Liability for environmental crimes in the non bis in idem principle context

Sergey Korneev,Tatyana Butenko,Oksana Skorobogatova,Yulia Kokambo,Sergey Pichugin,V Kankhva

doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202125805021

Sergey Korneev, Tatyana Butenko + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125805021

Copy DOI

Abstract

In light of the social need for the humanization of criminal policy, annually confirmed by the supreme authorities of the state, the specialized literature has updated the topic related to the prohibition of double jeopardy (it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction and against multiple punishments for the same offense). This issue is analyzed by researchers in the context of the «non bis in idem» principle, which has received regulation both in the norms of national and international law. An analysis of the law enforcement practice of the judiciary in considering criminal cases on the fact of violation of public relations in the field of environmental protection (Chapter 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) indicates the permissibility of double, and in some cases triple, intersectoral liability of the perpetrator of crimes. It seems that the legitimacy and the possibility of deprivation and legal restrictions in relation to citizens have been found guilty of committing a crime and who have served the sentence imposed by the court in full does not correspond to the principle of “non bis in idem”, which actualizes the chosen research topic.

Highlights

According to the encyclopedic and lexical interpretation, the principle “Non bis in idem” literally translates as «not twice for the same thing» [1, p. 133, 486, 502, 675]
In the domestic criminal law, the principle «Non bis in idem» corresponds to the principles of justice (Art. 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and humanism (Art. 7 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as well as the requirement to economize on criminal repression, which is absent in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but is actively discussed in the doctrine of criminal law [4]
Despite the multifaceted intersectoral coverage of the stated problem, it seems that the issue in the field of criminal law concerning the legitimacy of the occurrence of deprivations and legal restrictions in relation to a person convicted of a crime under Art. 216 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Violation of safety rules during construction or other work) is still unresolved

Summary

Introduction

According to the encyclopedic and lexical interpretation, the principle “Non bis in idem” literally translates as «not twice for the same thing» [1, p. 133, 486, 502, 675]. - «no one should be repeatedly tried or punished in a criminal procedure under the jurisdiction of the same state for a crime for which he has already been acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and the criminal procedure rules of this state» (paragraph 1 of article 4 record No 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) [3]. According to the cross-sectoral, international principle «Non bis in idem», a person cannot be criminally liable twice for committing the same act prohibited by criminal law. The considered deprivations and legal restrictions are implemented within the framework of criminal liability in the form of a criminal record or in the form of administrative supervision

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion