The article is devoted to one of the current areas of legal science related to the problems
of interpretation the norms of General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The interpretation of legal norms is the activity of state bodies, non-governmental
organizations and individuals to clarify and explain the meaning of legal norms embedded
by the legislator in them and the actual content of the legal provisions (regulations,
definitions) contained in them in order to implement them correctly and improve the
effectiveness of legal regulation public relations.
The interpretation of legal norms is a complex volitional process aimed at establishing
the exact meaning of the rule of law. This process consists of two elements: 1) the
interpreter (interpreter) clarifies the content of the legal norm for himself; 2) then in order
to establish its equal understanding and application it clarifies the meaning of the legal
prescription to all interested parties.
The first part of this activity – clarification – characterizes the epistemological nature
of interpretation aimed at the knowledge of law. Understanding acts as a thought process
taking place in the mind of the subject applying the rule of law. The explanation is the
second part of a unified process of interpretation the law addressed to other parties
to a relationship. It is carried out by the competent authorities and persons in order to
eliminate ambiguities in understanding the content of the norm and thus ensure its correct
application to the circumstances for which it is aimed.
Subjects of interpretation may be public authorities, officials, organizations,
enterprises, institutions, individuals. The objects of interpretation are laws and regulations.
Legal interpretation is an activity that from a practical point of view is connected
with the completion of the regulation of life relations by law. Legal norms as a result of
interpretation become ready for implementation, practical implementation.
The presented scientific article examines the interpretations given by the highest
judicial instance, which showed that in some cases they contain contradictions that violate
the legal and technical rules. Examples of the interpretation of criminal court decisions
of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are given, and author’s
editions are proposed.
Associate Professor of the Department of Civil Law and Process of the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, PhD. in Law.
, e-mail email@example.com
1. Brilliantov A. V., YAni P. S. Primenenie norm o souchastii: analogiya ili tolkovanie? [Application of norms of complicity:
analogy or interpretation?]. Zakonnost’ – Legality. 2013. Iss. 6. Pp. 32–33. (In Russ.).
2. Vengerov A. B. O precedente tolkovaniya pravovoj normy [About the precedent of interpretation of the legal norm].
Uchenye zapiski Vsesoyuz. nauch.-issledovat. in-ta sovet. zakonodatel’stva – Scientific notes of the All-Union Scientific
Research Institute of Soviet legislation. 1996. Iss. 6. Pp. 3–19. (In Russ.).
3. Gavrilov D. A. Pravoprimenitel’noe tolkovanie : dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Law enforcement interpretation : the diss. ...
PhD. in Law]. Volgograd, 2000. (In Russ.).
4. Kruglikov L. L., Zuev YU. G. Novoe postanovlenie рlenuma po delam o hishcheniyah: udachi i proschety [New Plenum
Resolution on theft cases: successes and miscounts]. Aktual’nye problemy differenciacii otvetstvennosti i zakonodatel’naya
tekhnika v ugolovnom prave i processe : sb. nauch. st. / pod red. L. L. Kruglikova – Actual problems of differentiation of
responsibility and legislative technique in criminal law and process : collection of scientific articles : ed. by L. L. Kruglikov.
Yaroslavl, 2003. Pp. 3–19. (In Russ.).
5. Kuznecov A. P., Sitnikova M. L., Stepanov M. V. Tolkovanie Plenumom Verhovnogo Suda RF ugolovnogo zakonodatel’stva
ob otvetstvennosti za hishcheniya [Interpretation by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of criminal
legislation on responsibility for theft]. Ros. sud’ya – Russian judge. 2006. Iss. 2. Pp. 12–15. (In Russ.).
6. Lopashenko N. A. Novoe postanovlenie Plenuma Verhovnogo Suda RF po hishcheniyam [New Decree of the Plenum of
the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on theft]. Zakonnost’ – Legality. 2003. Iss. 3. Pp. 31–35. (In Russ.).
7. Oshlykova E. Predmet dokazyvaniya po ugolovnym delam o nezakonnom sbyte narkoticheskih sredstv [Proof in criminal
cases of illegal sale of drugs]. Ugolov. pravo – Criminal Law. 2010. Iss. 1. Pp. 25–29. (In Russ.).
8. Pantyuhina I. V. Spornye voprosy kvalifikacii prestuplenij po priznakam ih okonchennosti [The controversial issues of
qualifying crimes on the basis of their finality]. YUrid. nauka – Legal science. 2011. Iss. 2. Pp. 52–56. (In Russ.).
9. Prohorova M. L., Klyuev A. A. Ugolovno-pravovaya politika Rossijskoj Federacii v sfere protivodejstviya narkotizmu i
sudebnaya praktika [Criminal and legal policy of the Russian Federation in the field of combating narcotism and judicial
practice]. Ugolovnaya politika Rossijskoj Federacii v sfere protivodejstviya narkotizacii obshchestva : materialy mezhdunar.
nauch.-prakt. konf., posv. 130-letiyu Belgorod. gos. un-ta / otv. red. E. E. Tonkov – Criminal policy of the Russian Federation
in the field of counteracting the drug addiction of society : materials of the international scientific and practical conference
dedicated to the 130th anniversary of Belgorod State University : ed. by E. E. Tonkov. Belgorod, 2006. Pp. 23–24. (In Russ.).
10. Redin M. Voprosy kvalifikacii prestuplenij, svyazannyh s nezakonnym oborotom narkotikov, po stepeni ih zavershennosti
[Issues of qualification of crimes related to drug trafficking, by the degree of their completion]. Ugolov. pravo – Criminal law.
2007. Iss. 2. Pp. 64–74. (In Russ.).
11. Sablina M. A. Razgranichenie rolej ispolnitelya i posobnika: zakon i pravoprimenenie [Differentiation of the roles of the
performer and the accomplice: law and enforcement]. Pravo. ZHurn. Vyssh. shkoly ekonomiki – Right. Journal of Higher
School of Economics. 2015. Iss. 1. Pp. 91–104. (In Russ.).
12. Tonkov V. E. Postanovlenie Plenuma Verhovnogo Suda RF «O sudebnoj praktike po delam o prestupleniyah, svyazannyh
s narkoticheskimi sredstvami, psihotropnymi, sil’nodejstvuyushchimi i yadovitymi veshchestvami»: nekotorye osobennosti
[Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation «On Judicial Practice in Cases of Crimes Related
to Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic, Potent and Poisonous Substances»: Some Features]. Ros. sud’ya – Russian judge. 2011.
Iss. 11. Pp. 7–10. (In Russ.).