| Abstract: | Asmenų lygiateisiškumas – tai konstitucinė vertybė, kuri yra garantuojama tiek valstybiniame, tiek tarptautiniame lygmenyje. Valstybė garantuodama žmonių grupių ar joms priklausančių individų teises ir laisves bei lygiateisiškumą, turi užtikrinti atitinkamą šių teisinių gėrių apsaugą baudžiamosios ir administracinės atsakomybės priemonėmis, todėl reglamentuojamos teisinės priemonės privalo būti proporcingos, teisėtos ir būtinos demokratinėje valstybėje. Lietuvos Respublikoje asmens lygiateisiškumo apsauga užtikrinama baudžiamosios ir administracinės teisės priemonėmis. Todėl iškyla klausimas, ar baudžiamosios atsakomybės už diskriminavimą dėl tautybės, rasės, lyties, kilmės, religijos ar kitos grupinės priklausomybės reglamentavimas yra racionalus, proporcingas, ar priešingai – pavojingas, sukeliantis didelę žalą visuomenei; taip pat ar nėra kitų priemonių galinčių sureguliuoti diskriminavimo pažeidimus. Kadangi Lietuvos teismų praktikoje nėra aiškių baudžiamosios ir administracinės teisės atribojimo kriterijų, kyla pagrįstos abejonės dėl baudžiamosios teisės taikymo atitikties ultima ratio (kraštutinės priemonės) principo kriterijams.
Šio darbo tikslas, nustačius ultima ratio (kraštutinės priemonės) doktrinos esmines savybes ir šio principo vietą baudžiamojoje teisėje, ištirti, ar baudžiamosios atsakomybės taikymas už diskriminavimą dėl tautybės, rasės, lyties, kilmės, religijos ar kitos grupinės priklausomybės atitinka ultima ratio (kraštutinės priemonės) principo reikalavimus.
Siekiant atlikti tyrimą buvo naudojami lingvistinės-loginės analizės ir dokumentų analizės metodai, sisteminis teisės aiškinimo metodas, lyginamasis, sintezės bei apibendrinimo metodai. Atliekant tyrimą nustatyta ultima ratio (kraštutinės priemonės) samprata, teisinis statutas ir nustatyti pagrindiniai ultima ratio (kraštutinės priemonės) kriterijai: proporcingumo, pavojingumo, didelės žalos ir baudžiamosios teisės būtinumo. Vadovaujantis šiais kriterijais nustatyta, kad baudžiamosios atsakomybės taikymas už diskriminavimą dėl tautybės, rasės, lyties, kilmės, religijos ar kitos grupinės priklausomybės neatitikimo proporcingumo, pavojingumo, didelės žalos ir baudžiamosios teisės būtinumo kriterijams, LR BK 169 str. numatytos nusikalstamos veikos kriminalizavimas neatitinka ultima ratio (kraštutinės priemonės) principo reikalavimų.
Equality of persons is a constitutional value that is guaranteed both at the state and international level. While guaranteeing the rights, freedoms and equality of groups of people or individuals, the state must ensure adequate protection of these legal goods, maintaining a balance between criminal and administrative liability, therefore regulated legal measures must be proportionate, legal and necessary in a democracy. In the Republic of Lithuania, the protection of equality is ensured by criminal and administrative law measures, therefore the question arises whether the regulation of criminal liability for discrimination on the grounds of nationality, race, sex, origin, religion or other group affiliation is rational, proportionate, or dangerous, causing significant harm to society; whether there are other means of resolving infringements of discrimination. As there are no clear criteria for distinguishing between criminal and administrative law in the case law of Lithuanian courts, there are reasonable doubts about the compliance of the application of criminal law with the criteria of the principle of ultima ratio.
The object of the research: definition of the ultima ratio principle, concept, its place in the system of criminal law and regulation of discrimination in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania.
Hypothesis: The application of criminal liability for discrimination on the grounds of nationality, race, sex, origin, religion or other group affiliation does not meet the requirements of the ultima ratio principle.
Objectives: (1) to derive the definition of discrimination and the meaning of the principle of equality; (2) to analyze the regulation of discrimination in national and international law; (3) to reveal the definition, concept and place of the ultima ratio principle in the system of criminal law; (4) to evaluate the application of criminal liability for discrimination on the grounds of nationality, race, sex, origin, religion or other group affiliation according to the criteria of the ultima ratio principle in Lithuania.
The research was performed using methods of linguistic-logical analysis, document analysis, systematic interpretation of law, comparison, synthesis and generalization.
The research work consists of three sections. The first chapter of the work indicates the definition of the concept of discrimination and the meaning of the equality principle; presents the regulation of discrimination in national law; analyzes the international agreements and documents of the European Union. The second chapter reveals the concept and significance of the ultima ratio principle in the criminal justice system. The third chapter deals with criminal liability for discrimination on the grounds of nationality, race, sex, origin, religion or other group affiliation in accordance with the requirements of the ultima ratio principle.
The study revealed: first, that international law allows Member States to choose effective measures to reduce discrimination in accordance with national constitutional principles. However, the regulation of discrimination in criminal law remains a problem as to whether criminalization is appropriate as it undermines the standards of a democratic state governed by the rule of law. It was also noted that there is too little case law in the Republic of Lithuania to decide on the benefits of criminalizing discrimination, as there are no clear criteria for distinguishing between criminal and administrative law.
Second, the concept of the ultima ratio principle and the place of this principle in criminal law were revealed. Based on the analysis of the documents, it was established that the ultima ratio doctrine is not considered an independent constitutional principle, but it is clearly detailed in interpreting the constitutional principle of proportionality, thus determining the status of the ultima ratio principle as a legal principle. The research revealed that the principle of ultima ratio is included in the system of criminal principles and must be implemented in criminal law as a criterion for criminalization (decriminalization) of criminal offenses. The value of the ultima ratio is described using the criteria of proportionality, perilousness, serious harm and other legal means.
Third, the research revealed that (1) administrative law measures would be more effective in achieving the desired goals, and the repeal of the criminal law on discrimination would avoid excessive criminalization of acts; (2) the imposition of criminal liability for discrimination appears questionable and unjustified and it was concluded that the imposition of administrative liability would be a proportionate punishment for this act, as the act does not appear to pose a risk inherent in criminal liability; (3) according to the principle of harm, criminal acts are legally criminalized if a socially harmful act harms the society. The principle of harm is established on the basis of the nature of the relationship in the event of a dispute, the importance of the values to society, the proportionality of the punishment for the crime committed, and the direct link between criminal liability and protected legal interests; (4) it is not appropriate to criminalize discrimination on the grounds of nationality, race, sex, origin, religion or other group affiliation, as this violation can be effectively remedied by less repressive means that will achieve the desired results and protect legal goods and values.
Based on the results of the research, it can be concluded that criminal liability could be considered an appropriate measure considering the threat to equality posed by the act, if it were established that criminal liability acts as a deterrent and is proportionate to the crime and punishment. Also, if it would found that other more lenient legal measures were not possible to achieve the desired objectives. However, the study shows that there are clearly more administrative cases in which the issue of an infringement of discrimination has been resolved, so it can be concluded that administrative law measures are more effective in achieving the desired objectives. Abolishing the criminal law on discrimination would avoid excessive criminalization of acts. |
