Hooliganism on the Internet and in real life. The Supreme Court has updated its guidance for law enforcement.

Igor Lyubovitsky, Supreme COURT Judge: Hooliganism is one of the most dangerous and widespread crimes against public order and morality. Such actions often lead to the commission of more serious crimes. At the end of June, a meeting of the Plenum of the Supreme Court was held in MINSK, where an updated resolution on judicial practice in hooliganism cases was adopted. In an interview with BELTA, Supreme Court Judge Igor Lyubovitsky explained the distinction between criminal and petty hooliganism and the punishment faced by those who committed the crime with particular cynicism.
- The Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court "On Judicial Practice in Criminal Cases of Hooliganism," which was previously in effect, was adopted on March 24, 2005. That is, more than 20 years ago. Has it become irrelevant?
- The clarifications provided in the resolution adopted on March 24, 2005, laid the foundation for judicial practice and remain relevant today. This is also evidenced by the fact that Article 339 of the Criminal Code, which establishes liability for hooliganism, has not been significantly amended since 2005.
However, society and technological progress do not stand still. High technology, the Internet, digitalization, and artificial intelligence are increasingly permeating our lives . This has given rise to new tasks and challenges in maintaining public order—one of the elements of public safety.
These factors have drawn attention to this category of cases and necessitated the consideration of the plenum resolution and the need to update it.
- What conclusions did the Supreme Court draw after analyzing judicial practice? What do the statistics indicate?
- Over the past four years—the period analyzed in preparation for the plenum—approximately 2,000 people have been convicted of hooliganism annually. In 2004, when the first resolution on this issue was developed and adopted, 7,000 people were convicted. A significant decrease in the number of people convicted of hooliganism is evident.
This positive trend, in my opinion, is linked to the preventative work being carried out by both the internal affairs agencies and other government bodies. The cultural and legal literacy of our population is also improving. Prevention of drunkenness and antisocial behavior in general plays a role.
Speaking of modern hooligans, what is their social profile?
The overwhelming majority of those convicted (92.4%) were men . Juveniles commit 10% of all hooliganism.
The crimes were committed mainly by people aged 18 to 24 (20.5%) and 30 to 49 (45.9%), who had received basic, secondary (32.8%) or secondary specialized, vocational and technical education (60.7%), equally employed and unemployed, almost a third of them had minor children dependent on them.
41% of those convicted had previous convictions. 76% committed hooliganism while in a state ofALCOHOL intoxication .
Hooliganism was primarily committed in cities – 77.5%. Streets (courtyards) were the most common locations – 71.4%. Public places such as shopping centers (stores), cafes (restaurants) – 5% of cases, highways – 4%, and squares (parks) – 3% – were also mentioned in the materials.
- Explain what is meant by the term "hooliganism."
- In the everyday sense, hooliganism is a demonstration of disrespect for others, bordering on aggression and vandalism, preventing people from leading a peaceful life. The Criminal Code defines hooliganism as: intentional actions that grossly violate public order and express obvious disrespect for society, accompanied by the use of violence or the threat of its use or the destruction of or damage to someone else's property, or characterized by exceptional cynicism in their content.
Despite the apparent simplicity of the concept of "hooliganism," these terms are evaluative. Therefore, law enforcement officers sometimes face difficulties in qualifying hooliganism and distinguishing it from other crimes.
In its revised resolution, the Plenum of the Supreme Court paid particular attention to identifying all the characteristics of hooliganism and drew attention to the circumstances that must be clarified for the proper resolution of cases.
- What types of hooliganism are provided for by criminal law, and how do they differ?
- I have defined the concept of simple hooliganism above. 60% of people who commit this crime are prosecuted for it. Criminal law also distinguishes between malicious and especially malicious hooliganism. Thus, malicious hooliganism is considered to be repeated. For example, a person commits hooliganism after being convicted of a similar offense. Such a characteristic as "committed by a group of persons" also applies to malicious hooliganism. These same actions may involve resisting the person who is stopping the hooligan actions. Both police officers and citizens may stop illegal actions. Hooliganism that results in less serious bodily injury to the victim is also considered malicious.
The most dangerous type of hooliganism is particularly malicious. This refers to actions involving the use of weapons (firearms, bladed weapons) or other objects (sticks, batons, broken bottles) used as weapons to cause bodily injury. Hooliganism involving the use of explosives, explosive devices, or objects whose destructive effect is based on flammable substances (Molotov cocktails), or the threat of using such objects, is considered particularly malicious.
