Grounds For Exemption Research Articles

채무불이행의 면책사유로서의 불가항력 - 프랑스에서의 논의를 중심으로 -

The French Civil Code provides for strict liability and exemption from force majeure for damages resulting from non-performance. However, in practice, the cases of force majeure are expanded and interpreted to operate similarly to the non-performance liability principle. In French academic circles, there is also a strong view that force majeure, which is a ground for exemption from non-performance, is the same as no fault. The liability for damages resulting from non-performance is a variation of the original obligation, and the occurrence of the liability for damages is determined by the standards of the duty of care of the original obligation. On the one hand, imposing a good manager's duty of care, but on the other hand, saying that liability for damages arises if a higher duty of care is not fulfilled can be seen as a contradiction. In particular, it should be noted that the degree of duty of care may be changed by law or agreement of the parties. It is not reasonable to ignore these changes and unconditionally require irresistibility, impose a very high duty of care, and pay compensation for damages if this is not done. Even our civil law is based on the duty of care of a good manager (Articles 374 and 681). However, in some cases, the duty of care could be seen as a duty of care towards one's own property. (Articles 695 and 922). In addition, the degree of duty of care may be strengthened by agreement between the parties through strict liability, or the degree of duty of care may be weakened by indemnification for non-performance of obligations due to negligence. Uniformly in all cases, it is difficult to find a valid reason to impose a very high duty of care on the debtor, and force the debtor to perform the obligation unless performance is virtually impossible. If the debtor has fulfilled the duty of care or duty of good faith required by the provisions of the law or the agreement of the parties, it would be reasonable and appropriate to exempt the debtor from liability for damages even if there is a non-performance.

Отмена условного освобождения от наказания военнослужащих (ст. 80.2 УК РФ)

The article analyzes the new grounds for exemption from punishment of military personnel participating in a special military op-eration, as provided for in Article 80.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The norm under study currently does not contain a full-fledged cancellation mechanism that would take into account the interests of the participants in these specific legal relations. It is pointed out that the mandatory elements of the effectiveness of the institution of exemption from punishment are the availability of legal means of control over the behavior of the convicted person in terms of fulfilling the conditions of the granted release, as well as differentiated grounds for its cancellation in the event of violation of the established conditions. In order to eliminate this contradiction, it is proposed to include in the disposition of Article 80.2 of the Criminal Code differentiated grounds for the cancellation of conditional release based on the behavior of the person, as well as the nature and degree of pub-lic danger of the new crime committed by the person.

КРАТКАЯ КРИМИНОЛОГИЧЕСКАЯ ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКА ОСУЖДЕННЫХ, ОТБЫВАЮЩИХ НАКАЗАНИЕ ЗА КОРРУПЦИОННЫЕ И ДОЛЖНОСТНЫЕ ПРЕСТУПЛЕНИЯ

The article analyzes empirical material obtained from various penal institutions of the territorial agencies of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the Russian Federation, where the criminological profile of convicts sentenced for official malfeasance and corruption crimes is studied. Specific features of the criminal and legal characterization of the committed act are identified through the application of system and structural, and statistical research methods. The article considers indicators of correlation between the gravity of the crime, the term of the sentence, and types of complicity. Furthermore, the attention is paid to the existence or absence of an additional penalty imposed. The grounds for exemption from punishment for this type of convicts are examined. Convicted men and women are considered as separate groups, and comparison with the total number of convicted persons is conducted. As a conclusion, there is a need to study these characteristics in greater depth.

Grounds for Exemption from Criminal Liability? How Forensic Linguistics Can Contribute to Terrorism Trials

Drawing on Brown and Fraser’s (in: Giles, Scherer (eds) Social markers in speech, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 33–62, 1979) framework for the analysis of communicative situations and Fuentes Rodríguez’s (Lingüística pragmática y Análisis del discurso, Arco Libros, Madrid, 2000; in Estudios de Lingüística: Investigaciones lingüísticas en el siglo XXI, 2009. https://doi.org/10.14198/ELUA2009.Anexo3.04) model of pragmatic analysis, this paper examines three home-made recordings featuring some of the members of the terrorist cell responsible for the 2017 vehicle-ramming attacks in Barcelona and Cambrils weighted as evidence during the trial held between November 2020 and May 2021 in the Spanish National High Court. The aim of this qualitative analysis is to test whether the linguistic evidence available supports the allegation that the participation in these recordings by one of the accused, Mohamed Houli Chemlal, had been planned by his interlocutors. Results show, first, that the exchanges analyzed present features indicative of both spontaneity and (limited) planification. Second, that Houli makes key contributions to the unfolding of the interactions shown in the recordings and that he does so in a cooperative and apparently relaxed manner, which could at best provide only partial support to his allegations. It is claimed that forensic linguistic analysis can generate valuable insights within terrorism-related legal proceedings.

Проблеми визначення поняття «кримінально-правова кваліфікація»

The issue of defining the concept of "criminal legal qualification" was considered. It is noted that in order to regulate the most important social relations, the state adopts laws that establish generally accepted rules of behavior. The law on criminal liability is one of the important means of protecting life, health, honor, dignity, inviolability and security of a person as the highest social value, the state system of Ukraine, its political and economic systems, property and the entire legal order from criminal encroachments and a means of combating them. Only the law on criminal responsibility contains criminal law norms that determine the general provisions of criminal law, which establishes the principles and grounds of criminal responsibility, criminality and punishment of acts, grounds for exemption from criminal responsibility and punishment. Therefore, the practice of applying the criminal law is of great importance. One of the most important issues in the application of the criminal law is the issue of criminal legal qualifications. It is emphasized that many works are devoted to the issue of qualification in criminal law. In each scientific work, in which the question of the criminal-legal qualification of a criminal offense was considered, each scientist gave its concept. However, in the middle of the last century, we spoke more narrowly about the qualification of crimes, in the future, the study of this issue was approached more broadly, and today we are talking about the criminal-legal qualification. The views of scientists on the definition of the concept of "qualification of crimes" and "criminal legal qualification" are disclosed. It is noted that V.Navrotskyi's scientific works dealt more deeply with the issue of criminal-legal qualifications. It has been established that the concepts of criminal law qualifications in Ukraine are defined by scientists, as a rule, in scientific works, textbooks on criminal law, relevant monographs, manuals. The law does not contain this concept, which is a gap in the legislation. It is noted that a working group on the development of criminal law has been created in Ukraine, which proposed a draft of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provides the concept of criminal-legal qualification. Yes, the criminal legal qualification is the definition of an article (its part, clause) of this Code that provides for the committed act and defines it as a criminal offense (including articles that provide for signs that change the degree of severity of the crime, the presence of preparation for a crime or an attempt to commit a crime , type of accomplice and form of complicity) or as an act that is not a criminal offense. It was concluded that the concept of criminal-legal qualification given in the Draft Criminal Code of Ukraine is clear and reflects the essence of qualification as a process and result of a certain direction of law enforcement activity. Enshrining criminal legal concepts in the legislation contributes to the improvement of criminal legislation, the elimination of gaps in the previous law and will help law enforcement officers in the application of criminal legal norms.

