A government commission rejected a proposal to increase fines for destroying a Russian passport and amendments to combat signs in a foreign language

The Government Commission on Legislative Activities on Monday approved a large package of responses to parliamentary and senatorial initiatives. Among the documents that received negative conclusions were several projects of deputies from United Russia. In particular, Pyotr Tolstoy’s idea to punish with increased fines for the public destruction of a Russian passport did not find support, and Elena Yampolskaya’s amendments on the fight against signs and labels in a foreign language were proposed to be “significantly modified.”

Among the projects that the government commission refused to support, there are traditionally many social-populist initiatives from the Duma opposition. For example, this list included amendments by the leader of A Just Russia – For Truth, Sergei Mironov, on the gradual reduction from 80 to 75 years of age, the achievement of which gives the right to an increased pension, Sergei Leonov (LDPR) on the introduction of a one-time benefit for women who gave birth a child under 25 years of age, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats Leonid Slutsky – on establishing a shortened working day for mothers of two or more children.

At the same time, the commission did not support several initiatives of authoritative United Russia members. Thus, Deputy Speaker of the State Duma Pyotr Tolstoy proposed increasing the fine for deliberate destruction or damage to a passport from the current 100–300 rubles. up to 1 thousand rubles, and if this act was committed publicly, including using the Internet, up to 10–30 thousand rubles. The explanatory note to the project states that the proposed changes are caused by increasing reports of citizens who are demonstratively destroying Russian passports. However, the commission in its review notes that amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO) should be based on an analysis of data from law enforcement practice and statistical information “indicating the prevalence and increase in the number of relevant offenses,” while the presented materials do not contain such information. In addition, actions “expressed in the deliberate public, demonstrative destruction of the passport of a citizen of the Russian Federation with the aim of inciting hatred or hostility towards Russian citizens and the country as a whole” can be qualified under Art. 20.31 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of human dignity), which provides for “significantly more stringent measures of administrative liability” (fine up to 20 thousand rubles), the commission indicates, summarizing that “the government of the Russian Federation does not support the bill as presented “

Another project, introduced by United Russia members—chairmen of three Duma committees Elena Yampolskaya (on culture), Maxim Topilin (on economic policy) and Sergei Pakhomov (on construction)—was not rejected by the government, but was recognized as needing “significant improvement.” It talks about limiting the use of foreign words on product labels, signs, as well as when posting information about promotions and sales. In its response, the legal commission refers to Art. 1473 of the Civil Code, according to which a legal entity has the right to have “one full company name and (or) one abbreviated name in any language of the peoples of the Russian Federation and (or) a foreign language.” In addition, the draft does not contain transitional provisions regarding the legal consequences of the names of residential complexes in a foreign language, which will be used by developers for advertising purposes on the day the law comes into force, and legal uncertainty in this matter will create financial and reputational risks for developers, they fear in government.

The Cabinet of Ministers recognized the amendments to the law “On the Status of Military Personnel” by senators Inna Svyatenko, Irina Rukavishnikova and United Russia deputy Dmitry Vyatkin as relevant, but requiring improvement. The authors proposed extending the benefits available to military children to those who have already reached the age of 18 and graduated from high school, but have not yet begun their studies at a university (before September 1 of the year of graduation). As noted in the review, the draft standards do not apply to children of military personnel who died or went missing while on duty, which “contradicts the proposed approach.” Moreover, in violation of Art. 83 of the Budget Code does not determine the sources of fulfillment of new expenditure obligations.

But the joint initiative of Duma deputy Rafael Mardanshin and the State Assembly of Bashkiria was rejected by the commission without reservations. The authors proposed amendments to the Criminal Code (CC) providing for the deferment of serving sentences (including life sentences) for persons who voluntarily wished to participate in the SVO. As emphasized in the review of the legal commission, the draft does not take into account that deferment of punishment is a “complex legal institution” that involves introducing corresponding changes to other laws, including in the field of defense. At the same time, for persons sentenced to life imprisonment, the possibility of replacing it with a more lenient form of punishment “has not been established.” The commission also recalls the recently adopted amendments to the Criminal Code, which regulate the issues of exemption from criminal liability of persons called up for military service upon mobilization or in wartime, and therefore “the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code are not required.”

Finally, United Russia deputies Viktor Vodolatsky and Alexey Ezubov prepared a bill on involving Cossacks in the protection of public order and granting them the right to use military small arms. The review states that the Cossacks already have the opportunity to guard public order by finding employment in specialized state unitary enterprises. At the same time, the commission again appeals to the Budget Code, which requires indicating the sources of fulfillment of new expenditure obligations.

“The government’s negative response to the bills of the United Russia deputies is not a verdict, but a reason to be better prepared in terms of coordination with the relevant ministries that are preparing the review drafts,” believes Pavel Sklyanchuk, a member of the Russian Association of Public Relations. “If not it turns out to find mutual understanding, that is, the option of trying to reach an agreement on the site of the White House apparatus in the person of Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Grigorenko. Documents signed by him increasingly use soft wording of the refusal, such as “needs significant improvement” or “seems redundant.” On the other hand, the political status of deputies does not always automatically mean support for an initiative, the expert emphasizes: “Legal examination does not carry “anything personal,” while the projects of deputies or senators from United Russia are most often supported not because of their party affiliation, but thanks to mechanisms for prior approval through personal contacts.”

Ksenia Veretennikova