Mandatory work (administrative penalty)

Features of appointment

Mandatory work appointed by the judge . Mandatory work is established for a period of 20 to 200 hours and served no more than four hours a day.

Mandatory work does not apply to pregnant women, women with children under three years of age, persons with disabilities of groups I and II, military personnel , citizens called up for military training , as well as officers with special ranks of the internal affairs bodies, bodies and institutions of the criminal executive system, the State Fire Service, drug and psychotropic substances control authorities and customs authorities.

Constitutional legal status

Compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the norms of international law of the introduction of compulsory works as an administrative punishment was considered by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 14, 2013 No. 4-P “On the case of verifying the constitutionality of the Federal Law“ On Amendments to the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses and the Federal Law “On Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Processions and Pickets” ” with the request of a group of deputies of the State Duma and the complaint of citizen E. V. Savenko ”the following decision was made ^[2] :

Recognize the interrelated provisions of clauses 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Article 1 of the Federal Law "On Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law" On Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Processions and Pickets ", providing for mandatory work as a type administrative punishment for violations related to the organization or holding of meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions and pickets or the organization of mass simultaneous stay and (or) movement of citizens in public places that caused a disturbance of public order:

• to the extent that they are not related to the invasion of the property rights of citizens, do not imply depriving the offender of freedom and are not an unacceptable method of forced labor, consistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation;
• to the extent that, in the system of current legal regulation, the appointment of this type of administrative punishment is allowed not only in the case of harm to the health of citizens, property of individuals or legal entities or other similar consequences, but also in the case of only one formal violation of the established procedure for organizing or conducting public events that do not comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, its articles 1 (Part 1), 19 (Part 1), 31, 37 (Part 2) and 55 (Part 3).

The federal legislator should, on the basis of the requirements of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and taking into account the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, expressed, inter alia, in this Resolution, to make the necessary changes to the legal regulation of administrative punishment in the form of mandatory work.

Until appropriate amendments are made to the legal regulation, mandatory work may be applied as an administrative penalty for administrative offenses provided for in Articles 20.2, 20.2.2 and 20.18 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation Administrative Code, if they resulted in damage to the health of citizens, property of individuals or legal entities, or other similar offenses. consequences.

Thus, although in general the Constitutional Court recognized that the use of compulsory works as an administrative punishment does not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the norms of international law, they limited its scope: it can be imposed only for offenses related to the infliction of actual physical or material damage .

In the opinion of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation , the use of compulsory work as an administrative punishment does not in itself contradict international acts, such as Convention No. 29 of the International Labor Organization “Concerning Forced or Compulsory Labor” ^[3] and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (in the interpretation of ECHR rulings dated 07/07/2011 in the Stummer case against Austria ^[4] ). However, S. E. Channov describes the interpretation given by the Constitutional Court as “not convincing enough” in terms of compliance with ILO Convention No. 29 and “extremely doubtful” in terms of compliance with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ^[5] .

An even more rigid position is expressed by I. A. Klepitsky, who points out that it is only possible to comply with international legal prohibitions in the assignment of socially useful works (even in criminal law) subject to the prior voluntary consent of the defendant to carry them out (for example, as an alternative application of a more severe type of punishment). He notes that “other ways to comply with the prohibitions of the Convention and at the same time to use socially useful works that are an effective alternative to deprivation of liberty are not known to European legislation and legal practice” ^[6] .