CONCERNING THE NATURE OF FORCE MAJEURE CIRCUMSTANCES DURING MARTIAL LAW

The article analyzes a number of provisions on the researched topic. It was assumed that force majeure or force majeure is a general basis for exemption from civil liability, both contractual and non-contractual. In the work, we considered the circumstances of liability in cases of violation of non-contractual obligations under martial law. Also, specifics of the legislative requirements for recognition of certain circumstances of force majeure have been established. The consequences of the application of such circumstances and other features were determined. And they also formulated the conclusions that even under the conditions of martial law, force majeure is not an automatic basis for exemption from the fulfilment of obligations under contractual relations and from the obligation to indemnify damages in noncontractual obligations, etc. It is noted that a comprehensive approach to the study of this problem in modern realities is practically absent and has no systematic applied research in the conditions of martial law. Issues related to force majeure are one-sided. But, more often than not, in scientific studies, either the historical aspects of the formation of the «force majeure» category are revealed, or only the characteristics of certain types of force majeure are provided, and the problem of recognizing certain life circumstances as force majeure and the consequences of these circumstances are not analyzed. There is no clear definition of the place of the category «force majeure» in the conceptual apparatus of civil law and legislation of Ukraine. To date, the specifics of force majeure (as grounds for exemption from liability for breach of obligation), etc., have not been established. There is no distinction between force majeure and related legal phenomena (accident, risk, impossibility of performance, significant change of circumstances). The purpose of the study is to analyze the concepts of «force majeure» and «insurmountable force», the signs and characteristics of such concepts and the question of the possibility of their identification, the determination of cases that are not considered force majeure in judicial practice, despite the existing extraordinary circumstances during martial law. In summary, we note that even under the conditions of martial law, force majeure is not an automatic basis for exemption from the fulfilment of obligations under contractual relations and from the obligation to compensate for damage in noncontractual obligations. The party to the contract must confirm not only the fact of the occurrence of force majeure circumstances but also their ability to influence the real possibility of fulfilling the obligation. Although the letter of the Chamber of Commerce attributes the fact of war to force majeure. However, this fact alone is not enough to establish the legality of a person’s failure to fulfil obligations due to such circumstances – the law provides for a specific method of confirming force majeure by obtaining a corresponding certificate from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine. In turn, in court practice (not having a prejudicial character) it is considered and evaluated on a par with all other evidence.

О ВОПРОСЕ СОВЕРШЕНСТВОВАНИЯ ИНСТИТУТА ОСВОБОЖДЕНИЯ ОТ АДМИНИСТРАТИВНОЙ ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТИ В РЕСПУБЛИКЕ АРМЕНИЯ / ON THE ISSUE OF IMPROVING THE INSTITUTION OF EXEMPTION FROM ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY IN THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA

In law enforcement practice, sometimes there are problems with the application of the norms of the institution of exemption from administrative responsibility. One of the factors contributing to this is that this problem has not been studied at the scientific level in the Republic of Armenia so far. Based on this, the author analyzed the norms of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Republic of Armenia (hereinafter - the Code), which form the institution of exemption from administrative responsibility. The results of the study show that the regulation of this institution has shortcomings and gaps, there are not relevant norms. In particular, one of the grounds for exemption from administrative liability is the transfer of materials concerning an administrative offense to a comrades court, a public organization or a labor collective, has not been applied for a long time, another reason is the exemption from liability of a person who has been trafficked or exploited by people, in fact, is not a condition for exemption from liability, but a circumstance excluding liability, etc. It is also established that the grounds for exemption from administrative responsibility are insufficiently regulated. Based on the above, the author has set himself the goal of presenting proposals to correct the shortcomings of regulation and fill in the gaps associated with the institution of exemption from administrative responsibility. In particular, the author proposes to invalidate non-current norms, comment on the relevant concepts, and make appropriate additions to the Code.

Can Economic Sanctions be Grounds for Exemption under the CISG?

Purpose - This paper studies whether economic sanctions can be used as grounds for a party to an international sales contract to get an exemption if he fails to meet his contractual obligation. Because the answer can differ depending on the governing law of the contract, this study focuses on CISG, the most widely recognized international uniform legal instrument as the governing law of the international sale of goods.
 Design/methodology - This paper focuses on analyzing the conditions to meet before getting an exemption under CISG. For such analysis, this paper examined various scholarly writings, cases, and hypothetical examples reflecting a wide variety of economic sanction measures.
 Findings - The findings of this paper are as follows. The main provision for exemption under CISG is Article 79(1), which provides for an exemption for a party that failed to perform if such failure was caused by an impediment that was uncontrollable, unforeseeable, and unavoidable; either a seller or a buyer may rely on the Article for his non-performance, delay, or defective performance. The Article is applicable not only where the economic sanction caused impossibility of performance but also where it caused hardship. The economic sanction will likely be found to be an uncontrollable impediment; however, it will be relatively more difficult to prove it to be unforeseeable or unavoidable.
 Originality/value - The subject of this paper is whether a party can be exempted from liability under CISG when he fails to perform his contractual obligations due to economic sanctions. Given that this issue is now actually faced by many involved in international trade, it is expected to provide practical help to practitioners and companies alike.