Regarding the forms and methods of committing hooliganism, there have been no changes. Most hooliganism still involves damaging or destroying property, using violence, or threatening to use it. Moreover, three-quarters of all hooliganism is committed while intoxicated.
The phrase "hooliganism committed with particular cynicism" often appears in court briefs. What is meant by this term?
It refers to the defendant's actions displaying a demonstrative and extremely disdainful attitude toward the fundamental moral values ​​of society. This is precisely how the concept of exceptional cynicism is described in the plenum's resolution. In simple terms, these are particularly brazen manifestations of hooliganism that go beyond the bounds of normal behavior.
Exceptional cynicism, for example, can include acts of shamelessness, mockery (derision) of minors, the elderly, pregnant women, or people in a vulnerable state, known to the defendant, as well as hooliganism during a public or natural disaster, and desecration of customs and traditions.
Particularly cynical actions were considered those of individuals who exposed themselves publicly, which is considered an act of shamelessness. In one such case, a defendant fired approximately 20 shots at minors using a gas-cylinder pistol. Such actions were deemed to constitute mockery of minors.
A special category of cases involves offensive actions against monuments and Victory Day memorials. One case in particular comes to mind, in which defendants engaged in a drifting accident on Victory Square in Minsk. Other offensive actions against this monument have also come under scrutiny. For example, offenders threw something into the Eternal Flame , slept nearby, or committed other actions that demonstrate obvious disrespect and disregard for the traditions and customs of Belarusian society.
A list of specific situations in which actions would be interpreted as particularly cynical is, of course, not prescribed due to the variability of behavior and the potential for cynicism. Again, this is a matter of judgment. In each such case, the court and preliminary investigation agency examine all the circumstances of the act committed.
- Does exceptional cynicism increase the severity of liability for hooliganism?
- In the previous version of the Criminal Code from 1999, exceptional cynicism was a characteristic of Part 2 of Article 339, meaning it carried increased penalties. Now, exceptional cynicism is a characteristic of simple hooliganism, along with violence, the threat of violence, or the destruction or damage of another's property.
How often do criminal cases of hooliganism committed using the Internet occur in judicial practice?
The internet is a unique environment, not fully associated with the concept of "public order," a violation of which must be present when committing hooliganism. However, when updating the Supreme Court Plenum's resolution, the drafters took into account the development of society's informational landscape. Therefore, the new version of the resolution enshrines the possibility of expressing blatant disrespect for society in the media or in information posted on the internet or other telecommunications networks.
However, this does not mean that any information posted online that expresses blatant disrespect for society will be punishable as criminal hooliganism. It is implied that only information that is exceptionally cynical in its content and, as a result of its posting in our non-information world, grossly violates public order, and these actions are committed with a hooligan motive, can be considered a crime.
What situations might these be?
The update of the plenum's resolution in this regard was prompted, among other things, by the discussion (not only in Belarus but also in neighboring countries) of what to do with people who post information online that clearly shows disrespect for society. This question was also raised with us. It was necessary to try to regulate online behavior and, perhaps, establish accountability.
By providing the appropriate clarification, the Plenum of the Supreme Court envisaged situations that could arise so that, should such actions occur, the perpetrators could be adequately and appropriately punished. Since this clarification from the plenum is new, there are no such precedents in judicial practice.
At the same time, it is clear that online hooliganism must meet the criteria for a criminal offense. For example, the information posted online must be clearly disrespectful to society, must be exceptionally cynical, and its posting in real life has resulted in a gross violation of public order (disruption of a public event, disruption of the work of institutions, organizations, etc.).
How do courts distinguish criminally punishable hooliganism from other crimes that result in damage or destruction of property? Specifically, from Article 341 of the Criminal Code (desecration of buildings and property) or Article 218 of the Criminal Code (intentional destruction or damage of another's property)?
Courts do have to resolve such situations. Clarification on this matter is provided in paragraph 19 of the plenary resolution. Thus, hooligan actions involving the destruction or damage of another's property must be distinguished from other crimes based on the presence of hooligan motives and the circumstances of the destruction or damage of property, indicating a gross violation of public order and a clear display of disrespect for society. Simply put, any act of hooliganism requires establishing a hooligan motive. That is, the individual must be motivated by a desire to disrupt public order and demonstrate a clear disrespect for society. This is crucial for qualifying hooligan actions.
