The article examines the peculiarities of interpretation in criminal law, which, given distinct nature of this branch of law, remains a topical issue today. In particular, the article focuses on the broad interpretation of criminal law provisions, which continues to provoke heated debate among scholars.The author provides a brief overview of the historical development of the concept of interpretation in law and the changes in attitudes towards its implementation. As a result, it becomes evident that the issue of interpretation is not new, but dates back centuries and has been the subject of reflection and discussion throughout history.The article also draws attention to the distinction between private and public branches of law, and the necessity of such a division. The author concludes that this division has a significant impact on the process of interpreting legal provisions. At the same time, the author emphasises that the distinctive features of criminal law provisions make it difficult to classify this branch strictly as private or public law. Criminal law provisions are highly specific, and therefore their interpretation has its own nuances and requires additional attention. In particular, the author examines the attitudes of scholars and court positions on the interpretation of criminal law provisions, including scope-based interpretation. Specifically, the author reviews the case law of German and Italian courts, as well as cases heard by the European Court of Human Rights. It is found that broad interpretation of criminal law provisions can occur in law enforcement practice, as it addresses contemporary challenges and the need for justice.As a result, it is concluded that in some cases, criminal law provisions must be interpreted extensively, and such a process is sometimes inevitable. At the same time, the issue of defining the limits of such interpretation remains controversial and requires resolution to ensure effective and fair law enforcement. Human rights—equally those of the defendant and the victim—serve as clear guidelines and limitations for such activities, as their violation would undermine their very purpose.
Vladyslav Barylchenko (Sun,) studied this question.