Criminal law mechanism of compensation for harm caused by crime: trends in legislative regulation and practical implementation

The relevance of research. Allocating compensatory actions a place either in the system of coercive measures or in the arsenal of stimulating measures, the legislator took the path of strengthening private interests, expanding the grounds for exemption from criminal liability, and reducing the requirements for post-crime behavior of the accused. The revealed legislative transformation of the restorative actions of the guilty party laid the foundation for the reevaluation of their content by a law enforcement officer. By recognizing as optional the solely personal participation of the offender in compensation for damage, as well as transferring redressing of harm from certain definitions to evaluative ones, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court laid the foundation for forming practice in a new direction, the study of which is the purpose of this article . Research results. Critically assessing the emerging practice, the authors raise the questions of justification for the release of those guity, who personally did nothing for the state forgiveness, as well as justification for courts to refer to mitigation of harm, actions being far from compensatory. The paper substantiates the conclusion that the solely judicial discretion in determining the redress of harm conceals not only corruption risks, but also threatens the uniform application of the law. The accumulated experience does not allow development of universal criteria that allow to determine not only sufficient, but also the minimum necessary actions of the perpetrator to smooth down the harm caused by a crime infringing on public interests. The Plenum of the Supreme Court clarifications, which exclude recognition as compensatory actions of the guilty party to terminate the criminal offense, and also form active repentance in content, can facilitate the prompt elimination of defective law enforcement. The methodological basis is formed by general scientific (analysis, synthesis, and dialectics) and special scientific research methods (historical and legal, systemic and structural, formal and legal).

Преимущества и недостатки конвергенции частного права в контрольно-надзорную деятельность как института публичного управления

As part of the tasks of limiting state interference in the economic activities of business entities, ending excessive state regulation, and developing the system of selfregulatory organisations in the economy, an administrative reform has been implemented, including in the sphere of control and oversight activities. As a result, Federal Law No. 248-FZ of 31.07.2020 "On State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control in the Russian Federation" (hereinafter - the Law on Control) was adopted. State control (supervision) is a function of the state related to the sphere of public administration, which predetermines its public-law nature. At the same time, its goals set within the framework of the administrative reform have affected the content of the law and its nature - there has been a convergence of private law into control and supervision activities. A manifestation of this conclusion is Article 8 of the Control Law, devoted to the principle of incentives for good faith compliance with mandatory requirements, which implies that in its implementation preventive measures aimed at reducing the risk of harm are prioritised over control and oversight measures. The legal consequence of confirming the bona fides of a controlled person will be the reduction of the category of risk of harm, and separate legal means - independent assessment of compliance with mandatory requirements and conclusion by a controlled person with an insurance organization of voluntary insurance of risks of harm, if they are provided by the federal law on the type of control, act as grounds for exemption from planned control and oversight measures (respectively Art. 54 and part 9 of Article 25). Another example confirming the 'privatisation' of the institute of state control (supervision) are the provisions in the Control Act on the recognition of results of independent evaluation of compliance with mandatory requirements (Art. 54) and membership in self-regulatory organisations (Art. 55). Their legal consequence is the failure to carry out planned inspections in relation to controlled persons, unless otherwise provided for by the federal law on the type of control. This shows that the state has actually taken real measures to reduce excessive state regulation in the framework of control and supervisory activities. On the other hand, in the examined cases the transformation of public administration is taking place at the expense of businesses that incur additional financial expenses to implement the state's controlling function. However, doubts arise about the implementation by the business community of private law means of replacing planned inspections if this would cause them high financial costs. On this basis, the state should consider measures to stimulate their implementation, as is the case, for example, with environmental legislation for new technologies. The author declares no conflicts of interests.

