Ar administracinis teisės pažeidimas visuomet laikytinas nusikalstama veika EŽTT jurisprudencijoje?

EŽTK 6-ajame straipsnyje yra įtvirtintos teisės į nepriklausomą, nešališką ir teisingą teismą, nekaltumo prezumpcijos principas ir kitos procesinės garantijos. Visos šios garantijos Konvencijos narėse valstybėse turi būti užtikrinamos tuomet, kai asmeniui yra pareikštas baudžiamasis kaltinimas. Pagal išplėtotą EŽTT jurisprudenciją nustatant ar asmeniui pareikštas kaltinimas yra baudžiamasis atsižvelgiama į tris kriterijus, vadinamus Engel kriterijais: 1) klasifikavimas nacionalinėje teisėje, 2) teisės pažeidimo pobūdis ir 3) galimos bausmės pobūdis ir sunkumas. EŽTT jurisprudencijoje taikant šiuos kriterijus administraciniai teisės pažeidimai yra dažnai laikytini nusikalstamomis veikomis, todėl kyla klausimas ar administracinis teisės pažeidimas visuomet laikytinas nusikalstama veika EŽTT jurisprudencijoje? Pirmiausia šiame darbe analizuojamos Engel kriterijų pristatymą įtakojusios priežastys ir šių kriterijų taikymo administracinėse bylose raida. Šioje darbo dalyje nustatyta, kad pagrindinė priežastis, įtakojusi Engel kriterijų pristatymą buvo EŽTT tikslas suvienodinti „baudžiamojo kaltinimo“ sąvokos sampratą tarp visų Konvencijos valstybių narių, kad valstybės perklasifikuodamos ar dekriminalizuodamos nusikalstamas veikas į kitas EŽTK nesaugomas teisės šakas negalėtų išvengti pareigos užtikrinti asmenims Konvencijos 6-ajame straipsnyje numatytas teises ir garantijas. Atskiruose šio darbo poskyriuose yra analizuojami atskiri Engel kriterijai, jų taikymas administracinių teisės pažeidimų atžvilgiu. Analizuojant šiuos kriterijus taip pat buvo atsižvelgta į ATPK numatytų teisės pažeidimų baudžiamąjį pobūdį. Atlikus tyrimą, darbo pradžioje iškelta hipotezė – administracinis teisės pažeidimas visuomet laikytinas nusikalstama veika, nepasitvirtino. Šio darbo išvadose yra pateiktos išimtys, kuomet pagal Engel kriterijus administracinis teisės pažeidimas nėra laikomas baudžiamojo pobūdžio. Šiame darbe taip pat yra pateiktos rekomendacijos. Pirma, siūloma Konvencijos valstybėms narėms priimti papildomą protokolą dėl Konvencijos 6-ajame straipsnyje įtvirtintų teisių ir garantijų suteikimo administraciniame procese, kuris sumažintų iškylančius neaiškumus dėl šio straipsnio priimtinumo ir būtų efektyviau užtikrinamos procesinės garantijos. Antra, pateikiami konkretūs pasiūlymai, patikslinantys Engel kriterijus, kurie galėtų pašalinti jų taikymo metu kylančius neaiškumus.

The actuality of this work. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention) provides the right to an independent, impartial and fair trial, the presumption of innocence and other procedural guarantees. All Member States of the Convention must guarantee these rights and guarantees when a person is charged with a criminal offence. By the developed jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) whether there was a criminal charge is decided on the basis of three criteria, commonly known as the Engel criteria, which are: 1) the classification of the offence in national law, 2) the nature of offence and 3) the nature and degree of severity of the possible penalty. Moreover it is important to make a detailed analysis of the Engel criteria and determine administrative offences of non-criminal nature, because these criteria are applicable very broadly. ECtHR takes into consideration these criteria not only in case of Article 6 but also in case of some other articles of the Convention. Lithuanian courts also take into consideration these criteria in determining the criminal nature of an offence which can lead to a violation of non bis in idem principle. In order to decide the criminal nature of administrative penalties these criteria also have been started to be considered even in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The problematics of this work. Decision of applicability of Article 6 often leads to assimilation of administrative offences to criminal offences. Without analysis of scientific literature and the jurisprudence of the ECtHR it is not clear when an administrative offence is not criminal in nature. Furthermore, due to frequent assimilation of administrative offences to criminal ones it is not clear if it is even possible to draw a borderline between these two types of offences. Hypothesis. An administrative offence is always considered as a criminal offence in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. Research objective. To investigate when an administrative offence is considered as a criminal offence in accordance with the scientific literature and the most relevant jurisprudence of the ECtHR. The following tasks were set for this research: 1. To determine causes and the development of assimilating administrative offences to criminal offences; 2. To analyze the criteria applicable by the ECtHR for assimilating administrative offences to criminal offences; 3. To examine main features of administrative offences which lead to their assimilation to criminal offences; 4. To identify possible exceptions when an administrative offence is not considered as a criminal offence. Research methodology. Theoretical methods of analysis, comparative, systematic and summarizing were applied in this paper in order to reach this objective and tasks. Empirical method was applied for the analysis of legal documents when analyzing the Convention and the ECtHR jurisprudence. