Ar LR BK 245 straipsnis atitinka ultima ratio principą?
Kasinavičiūtė, Jurgita |
Baudžiamoji teisė yra kraštutinė priemonė, todėl asmuo gali būti patrauktas baudžiamojon atsakomybėn tik tais atvejais, jei kitų teisės šakų priemonės yra neveiksmingos. Kai kurių LR BK straipsnių atitikimo ultima ratio principui problematika nagrinėjama jau ne vienerius metus. Vienas iš tokių straipsnių yra BK 245 straipsnis ,,Teismo sprendimo, nesusijusio su bausme, nevykdymas“. Viena vertus, teismo sprendimų nevykdymu sukeliama žala atskiriems asmenims, visuomenei bei valstybei. Kita vertus, kriminalizuojant veikas negali būti pasiekiamas baudžiamosios teisės tikslas užtikrinti, jog potencialūs pažeidėjai nedarytų nusikalstamų veikų. Dėl to šiame darbe taikant aprašomąjį, analizės, lyginamąjį bei istorinį metodus aiškintasi, ar BK 245 straipsnis atitinka ultima ratio principą. Išanalizavus teisės aktus, teisinę bei mokslinę literatūrą ir teismų praktiką, nustatyta, kad BK 245 straipsnis ultima ratio principą atitinka iš dalies. Viena vertus, BK 245 straipsnio formuluotė yra gana abstrakti, o detalesni taikymo požymiai detalizuoti LAT praktikoje. Nors CPK numato priverstinio vykdymo priemones, kuriomis gali būti įgyvendinami atitinkami teismų sprendimai, tačiau tokių civilinio proceso priemonių kai kuriais atvejais nėra pakankamai ir/ar asmuo sukuria esmines kliūtis, dėl kurių tokios priemonės yra neefektyvios. Žvelgiant istoriškai, Lietuvos teritorijoje galiojusiuose baudžiamuosiuose įstatymuose nuo tarpukario iki dabartinių laikų nusikalstama veika dėl teismo sprendimo nevykdymo visada buvo įtvirtinta, tačiau, akcentuotina, jog tokie atvejai buvo detalizuoti, t. y. nurodoma, dėl kokio pobūdžio teismo sprendimų nevykdymo gali kilti baudžiamoji atsakomybė. Panašias išvadas galima pateikti ir išanalizavus darbe nurodytų ES valstybių narių baudžiamuosius įstatymus. Juose taip pat įtvirtinta, kad ne dėl visų teismo sprendimų nevykdymo asmuo gali būti pripažintas kaltu - vienose valstybėse yra saugomi šeimos narių interesai, kitose – skolininko ir pan. Tuo tarpu LR šiuo atveju įsiteisėjusiu teismo procesiniu dokumentu gali būti teismo sprendimas, nutartis, nuosprendis, nutarimas ar kitas procesinis dokumentas, nesusijęs su bausmėmis, (nepaisant to, ar jis priimtas baudžiamajame, civiliniame, ar administraciniame procese), išskyrus nutartis, kuriomis paskirtos kardomosios priemonės, nes šių priemonių tikslai nėra tapatūs lyginant su teismo sprendimu. Vadovaujantis darbe pateikiama informacija, manytina, jog reikėtų koreguoti BK 245 straipsnio sudėtį, įtraukiant piktybiškumo ir civilinio proceso priemonių nevykdymo du ar daugiau kartų požymius. Taip pat, atsižvelgus į šio straipsnio istorinę raidą ir analizuojamų ES valstybių narių baudžiamuosius įstatymus, rekomenduotina nurodyti, dėl kokio pobūdžio teismo sprendimų nevykdymo gali kilti baudžiamoji atsakomybė, pavyzdžiui, dėl susijusių su vaikais, sutuoktiniais, tėvais ir nuo smurto nukentėjusiais asmenimis, nustatyti, jog baudžiamoji atsakomybė dėl BK 245 straipsnyje įtvirtintos veikos gali kilti ir juridiniam asmeniui, ir apsvarstyti, ar apkaltinamojo nuosprendžio vykdymo efektyvumo klausimą šio straipsnio prasme.
Criminal law is a last resort, so a person can be prosecuted only in cases where the measures of other branches of law are ineffective. The issue of compliance of some articles of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania with the principle of ultima ratio has been examined for several years. One of such articles is Article 245 of the Criminal Code, "Non-execution of a court decision not related to punishment". Firstly, non-execution of court decisions causes damage to individuals, society and the state. Secondly, criminalizing acts cannot achieve the goal of criminal law to ensure that potential offenders do not commit criminal acts. The problem of Article 245 of the Criminal Code can also be observed when analysing data on criminal acts in the Republic of Lithuania during the entire period of existence of this article - the number of new pre-trial investigations is decreasing, and a large part of them is terminated under circumstances that make criminal proceedings impossible. From 2006 to 2014, approximately half of pre-trial investigations were terminated based on Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and from 2015, almost all. In this paper, applying the descriptive, analytical, comparative and historical methods, it is clarified whether Article 245 of the Criminal Code complies with the principle of ultima ratio. The first chapter reviews whether non-execution of court decisions unrelated to punishments was criminalized from interwar Lithuania to the present. The objective and subjective signs of this criminal offense were also discussed, and it was also clarified whether the criminal laws of the European Union member states specified in the work include such a criminal act. In the second chapter, the concept and criteria of the ultima ratio principle are clarified, i.e. dangerousness, inseparable from damage assessment, and the absence of other process measures that can ensure the implementation of the court decision, the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania on the presented issue and analysed in more detail whether Article 245 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania meets the criteria of the specified principle. The work also presents the non-execution of the indictment, which was passed due to the criminal act established in Article 245 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Attention should be drawn to the fact that the work presents civil process measures, considering the situations analysed by the Supreme Court of Lithuania. It should be noted that, in this context, court decisions are not considered to be any legally binding court decisions, but those whose non-execution would be dangerous, because of intentional action or inaction, the implementation of justice would be prevented. Attention should be drawn to the fact that a person cannot choose which court decision he must comply with and which one he does not, because if a person does not comply with a legal court decision, in this case justice is not implemented, trust in the courts decreases and the rights and legitimate interests of the victims are not restored, prior to the damage. By the way, according to court practice, the court decision cannot be procedural documents, adopted due to the appointment of pretrial measures or violations of their (non)implementation, since their nature is different, i.e., the legal relationship derives from criminal rather than, for example, civil law. After analysing the relevant legal acts, legal and scientific literature and court practice, it was found that Article 245 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania partially complies with the principle of ultima ratio. On the one hand, the wording of this article is quite abstract, and more detailed signs of application - malice and non-implementation of civil process measures two or more times - are detailed in the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania. In addition, the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania provides enforcement measures that can be used to implement relevant court decisions. On the other hand, such civil process remedies are in some cases insufficient and/or the person creates substantial obstacles that make such remedies ineffective. From a historical point of view, in the criminal laws in force on the territory of Lithuania from the interwar period to the present times, there was always a criminalized act of non-execution of a court decision, but it should be emphasized that such cases were detailed, i.e., it is indicated what type of non-execution of court decisions may result in criminal liability. Similar conclusions can be made after analysing the criminal laws of the European Union member states mentioned in the work. They also establish that a person may not be found guilty of not complying with all court decisions - in some states, the interests of family members are protected, in others, the interests of the debtor, etc. Thus, it is recommended to adjust the features of the composition of Article 245 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, including maliciousness and non-implementation of civil process measures two or more times. Also, considering the historical development of this article and the analysed criminal laws of the European Union member states, it should be specified which non-execution of court decisions may lead to criminal liability, including procedural documents related to children, spouses, parents and persons affected by violence.