Jus strictum

Problem. In the context of digital transformation, extremist ideology, including Nazism, has acquired new forms of dissemination in information and telecommunication networks, which has significantly complicated the qualification of crimes related to Nazi propaganda. Aim. To identify and analyze the problems of qualification of crimes provided for in Articles 280, 282, 282.4 and 354.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, committed using information and telecommunication networks, and to propose criteria for their differentiation based on the dominant purpose of the act,
as well as to formulate recommendations for improving law enforcement practice, taking into account modern forms of digital propaganda. Methods. The research material was based on the norms of the Russian criminal legislation (Articles
280, 282, 282.4, and 354.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and case materials on Nazi propaganda in information and telecommunication networks for the period 2024–2025. The primary method employed was formal legal analysis, which allowed identifying common
and distinguishing features of the elements of crimes. Results. Based on the analysis of Articles 280, 282, 282.4, and 354.1
of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and judicial practice materials for 2024–2025, the following issues were
identified: problems of composition competition, determining the moment of crime commission in information and telecommunication networks, and distinguishing between public and private communication. The research proposed qualification criteria based on the dominant purpose of the act: rehabilitation of Nazi ideology (Article 354.1), inciting hostility
using Nazi rhetoric as a tool (Article 282), and cumulative qualification in cases of two independent intentions. The study
substantiated the need to expand the concept of Nazi propaganda to include modern digital forms such as meme culture,
trolling, and automated systems. Conclusions. The current criminal legislation does not fully take into account the specifics of
the digital environment, which generates legal conflicts in the qualification of Nazi propaganda in information and telecommunication networks. The key role in overcoming these conflicts belongs to the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which should provide clarifications on the issues of intent assessment and content orientation, as well as develop criteria for
distinguishing public actions from private communication in the digital space. 

Problem. The rule of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation under study, concerning full compensation for losses (paragraph 2 of clause 2 of Article 393 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), is expressed in insufficiently definite terms. Owing to its ambiguous content, this wording requires theoretical consideration and the resolution of issues arising in law enforcement. Aim. To identify the meaning of the provision of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation under study and the problems of its application in various scenarios of improper performance of a contract. Methods. The study employed the formal-legal and comparative-legal methods, as well as the method of systemic analysis. Results. The study identified issues in satisfying the creditor’s unfulfilled expectations: in a contractual obligation of a strictly personal nature; where it is impossible for the creditor to obtain specific performance or where the creditor loses interest in performance; where the creditor fails to achieve the purpose of the contract and where reputational harm is present. Moreover, a problem is identified in comparing the creditor’s hypothetical proper position with their actual position after full compensation for losses. It is established that such a comparison is difficult owing to the absence of clear criteria for assessing losses and the impossibility of taking into account all legally significant circumstances. Such a comparison cannot always be regarded as correct from a practical standpoint. Conclusions. In certain circumstances, full compensation for losses to the creditor proves ineffective in resolving the identified problems. The very fact of placing the creditor in the proper position under the contract is not always possible and is even inappropriate owing to the irreversible consequences of improper performance of the contract. Resolving these problems requires more detailed regulation of the analysed provision of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Problem. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation regarding the reasons and grounds for initiating a criminal case are not regulated clearly enough, which creates problems in application of law and gives rise to ambiguous interpretation. This applies in particular to the distinction between the reasons and the grounds, the verification of anonymous statements, and the conduct of an examination before initiating a case. Aim. To substantiate and propose amendments to Articles 5, 140 and 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation
concerning the introduction of a definition of a reason, clarification of the procedure for verifying anonymous statements, and adjustment of the definition of the grounds for initiating a criminal case. Methods. The study employed a normativelogical analysis of the provisions of Chapters 19, 20 and related norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, a system-structural method for assessing the internal logic of the institution of reasons and grounds, formal legal interpretation of legal definitions, a study of doctrinal sources on the issues of the initiation stage, as well as legislative modelling of the author’s versions of norms with verification for consistency. The empirical basis consisted of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and reviews of judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Results. The author’s  definition of a reason is formulated, a new wording of part 7 of Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is proposed, which clarifies the obligation to verify anonymous statements, and part 2 of Article 140 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is adjusted with respect to the grounds. The expansion of the list of reasons by including mutual legal assistance requests and decisions on separating materials is substantiated. Amendments are proposed aimed at clarifying the procedural status of participants and the conditions for conducting an examination and expert examination at the stage of initiating a criminal case. Conclusions. The identified gaps and conflicts cannot be eliminated solely by interpretation in the application of law – they require legislative amendments. The proposed versions of Articles 5, 140 and 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the supplementation of the list of reasons and the clarification of
the procedural status of participants are aimed at enhancing the certainty and uniformity of pre-investigation checks. The proposed amendments may be used in legislative activity and in judicial practice to eliminate the identified uncertainties.

Abstract: Problem. In the context of active reformation of criminal procedural legislation and growing legal nihilism, the ethico-centric nature of Russian legal consciousness creates a contradiction between law and law enforcement, however, systematic study of its impact on criminal procedural regulation is virtually absent in domestic science. Aim. To identify common and specific features of legal consciousness among authoritative and non-authoritative participants in criminal proceedings
and determine the degree of their conditionality by the Russian legal mentality. Methods. Anonymous survey of 200 respondents in the Samara region: 100 empowered and 100 non-empowered participants in criminal proceedings. Statistical
data processing on a five-point Likert scale was carried out using Student's t-test for independent samples and Mann–Whitney U-test to verify the significance of intergroup differences (p < 0.05). Results. On the indicator of “priority of moral assessment over formal law,” the average score was 4.6 ± 0.3 for authoritative and 4.7 ± 0.2 for non-authoritative participants (differences are insignificant, p > 0.05). The indicator of “trust in formal procedural guarantees” showed significant differences: 3.1 ± 0.4 for authoritative versus 4.2 ± 0.3 for non-authoritative (p < 0.01). A significant correlation
was also found between religious affiliation and propensity for communal solidarity (r = 0.67; p < 0.05). At the same time, general archetypal ideas about law and justice remain dominant for all groups. Conclusions. The unity of value foundations of legal consciousness (ethical priority concept and priority of moral justice) while maintaining group differences in relation to formal institutions confirms the archetypal structure of the Russian legal mentality as a factor integrating the legal consciousness of various social groups.