The Content of Recovering and Compensating the Harm Caused by the Crime under the Legislation of the Russian Federation and Germany

The paper examines the concept of recovery of harm caused by the crime under Russian law in comparison with the concept of compensation for harm under German law. The results of the comparative legal study represent characteristics of the legal regulation and disclosure of the content of recovery and compensation for harm caused by a crime under the legislation of the Russian Federation and Germany, as well as the problems related to restrictions associated with compensation of harm in a narrow sense and recovery of harm under German Law. In Germany, the law provides for the legal institution of compensation of harm to the injured person by the person who committed a criminal act, which envisages its comprehensive legal regulation in specific provisions of criminal and criminal procedure laws. Legal regulation of recovery of harm in the Russian Federation is still unsettled due to the fact that recovery of harm is a mandatory element of various legal institutions (for example, termination of the criminal case due to active repentance, reconciliation of the parties, imposition of a judicial fine or circumstances mitigating the sentence, etc.). To determine the content of the harm caused by the crime, it is necessary to refer not only to the text of the law, but also to the legal acts of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation with due regard to the article defining the contents of recovery of harm caused by the crime. Under German law, compensation for the injured person by a person who committed a criminal act is used in two senses: narrow and broad ones, including recovery. The paper presents the criteria that allow us to limit these forms of response to the crime committed, as well as the content of compensation for harm in a broad sense.

1. Gavrilov EV, Ploshkina YaM. . Zaglazhivanie vreda delovoy reputatsii yuridicheskogo litsa pri primirenii storon v ugolovnom protsesse [Mitigating harm to business reputation of legal entity in reconciliation of parties in criminal proceedings]. Bulletin of Omsk University. Series: Law. 2017;4(53):88-93 (In Russ.).

2. Golovnenkov PV. Ugolovnoe ulozhenie (Ugolovnyy kodeks) Federativnoy Respubliki Germaniya : nauchnoprakticheskiy kommentariy i perevod teksta zakona [Criminal Code (Criminal Code) of the Federal Republic of Germany: scientific and practical commentary and translation of the text of the law]. 2nd edition. Moscow: Prospekt Publ.; 2016 (In Russ.).

3. Ryzhakov AP. Commentary to the Federal Law of July 3, 2016 No. 323-FZ “On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on Improvement of Grounds and Procedure of exemption from criminal liability”. LRS "ConsultantPlus”; 2016. (In Russ.).

4. Buhlmann SE. Die Berücksichtigung des Täter-Opfer-Ausgleichs als Verfahrensgrundsatz. Passau; 2004.

5. Kaspar J, Weiler E, Schlickum G. Der Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich. Recht. Methodik. Falldokumentation. München; 2014.

6. NomosKommentar Strafgesetzbuch. Hrsg. U. Kindhäuser U. Neumann H-U. Paeffgen. Band 1. 5 Auflage. BadenBaden; 2017.

7. Strafgesetzbuch mit Nebengesetzen. Hrsg. T. Fischer. 66. Auflage. München; 2019.

8. Strafgesetzbuch. Leipziger Kommentar. Hrsg. HW Laufhütte, RR Saan, K Tiedemann. Band 2. 12. Auflage. Berlin; 2019.