PROVING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE BY AN INVESTIGATOR

Introduction. The article investigates the problem of proving the circumstances of a criminal offense by investigators. The procedural powers of the investigator are defined in such a way that the investigator makes all decisions on investigative (search) actions, except when the law provides for obtaining approval from the prosecutor or sanctions from the investigating judge and is fully responsible for their legality. After obtaining the factual data, consolidating them as evidence, the investigator must evaluate all the evidence according to his inner convictions. The investigator must be sure that the criminal offense was committed by the suspect. If he has doubts about the commission of a criminal offense by a certain suspect, he must seek evidence of both guilt and innocence. Summary of the main research results. It is proposed to establish the limits of proving a criminal offense on the basis of regulatory support of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The elements of the limits of proof of a criminal offense include the fact of the criminal offense, factual data, information about the facts and procedurally established evidence indicating the guilt of the suspect. It is important to note that the limits of proof must be based not only on the circumstances of the criminal offense, but also on the circumstances that affect the severity of the criminal offense or are grounds for exemption from criminal liability. Conclusions. It is proposed to amend the CPC of Ukraine and establish a mechanism for procedural guidance of the investigator during the operational and investigative activities of operational units. The investigator's activity in determining the subject and limits of evidence in the pre-trial investigation can be improved by improving his procedural status. To this end, it is advisable to strengthen the procedural independence of the investigator, respectively, reducing his dependence on the prosecutor in terms of evaluating the evidence on key issues of pre-trial investigation. Other ways to improve the current legislation of Ukraine are proposed.

Система оснований освобождения лица от правовых последствий совершения преступления

Introduction: the grounds for exemption from criminal responsibility, punishment, and the recognition the act that has caused harm to the object of criminal law protection as non-criminal, are essential for a fair legal assessment of a person’s behaviour. In this connection, the author of the paper aims to study the grounds for not applying the legal consequences of a crime (act) to a person. Methods: the methodological framework for the study is a set of methods of scientific knowledge, among which the main ones are the methods of historicism, consistency, analysis and comparative law. Results: the author’s position grounded in the work is based on the legislation and the opinions of the competent scientific community on the question of why certain grounds are combined by the legislator into separate chapters and are endowed with common features, and other grounds belong to different grounds for the release of a person. With the help of the legal analysis of the provisions of the theory of law, the differentiation of the characteristic features of the grounds for not bringing a person to criminal responsibility is carried out. The questions of the legal regulation of not only various types of grounds for the release of a person, but also the legal consequences of committing a crime are raised. The concept of circumstances precluding criminal liability in connection with the voluntary refusal to commit a crime is formulated. Conclusions: the study establishes that a person may be exempted from criminal liability, in connection with the absence of the constituent elements of offence (insanity, infliction by innocence) in his act, and the grounds that are not associated with crime, such as regulated by Chapter 11 of the Criminal Code. However, the circumstances that preclude the criminality of the act, voluntary refusal, as well as the insignificance of the act are not directly enshrined in the Code as the grounds for exempting from criminal liability due to the absence of corpus delicti, however, the text of the articles of the Code states that the act is not a crime.

Прекращение преступной деятельности как специальное основание освобождения от уголовной ответственности

В статье рассматриваются проблемы оптимизации норм, устанавливающих основания освобождения от уголовной ответственности. Основное внимание в работе уделено оптимизации примечаний к ряду норм Особенной части уголовного закона, устанавливающих такие основания. Предлагается закрепить в Уголовном кодексе Российской Федерации такое основание освобождения от уголовной ответственности как прекращение преступной деятельности.

An Old Problem in Draft of the New Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences

The article analyzes the provisions of the draft of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, developed on the basis of the Concept approved in 2019 by the Russian Government. Attention is drawn to the fact that the Concept, for the first time in domestic practice, contains a provision stating that improving the institution of administrative responsibility will require work to transform it from a predominantly punitive-fiscal instrument into the institution of sentencing, subject to differentiated application taking into account the risk-based approach. Based on the analysis of particular compositions of the draft of the Code of Administrative Offenses, it has been concluded that the punitive-fiscal orientation in it remains. Suggestions have been made on possible ways to overcome this. Administrative penalties should only provide general and specific prevention. The economy of administrative repression should become an element of the administrative policy of the executive branch. After the entry into force of the new Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, it has been proposed to conduct annual monitoring of its application, which will make it possible to identify the compositions that bring the greatest income to the budget. The problem of the existence of a profitable business on administrative responsibility is outlined. Attempts to introduce public-private partnership related to the provision of police assistance are assessed negatively. Based on Russian realities, it can be assumed that in practice this will lead to abuse by police officers and, as a result, to violation of human and civil rights and freedoms. Only in the future, the Russian police should gradually transform from a purely security structure focused on the use of state coercion measures into a structure that is largely service, providing citizens with specific services, in particular, providing them with police assistance when necessary. The idea is supported to recognize the “right to error” and “the right to forgiveness” for an administrative offender. It is proposed to implement it by expanding the possibilities of applying a warning as an alternative to such a punishment as an administrative fine, as well as by expanding the list of possible grounds for exemption from administrative liability. It is concluded that the adoption of the draft of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses does not look obvious.

Exemption of a joint stock company from the obligation to provide information to a shareholder.

The subject of research. Issues concerning the exercise of the right of shareholders to receive information are analyzed. The focus is on the issues of exemption of a joint-stock company from providing information. The development of the institute of the information provision to shareholders by joint stock companies are consistently analyzed. The main trends in the development of this institute are shown: gradually narrowing the ability of shareholders to exercise their right to receive information through such means as restriction, differentiation and exemption from providing information. Special emphasis is placed on the institute of exemption from providing information. The purpose of the article is to show the main drawbacks of the existing model of exemption of a joint-stock company from the obligation to provide information to shareholders and to formulate directions for the development of legislation. The author's main scientific hypothesis can be summarized as follows. The Federal law «On joint-stock companies» contained an initial defect in the description of information exchange between a shareholder and a joint-stock company. The shareholder's right to information was not described, in fact, it was «embedded» in the obligation of the joint-stock company to provide information. The subsequent changes to the law resulted in a narrowing of the rights of the shareholder, practically depriving the minority shareholder of the right to information. This defect has led to significant legal uncertainty when the joint-stock company exercises its right to be exempt from providing information. This uncertainty should be eliminated, because the regulatory goals for granting joint-stock companies an exemption from the obligation to provide information to shareholders (article 92.2 of the Federal law «On joint-stock companies» that counters sanctions pressure) are absolutely correct. At the same time, some of the grounds for exemption from the obligation to provide information to shareholders (article 92.1 of the Federal law «On joint-stock companies») must either be excluded or reformulated. The author notes the complete «break» between the current regulation and the ideas about information exchange between a shareholder and a joint-stock company, that initially inspired the creation of the law on joint-stock companies. The inclusion of sanctions in the law on joint - stock companies as a factor affecting the performance by a joint-stock company of its obligation to provide information to shareholders should be fully welcomed. However, the legal and technical design of the corresponding political and legal idea cannot be considered optimal. In this part, the legislation requires a complete renovation based on the principle of balancing constitutional values and the interests of the state, majority and minority shareholders. Description of research methodology. The research is based on a systematic analysis, as well as the interpretation of Russian legislation and doctrine. Information about the main scientific results. The development of legislation on joint-stock companies in terms of providing information is shown. It is shown that if legislator taking into account sanctions when regulating the obligation of a joint-stock company to provide information, the goals of legislative regulation fully comply with constitutional principles, but specific legal decisions cannot be considered optimal. Conclusions. It is concluded that development of legislation on joint-stock companies has led to a significant restriction of the ability of shareholders to receive information. The author formulated the priority of regulatory goals in countering sanctions pressure and offered specific directions for improving legal regulation.

Immunization governance: Mandatory immunization in 28 Global NITAG Network countries

International trends currently favour greater use of mandatory immunization. There has been little academic consideration or comparison of the existence and scope of mandatory immunization internationally. In this paper, we examine mandatory immunization in 28 Global NITAG (National Immunization Technical Advisory Group) Network (GNN) countries, including countries from every WHO region and World Bank income level classification. We found that although mandatory immunization programs, or mandatory elements within broader immunization programs, are relatively common, jurisdictions vary significantly with respect to the immunizations required, population groups affected, grounds for exemptions, and penalties for non-compliance. We also observed some loose associations with geography and income level. Based on these data, we categorized policies into a spectrum ranging from Narrow to Broad scope.

Grounds, conditions and features of exemption from criminal liability provided for in part five of Article 354 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

The article is devoted to the analysis of exemption from criminal liability on the grounds specified in part five of Article 354 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The directions of modern researches of this problem are analyzed. The concept of exemption from criminal liability on the grounds specified in part five of Article 354 of the Criminal Code, conditions and criminal consequences. The application of general types of exemption from criminal liability of persons who have committed corruption offenses is limited by the legislator, and the implementation of such as expiration due to the expiration of the statute of limitations does not cause difficulties in practice. criminal liability provided for in part five of Article 354 of the Criminal Code. Key words: criminal liability, corruption offense, exemption from criminal liability, grounds for exemption from criminal liability.

Mandatory immunization: Empirical examination of governance instruments in 28 Global NITAG Network (GNN) countries

Abstract Background In the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2017 Assessment Report, WHO's SAGE noted need to understand ways in which legislation and regulation are used to advance or undermine immunization. The NITAG Environmental Scan Project sought to address this in a pilot study. Methods Data was collected via a secure online survey of GNN members (40 countries Sept 2018). Respondents reporting a mandatory element were asked: (1) what vaccinations were required by law; and (2) what population groups were subject to mandates; (3) what grounds, if any, were available for requesting exemptions. Results 28 (70%) countries responded, representing every WHO region and World Bank income level. While mandatory immunization programs / elements within broader NIPs were relatively common, jurisdictions varied with respect to immunizations required, population groups affected, grounds for exemptions, and penalties for non-compliance. We observed some loose associations with geography and income level. Children were the most common population group subject to mandates at some stage of childhood development (28/28); healthcare workers were second (8/15 (53%)). Sanctions for failure to immunize varied broadly, ranging from no penalty, to loss of access to social services e.g. admission to school, monetary fines, and incarceration. A variance between countries as to how strictly immunization mandates are enforced was noted. Conclusions A variety of approaches existed ranging from Narrow/Permissive to Broad/ Inclusive in scope with enforcement mapping loosely to this continuum from Loose/Permissive to Tight/Coercive. Jurisdictions with few/no vaccines mandated, and few/no target groups identified, Loose approach is expected; for those closer to Broad approach, Tighter controls expected. Coercive measures may be 'positive' (vaccination as a gateway to public services, with possible work-arounds), or 'negative' (failure to vaccinate = penalties).

Provision of inter-budget transfers from the federal budget to regional budgets to make payments to health staff providing medical care to citizens with coronavirus infection COVID-19

The article is devoted to the analysis of the Government Resolution № 484 of 12.04.2020 “On approval of the rules for granting other interbudget transfers from the federal budget to the budgets of the regions in 2020, the source of financial support for which are the budgetary allocations of the reserve fund of the Government of the Russian Federation, in order to co-finance in full the expenditure region obligations, arising with stimulating payments to health staff providing medical care to citizens with a new coronavirus infection COVID-19”. The peculiarities of providing these transfers were considered, the content of the local normative act of the medical organization, which it should adopt and coordinate with the authority of the region in case its divisions work with patients with coronavirus infection COVID-19, as well as the grounds for exemption of incentive payments to medical workers treating citizens with COVID-19 from the individual income tax, were analyzed.

Consequences of failure to pay a court fine

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.