Legal regime of property for religious purposes in institutions executing criminal punishment in the form of imprisonment

Introduction: the issues of church property are under the jurisdiction of several branches of law and not limited to civil regulation. The special status of the subject possessing this property (the Church), the historical experience of regulating the property for religious purposes motivate to search for legal models and general principles to construct the legal regime of the property in question. The complexity of legal regimes of property for religious purposes in places for confinement is explained by the fact that this property functions in the conditions of the restricted access requirements and balancing between the norms of positive law and church canons, which are the original norms regulating property for religious purposes. Purpose: to develop a scientific theoretical model of the legal regime of property for religious purposes in places for confinement, based on the analysis of norms of canon law and Russian legislation, the historical and foreign experience and modern practice of ministration in prisons; to make proposals on the methods for incorporating this model in both civil and criminal legislation. Methods: the research is based on theoretical methods (dialectical, systemic juridical, historical), methods of comparative analysis of statistical and specific sociological researches, empirical methods (in- terviewing and surveys). Results: the current problems and contradictions in legal regulation of property for religious purposes have been revealed. The historical experience of ministration in prisons and legal regimes of property in pre-revolutionary Russia have been analyzed, as well as the foreign experience of regional cooperation between religious organizations and municipal authorities on the basis of agreements. The necessity is justified of implementing this experience into Russian practice when solving the issues concerning religious property, until the relevant legislative framework is developed. Conclusions: the current mechanisms of establishing the legal regime ofproperty for religious purposes cannot be directly used in the penal system. They require some adaptation through additional law-making (in particular, penitentiary rulemaking) with the account for the regime and other features characteristic of the activities of correctional institutions.