Liability for environmental crimes in the non bis in idem principle context

¹ Academy of the Federal penitentiary service of Russian Federation, 1 Sennaya str., Ryazan, 390000, Russia
² Vladimir Law Institute of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, 67, Bolshaya Nizhegorodskaya str., 600020, Vladimir, Russia
³ Amur State University, 21, Ignatievskoe highway, Blagoveshchensk, 675027, Russia

^* Corresponding author: kornei_lam@mail.ru

Abstract

In light of the social need for the humanization of criminal policy, annually confirmed by the supreme authorities of the state, the specialized literature has updated the topic related to the prohibition of double jeopardy (it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction and against multiple punishments for the same offense). This issue is analyzed by researchers in the context of the «non bis in idem» principle, which has received regulation both in the norms of national and international law. An analysis of the law enforcement practice of the judiciary in considering criminal cases on the fact of violation of public relations in the field of environmental protection (Chapter 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) indicates the permissibility of double, and in some cases triple, intersectoral liability of the perpetrator of crimes. It seems that the legitimacy and the possibility of deprivation and legal restrictions in relation to citizens have been found guilty of committing a crime and who have served the sentence imposed by the court in full does not correspond to the principle of “non bis in idem”, which actualizes the chosen research topic.