Let's consider a typical situation. Neighbors have had a long-standing interpersonal conflict, and one of them, out of hostility or retaliation, breaks the other's fence. In this case, hooligan motive is clearly absent; the actions must be classified as simple destruction or damage to property. A similar situation would occur if property was damaged during a domestic or family dispute. There is also no hooligan motive, but rather a motive of personal animosity. Let me repeat: a hooligan motive is the primary criterion for distinguishing hooliganism from other crimes with similar consequences.
- What criteria distinguish criminally punishable hooliganism from petty hooliganism, which is subject to administrative liability? Explain what this distinction is.
- The differences between criminally punishable and petty hooliganism are provided in paragraph 2 of the resolution. Actions that grossly violate public order and express obvious disrespect for society are in themselves signs of petty hooliganism. These may include offensive harassment of citizens, grabbing their clothing, attempts to start a fight, disturbing the peace: loud shouting in public places, using obscene language, failing to respond to comments, demands to stop illegal actions, or relieving oneself in public places in the presence of others.
However, if these actions are accompanied by the use or threat of violence or the destruction or damage of another's property, or are exceptionally cynical in their content, they go beyond the scope of an administrative offense and are classified as criminal hooliganism.
- Will the actions of a person who sets a dog on a victim to intimidate or cause bodily harm constitute hooliganism?
- Absolutely. If a person, in the course of hooliganism, sets a dog on the victim to use violence or threaten to do so, their actions constitute criminal hooliganism.
For a long time, including during the 2025 update of the plenary resolution, the need to recognize dogs as objects used as weapons to cause bodily harm was discussed. This would entail stricter penalties under Part 3 of Article 339 of the Criminal Code, i.e., for particularly malicious hooliganism. However, judicial practice since the adoption of the previously effective resolution, i.e., since 2005, has evolved differently.
To consolidate the established approach, paragraph 5 of the plenary resolution clarifies: the use of animals or the threat of their use in hooliganism should be considered the use of violence or the threat of its use. This means the following. If a dog is set upon during hooliganism, such actions should be classified under Part 1 of Article 339 of the Criminal Code, i.e., as the use of violence or the threat of its use.
The mere use of a dog to cause bodily harm during hooliganism does not entail increased penalties. However, the situation is interpreted depending on the resulting consequences. Causing less serious bodily harm entails more severe liability under Part 2 of Article 339 of the Criminal Code, while serious bodily harm entails more severe liability under Article 147 of the Criminal Code.
- What is the punishment for committing hooliganism, and what circumstances influence the sentence imposed by the court?
- Simple hooliganism is punishable by community service, a fine, or correctional labor for up to two years, or arrest, or restriction of liberty for up to two years, or imprisonment for up to three years. This means that there is a wide range of punishments for ordinary hooliganism.
Malicious hooliganism is punishable by a fine, or arrest, or restriction of liberty for a term of two to five years, or imprisonment for a term of one to six years. Particularly malicious hooliganism is punishable by restriction of liberty for a term of three to five years, or imprisonment for a term of three to ten years.
When imposing a sentence, the court follows the principle of individualization of punishment, taking into account the nature and degree of public danger posed by the crime, the motives and intent of the crime, the identity of the perpetrator, the nature and extent of the harm and damage caused, and any mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
What other significant clarifications for society were included in the updated resolution?
As already noted, the legislation on combating hooliganism itself has not changed. The main forms of hooliganism remain the same. The new version of the resolution contains no revolutionary changes. It has been updated in accordance with judicial practice.
At the same time, the plenary resolution places greater emphasis on the need to ensure a comprehensive, complete, and objective investigation of all circumstances of criminal cases of hooliganism. It clarifies in greater detail what should be considered to establish a gross violation of public order and the presence of obvious disrespect for society in actions.
Concepts such as destruction and damage to property are separated and described in greater detail. It also specifies the inadmissibility of a broad interpretation of the concept of criminally punishable hooliganism, in order to exclude cases of criminal prosecution of individuals guilty of petty hooliganism and other offenses entailing administrative liability, including individuals whose actions did not cause, and by their nature and intent could not have caused, significant harm to interests protected by criminal law. This provision has been in place previously and remains relevant.
BELTA.