Binding Nature of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Explanations in Criminal Law

The question of the legal nature and the binding nature of explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation remains debatable in the literature. When considering criminal cases, the courts do not always follow the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court. It seems that the explanations of the Supreme Court, while not being a source of criminal law, are nevertheless binding on courts and officials applying the norms of criminal law. This is a general rule, to which there are exceptions. First, there are erroneous explanations of the Supreme Court, which are not based on the established judicial practice and are not supported by it. Second, there are outdated explanations of the Supreme Court that do not meet modern legal realities. Third, there are explanations of the Supreme Court, which, in relation to a particular situation, require an expansive or restrictive interpretation. In these three situations, the Supreme Court’s explanations do not bind the law enforcement officer. The binding nature of the Supreme Court’s explanations is determined by the value of the law as such. Questions of law require a uniform resolution. An alternative to a uniform interpretation of the law is arbitrary administration. Arbitrary administration is not within the competence of the judge. There is no case law in Russia. The works of legal scholars in modern Russia also cannot satisfy the need for a uniform interpretation of the law. The significance of the explanations of the Supreme Court determines the high requirements for their quality. The Supreme Court’s explanations should not directly contradict the law. The Supreme Court’s explanations should not change unless there is an urgent need to do so. The rule nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, being an achievement of legal culture, binds the Supreme Court. By clarifying the practice of applying the law, the Supreme Court forms and preserves judicial doctrine, thereby providing legal certainty.

1. Aristotle. Politika. Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh [Politics. Essays in four volumes]. Moscow; 1984. Vol. 4. (In Russ.).

2. Beccaria Ch. O prestupleniyakh i nakazaniyakh [About crimes and punishments]. Moscow; 1995. (In Russ.).

3. Kachalov VI. Otmena prinuditelnykh mer vospitatelnogo vozdeystviya v otnoshenii nesovershennoletnikh: ugolovno-protsessualnyy aspekt [Termination of Coercive Measures of Educational Impact in Relation to Minors: A Criminal Procedure Aspect]. Lex russica. 2017;(8):217-223. (In Russ.).

4. Klepitskiy IA. Krazha beznalichnykh deneg: prostoy otvet na prostoy vopros [Theft of cashless money: A simple answer to a simple question]. Ugolovnoe pravo [Criminal Law]. 2020;5:78-87. (In Russ.).

5. Lebedev VM, editor. Kommentariy k Ugolovnomu kodeksu Rossiyskoy Federatsii: v 4 t. [Commentary to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: In 4 vols]. Osobennaya chast [Special part]. Sec. VII-VIII. Moscow; 2020. (In Russ.).

6. Lenin VI. Rech pered agitatorami, posylaemymi v provintsiyu 23 yanvarya (5 fevralya) 1918 g. [Speech to agitators sent to the provinces on January 23 (February 5), 1918]. PSS. Vol. 35. (In Russ.)

7. Mushchinina MM. O nemetskikh kommentariyakh kak tipe teksta [German Commentaries as a Text Type]. Yurislingvistika [Legal Linguistics]. 2017;6:3-18. (In Russ.)

8. Skoblikov PA. Pozitsii Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda RF po voprosam naznacheniya nakazaniya i ispolneniya prigovora: analiz ryada polozheniy [Positions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on sentencing and execution: analysis of a number of provisions]. Gosudarstvo i Pravo [State and Law]. 2020;12:76-84. (In Russ.)

9. Tikhonravov EYu. Printsip nullum crimen sine lege v istorii otechestvennogo ugolovnogo prava [The principle of nullum crimen sine lege in the history of Russian criminal law]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki [Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences]. 2017;38:548-557. (In Russ.).

10. Chashin AN. Sudebnaya doktrina kak istochnik (forma) prava [Judicial doctrine as a source (form) of law]. Evraziyskaya advokatura [Eurasian Advocacy]. 2016;5:70-78. (In Russ.).

11. Shcherbakov AD. Narkotiki v Rossii i SSh [Drugs in Russia and the USA]. Moscow; 2016. (In Russ.).

12. Feuerbach A. Lehrbuch des gemeinen in Deutschland geltenden Peinlichen Rechts. Giessen; 1801. (In Germ.).

13. Fischer T. Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze. München: C. H. Beck; 2021. (In Germ.).

14. Hall J. Nulla Poena Sine Lege. The Yale Law Journal. 1937;47(2):165-193. (In Eng.).

15. Rassat M-L. Droit pénal spécial. Paris; 2018. (In Fr.).

16. Staudingers J. von. Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch mit Einführungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen. Buch 3, Sachenrecht § 925–984. hrsg. K. H. Gursky. Berlin; 2011. (In Germ.).