prejudice” (as well as “from hooligan motives”).

The problem is, of course, not the difference between the punishments according to the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offenses, but in the fact that the administrative affairs of the police are easier to lower on the brakes or not at all. Apparently, this happened in the history of Citizens S., who reached her complaint to the Constitutional Court from Orenburg. S. constantly beat her brother, living with her in the same house. The defense proved to the Constitutional Court that he had a captivated sister so deftly that his previous administrative penalties turned out to be extinguished, although at the same time he even hung a criminal record for similar crimes.

Having seen the obvious collision, the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that “Article 116-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation ... to the extent that it does not ensure proportionate protection of the right to personal inviolability and the right to protect the personality dignity from violence in the event that beatings are inflicted ... by a person who has a criminal record for this crime or a similar crime ... and puts persons with a criminal record in this article, in A privileged position ... ".

This private incident seems to be impossible to evaluate as an “important solution” - in any case, this is not what the supporters of the “new ethics” insist on. On the other hand, the subject of discussion - therefore so hot - is probably wider and more important than “domestic violence”: we are talking about violence in general, about its admissibility and role in modern society.

Relations between Domostroy and building political are not so far from each other: in both of these areas, different people profess the same, but very different for traditionalists and progressive values.

From this point of view, the KS resolution is not so “not political”, but, perhaps, even daring, if you understand (and in the Constitutional Court they understand this) who in the discussion “about home violence” adheres to.

The problem is that the previous such decision of the Constitutional Court (by the way, also related to the prejudice) was issued on February 10, 2017 in the well -known case of Dadin and confirmed on January 27, 2020 in the Kotov case: the KS demanded from the legislator partially decriminalize Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which should not be applied without taking into account the real violation of the rules of mass shares.

And what? The legislator (that is, both chambers of the Federal Assembly and the President) not only did not fulfill the KS requirement, which cannot be challenged: Kotov served the term “before the call”, and in March 2021 the Moscow City Court “packed” the same sentence, fortunately, conditional, in relation to Julia Galyamina. Even if you perceive the resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of April 8 as private and “not political”, the fulfillment of its requirement would return the legislator to the question of why a similar requirement was not fulfilled in relation to the “Dadinskaya” Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code. Let's see how events will develop.