Ar esamas teisinis reguliavimas skiriant baudos bausmę už nusikalstamas veikas valstybės tarnybai ir viešiesiems interesams neprieštarauja teisingumo principui?
Čekalinaitė, Megilė |
Darbe analizuojamos teisės mokslininkų kritiką sunkiai atlaikančios Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso nuostatos, numatančios baudos bausmės už nusikalstamas veikas valstybės tarnybai ir viešiesiems interesams skyrimą, bei su tuo susijusi teismų praktika, vertinant, ar esamas teisinis reguliavimas užtikrina teisingumo principo įgyvendinimą. 2017 m. Įstatymo leidėjui ženkliai padidinus baudų dydžius, o baudos, skiriamos už Baudžiamojo kodekso XXXIII skyriuje numatytas nusikalstamas veikas minimalų dydį susiejus su nusikalstamos veikos dalyku, kaltininko padarytos turtinės žalos arba kaltininko gautos ar siektos gauti turtinės naudos sau ar kitam asmeniui dydžiu, tai yra nustačius imperatyvą skirti ne mažesnę bausmę nei didžiausias materialiai išreikštas veikos aplinkybių kriterijus, iš esmės apribota teismo diskrecija individualizuoti bausmę, kas neatitinka teisingumo principo. Kilus pagrįstoms abejonėms dėl teismų galimybės vadovaujantis baudų skyrimo taisyklėmis priimti teisėtą, bet tuo pačiu metu ir teisingą sprendimą skiriant baudas, tyrimo metu vertinta, ar teismai, neieško išeičių, kaip įstatymo nuostatas apeiti, kad galėtų paskirti mažesnes nei sankcijose numatyta baudas. Teismų praktikos analizė parodė, kad baudos bausmės už korupcinio pobūdžio nusikalstamas veikas skiriamos laikantis baudų skyrimo taisyklių, tačiau visais atvejais jų dydis buvo artimas BK 47 straipsnio 3 dalyje numatytai jų apatinei ribai. Analizuojamu laikotarpiu buvo išnagrinėta tik viena byla, kurioje skirta mažesnė nei sankcijoje nustatyta bauda, todėl objektyviai įvertinti situaciją, kaip tokiu atveju elgiasi teismai, nebuvo galimybės. Nustatyta ir tai, jog tesimai nepagrįstai skiria su laisvės apribojimu susijusias bausmes galimai dėl įstatymų leidėjo numatytų neadekvačių baudų. Darbe taikyti lyginamosios ir sisteminės analizės metodai.
The study analyses the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which are difficult to withstand the criticism of legal scholars, which provide for the imposition of a fine for criminal offences against the civil service and public interests, and the related case law, assessing whether the existing legal regulation ensures the implementation of the principle of justice. 2017 m. The legislator has significantly increased the size of fines and linked the minimum amount of the fine for offences under Chapter XXXIII of the Criminal Code to the subject matter of the offence, the amount of property damage caused by the offender, or the amount of the property benefit received or sought to be received by the offender for himself/herself or for another person, the imposition of a fine not less than the maximum substantive criterion of the circumstances of the offence, in essence limits the court's discretion to individualise the penalty, which is not in accordance with the principle of justice, which requires that each penalty be individualised. In the event of justified doubts as to whether the courts can, in accordance with the rules on the imposition of fines, take a lawful but at the same time fair decision to impose a fair sentence, the investigation assessed whether the courts are not looking for ways to circumvent the provisions of the law by finding "exceptional circumstances" in order to be able to impose a fine which is lower than the one provided for in the sanctions. In order to reveal the content of the existing legal framework, the empirical part of the study analyses the case law (criminal cases tried in courts of first instance between 2018 and 2023, which have been concluded by a conviction or a criminal order), looks at how the courts deal with the imposition of fines for offences against the civil service and the public interest, and assesses whether the existing legal framework allows the courts to ensure that justice is done. The study also examines the application of the average penalty rule provided for in Article 61 of the Criminal Code, assesses the reasonableness of the circumstances that led to the imposition of fines close to the lower limit of the penalties provided for in the penalties, and reviews the judgments handed down by the Courts of Appeal in which disputes on the level of the fine imposed were considered. In the context of the problem under examination, the Court also analysed whether the courts tend to change fines for criminal offences under Chapter XXXIII of the Criminal Code to more severe penalties involving deprivation of liberty, thus seeking ways to avoid the imposition of extremely high fines set by the legislator. An analysis of case law shows that: 1) provision of Article 47(6) of the CC does not comply with the principle of justice, since, in cases where the amount of the subject matter of the offence, the material damage caused by the offender or the material benefit obtained or sought by the offender for himself or another person is significant, it does not allow the individualisation of the fine on the basis of the circumstances set out in Articles 54(2) and 62 of the CC, and should therefore no longer be included in the Criminal Law, 2) the imperative in Article 47(6) of the CC to impose a fine for the offences provided for in Chapter XXXIII of the CC which is not less than the amount of the object of the offence, the amount of the material damage caused by the offender, or the amount of the material benefit received or intended to be received by the offender for himself or for any other person, and in the case of several criteria for calculating the fine, to determine the amount of the fine according to the criteria set out in the fine calculation criteria, should be replaced by the following, linking the penalty to the amount of the circumstances of the offence expressed in material (monetary) terms only, without providing for the cases in which this amount is not determined, creates legal preconditions for different calculation of the penalty and for the development of different case-law, and thus does not ensure the implementation of the principle of justice; 3) the problem of Article 47(6) of the CC arises when the amount of the subject matter of the offence or of other criteria is very high in material terms, but given that there has been only one such case, it has not been possible to objectively assess the situation in terms of the courts' approach to the problem. It is therefore proposed to continue to monitor the behaviour of the courts in such cases; 4) the study found that in all cases the amount of the fine imposed is close to the lower limit of the fine, which suggests that the courts, when imposing a fine, do not choose such a fine on the basis of the circumstances provided for in Article 54(2) and Article 61 of the CC, but rather look for ways to avoid the application of the disproportionate fine levels set by the legislator. On this basis, it is reasonable to conclude that the existing levels of fines for offences against the civil service and public interests are inadequate and do not correspond to the economic situation and the standard of living of Lithuania. For these reasons, the levels of fines applicable to the offences provided for in Chapter XXXIII of the CC cannot be considered to be in accordance with the principle of justice. On the other hand, the analysis of the case-law does not reveal that the courts have imposed fines for offences under Chapter XXXIII of the CC in a manner which is not in line with the existing legal framework; 5) the penalties related to deprivation of liberty are unjustifiably imposed for offences under Chapter XXXIII of the CC. It is argued that one of the reasons for this choice of courts is the inadequacy of the fines set by the legislator.