Limits of Autonomy in Criminal Law

The article raises a question about the autonomy of criminal law. Various aspects of the doctrinal understanding of the limits of criminal law and its scope in relation to the positive branches of legislation are considered. The author in the context of the existence of the concept of autonomy (independence) of criminal law regulation questions the limits of judicial interpretation. In this context, antagonistic views on the limits of the mechanism of criminal law regulation are considered. Particular attention is given to the fundamental premise that the functional autonomy of criminal law generates not only a protective component, but also a regulatory function, and the law enforcement officer has the right to decide a particular case, based on concepts borrowed from other branches of law, but it can give them a different meaning and significance than the one they are endowed with in these positive (regulating specific social relations) sectors. The author comes to the conclusion that an autonomous interpretation of foreign industry features and concepts of regulatory legislation is scarcely credible. If a criminal law is to protect economic relations arising from the static and dynamic nature of objects of civil rights and their turnover from criminal encroachments, its subordination to the provisions of regulatory legislation is inevitable. The determinism here should be manifested precisely in accordance with the description of the signs of the crime to the provisions of regulatory norms. As a result, the autonomy of criminal law may create uncertainty about the content of the rule of law itself and allow for unlimited discretion in its enforcement. In this formulation of the issue, the autonomy of criminal law regulation is replaced by a very different approach — the autonomy of the judicial interpretation of criminal law. However, in this case there is a substitution of concepts, and the autonomy of criminal law is associated not so much with the regulatory function as with the law enforcement of criminal law.

1. Zhalinskiy A. E. O sootnoshenii ugolovnogo i grazhdanskogo prava v sfere ekonomiki [On the relationship of criminal and civil law in the field of economy]. Gosudarstvo ipravo [State and law]. 1999. No. 12. Pp. 47—52.

2. Kamynin I. Sootnoshenie norm grazhdanskogo i ugolovnogo zakonodatelstva [The ratio of the norms of the civil and criminal law]. Ugolovnoe pravo [Criminal law]. 2002. No. 2. P. 118—119.

3. Kommentariy k postanovleniyam plenuma verkhovnogo suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii po ugolovnym delam. 3-e izd., per. i dop. [Commentary on the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on criminal cases. 3-e ed. Rev. and suupl.]. Edited by V. M. Lebedev. Legal reference system "Konsultant Plus:" [Electronic resource]. «KonsultantPlus».

4. Mikheenkova M. A. Printsip avtonomii ugolovnogo prava i protsessa v klassicheskoy kontinentalnoy doktrine [The principle of autonomy of criminal law and procedure in the classical continental doctrine]. Zakon [Law]. 2013. No. 8. Pp. 73—78.

5. Payvin D. M. Vliyanie norm grazhdanskogo zakonodatelstva na kvalifikatsiyu prestupleniy v sfere ekonomicheskoy deyatelnosti: avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk [The Influence of the norms of civil law on the qualification of crimes in the field of economic activity : Abstract of the PhD Thesis]. Yekaterinburg. 2005. 26 p.

6. Pikurov N. I. Ugolovnoe pravo vsisteme mezhotraslevykh svyazey [Criminal law in the system of intersectoral relations]. Volgograd : VUI of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia, 1998. 220 p.

7. Rarog A. I. Pravovoe znachenie razyasneniy plenuma verkhovnogo suda RF [Legal significance of the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court]. Gosudarstvo i pravo [State and law]. 2001. No. 2. Pp. 51—57.

8. Khilyuta V. V. Predely tolkovaniya vygody imushchestvennogo kharaktera kak predmeta vzyatochnichestva [Limits of interpretation of benefit of property character as a subject of bribery]. Nauchnyy vestnik Omskoy kademii MVD Rossii [Scientific Bulletin of Omsk Academy of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia]. 2017. No. 4. P. 13—19.

9. Khilyuta V. V. Predmet prestupleniya v sudebnoy praktike po delam o vymogatelstve [The subject of the crime in judicial practice in cases of extortion]. Biblioteka ugolovnogo prava i kriminologii [Library of criminal law and criminology]. 2017. No. 5. Pp. 75—81.

10. Khilyuta V. V. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost za khishcheniya s ispolzovaniem kompyuternoy tekhniki [Criminal liability for theft using computer equipment]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava [Journal of Russian law]. 2014. No. 3. Pp. 60—69.

11. Khilyuta V. V. Khishchenie s ispolzovaniem kompyuternoy tekhniki ili kompyuternoe moshennichestvo? [Computer theft or computer fraud?]. Biblioteka kriminalista [Criminalist library]. 2013. No. 5. Pp. 55—65.

12. Shishko I. V. Ekonomicheskie pravonarusheniya [Economic offenses]. St. Petersburg: Yuridichesskiy Tsentr- Press Publ., 2004. 307 p.

13. Yani P. S. Voprosy tolkovaniya ugolovnogo zakona [Questions of interpretation of the criminal law]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Pravo [Moscow University Bulletin. Law]. 2012. No. 4. Pp. 55—75.

14. Yani P. S. Ustranenie probelov ugolovno-pravovogo regulirovaniya resheniyami Verkhovnogo suda [Elimination of gaps in criminal law regulation by decisions of the Supreme Court]. Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatelstve [Gaps in Russian legislation]. 2008. No. 1. Pp. 258-259.