Abstract
The subject of the research is criminal law rules that provide for criminal liability for hate crimes and the judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on hate crimes. The purpose of the article is to confirm or refute the hypothesis that a unified approach to the definition of the legal concept of hate speech and the limits of its application is nec-essary. This approach must be based on the legal positions of the European Court of Hu-man Rights The research methodology includes analysis and interpretation of court decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as a dialectical approach to the analysis of vari-ous points of view to the definition of extremist activity. The main results and scope of their application. The relevance of the research proposed for publication is due to the lack of uniform practice of applying the articles of the Russian Criminal Code on so-called "hate crimes" by Russian courts and the presence of signifi-cant contradictions in the positions of the European Court of Human Rights and the state position of the Russian Federation in defining key concepts in this area that are extremely important for criminal procedure and administrative activities. The paper considers scien-tific and practical attempts to define "hate crimes" in the global and regional human rights systems, basic recommendations of the UN on countering such crimes, and offers an interpretation of the term hate speech in relation to the related criminological concept of hate crime. The text provides statistical data describing the level of such crime and the practice of the ECHR in this area, mentions a list of criteria according to which "hate crimes" can be motivated by language differences, gender, sexual orientation and other characteristics, as well as criteria that distinguish hate speech from freedom of expres-sion, and suggests decriminalization of part 1 of article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code. Conclusions. It is necessary to unify the concepts of "hate crimes" (and the practice of their application) in the direction of, in particular, reducing the number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights against the Russian Federation and increasing the level of legal protection of both the individual citizen of the Russian Federation and freedom of speech and expression.
Highlights
Рассматриваются научно-практические попытки определений «преступлений ненависти» в глобальной и региональной правозащитной системах, базовые рекомендации ООН по противодействию подобным преступлениям, предлагается толкование термина hate speech в соотношении с родственным криминологическим понятием hate crime
The subject of the research is criminal law rules that provide for criminal liability for hate crimes and the judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on hate crimes
The relevance of the research proposed for publication is due to the lack of uniform practice of applying the articles of the Russian Criminal Code on so-called "hate crimes" by Russian courts and the presence of significant contradictions in the positions of the European Court of Human Rights and the state position of the Russian Federation in defining key concepts in this area that are extremely important for criminal procedure and administrative activities
Summary
It is necessary to unify the concepts of "hate crimes" (and the practice of their application) in the direction of, in particular, reducing the number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights against the Russian Federation and increasing the level of legal protection of both the individual citizen of the Russian Federation and freedom of speech and expression. По ранее рассмотренным делам уже было выявлено неприменение российскими судами стандартов прецедентного права в отношении свободы прессы (здесь укажем, что такая обязанность у российских судов в целом отсутствует, хотя, например, Конституционный Суд РФ в своих постановлениях достаточно широко использует практику Европейского суда по правам человека, вынося во многом аналогичные решения). Суммируя изложенное в данном разделе, укажем, что приведенные коллизии не имеют прямого отношения к экстремистской деятельности или hate speech, однако их возникновение стало возможным вследствие отсутствия устоявшихся бесспорных понятий, применимых в целях квалификации различных действий, связанных с выражением своего мнения в условиях массовости аудитории. Унифицированный подход к определению правового понятия hate speech и пределов его применения, основанный на правовых позициях Европейского суда по правам человека, может быть создан в российской правовой действительности, однако это требует серьезных криминологических и иных исследований. Предвидя очередное решение ЕСПЧ заведомо не в пользу Российской Федерации, выскажем мнение о необходимости декриминализации ч. 1 ст. 282 УК РФ (перевод таковой в состав административного правонарушения), не оспаривая целесообразности наличия в УК РФ ст. ст. 136 (нарушение равенства прав и свобод человека и гражданина), 280 (публичные призывы к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности), 282 ч. 2 и 354.1 (реабилитация нацизма)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
