Hate crimes, the hate speech phenomenon, practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Russian approach to determining extremist activity

The subject of the research is criminal law rules that provide for criminal liability for hate crimes and the judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on hate crimes.

The purpose of the article is to confirm or refute the hypothesis that a unified approach to the definition of the legal concept of hate speech and the limits of its application is necessary. This approach must be based on the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights

The research methodology includes analysis and interpretation of court decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as a dialectical approach to the analysis of various points of view to the definition of extremist activity.The main results and scope of their application. The relevance of the research proposed for publication is due to the lack of uniform practice of applying the articles of the Russian Criminal Code on so-called "hate crimes" by Russian courts and the presence of significant contradictions in the positions of the European Court of Human Rights and the state position of the Russian Federation in defining key concepts in this area that are extremely important for criminal procedure and administrative activities. The paper considers scientific and practical attempts to define "hate crimes" in the global and regional human rights systems, basic recommendations of the UN on countering such crimes, and offers an interpretation of the term hate speech in relation to the related criminological concept of hate crime. The text provides statistical data describing the level of such crime and the practice of the ECHR in this area, mentions a list of criteria according to which" hate crimes " can be motivated by language differences, gender, sexual orientation and other characteristics, as well as criteria that distinguish hate speech from freedom of expression, and suggests decriminalization of part 1 of article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code.

Conclusions. It is necessary to unify the concepts of "hate crimes" (and the practice of their application) in the direction of, in particular, reducing the number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights against the Russian Federation and increasing the level of legal protection of both the individual citizen of the Russian Federation and freedom of speech and expression.

Extremist activity, public appeals, hate speech, guarantees of rights and freedoms, freedom of speech, criminal prosecution, European Court of Human Rights

1. Weber E. Handbook on hate speech. Warsaw, OSCE / ODIHR, 2009. 94 p.

2. Babichenko, K.N. Discrimination and hate crimes: qualification and warning. Cand. Diss. Thesis. St. Petersburg, 2005. 198 p.

3. Gilinsky, Ya. I. Hate Crimes: Theory, History, Reality. Index. Censorship Dossier. 2007. No. 25. pp. 3-11.

4. Minochkina, Ya.I. Hate speech: opening the Pandora's box. Pretsedenty Evropeiskogo suda po pravam cheloveka = Precedents of the European Court of Human Rights. 2016. No. 10. pp. 4-14.

5. Galakhova, A.V. Evaluation signs in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: scientific and judicial interpretation. Moscow: Norma, 2014. 736 p.

6. Antokolsky A.A. Human rights and the Internet. The practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2019.T. 14. No. 2. pp. 159-185.

7. Mikheenkova M.A. Some aspects of the impact of the European Court of Human Rights on the development of Russian evidence law. Sud'ya = Judge. - 2017. No. 2. pp. 39-44.

8. Sheifer S.A. Evidence and evidence in criminal cases. Moscow: Norma, 2014. 414 p.

9. Ponkin I.V. Conclusion on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of July 17, 2018 in the case of Maria Alekhina and Others v. Russia. State and religion: information and analytical portal [electronic resource] - Access mode: URL: http://www.state-religion.ru/files/Ponkin_17-09-2018.pdf (Date of access: 17.10.2019)

10. Budylin S.A. Like - repost - prison. Or not already? Zakon.ru [electronic resource]. Access mode: URL: https://zakon.ru/blog/2018/10/05/lajk__repost__tyurma_%C2%A0ili_uzhe_net (Date of access: 10.17.2019)

11. Kuznetsova N.F. Problems of qualification of crimes. Moscow, Gorodets, 2007. 420 p.

12. Prozumentov L.M. The grounds for criminalization (decriminalization) of acts. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of Tomsk State University, 2014, no. 4, pp. 175-185.

13. Radoshnova N.V. Criminalization (decriminalization) in the criminal law of Russia. Cand. Diss. Thesis. Saratov, 2015.198 p.

14. Internet users leave the table. Kommersant. 2019. Jan 18.

15. Kurushin M.Yu. The submarine Kursk: birth, life, version of death. Moscow, AST Publ., 2009. 400 p.

16. Poezdzhalov V.V., Shakhmaev M.M. Slander: controversial issues of differentiation of criminal liability and individualization of punishment. Yuridicheskaya nauka i pravookhranitel'naya praktika = Jurisprudence and law enforcement practice, 2015, no. 2, pp. 46-53.

17. Khmelevskiy S.S. Slander: problems of law enforcement practice. Sotsial'no-politicheskie nauki = Socio-political sciences, 2013, no. 1, pp. 134-139.

18. Taranenko A.S. Slander: the validity of the boundaries of the object of criminal law protection. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University, 2015, no. 4, pp. 163-167.

19. World Press Freedom Rating. Humanitarian Technologies: Analytical Portal [electronic resource]. Access Mode: URL: https://gtmarket.ru/ratings/worldwide-press-freedom-index/info (Date of access: 17.10.2019)

20. Ershov Yu.M. Media in the political perspective of Russia. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of Tomsk State University, 2008, no. 1, pp. 77-86.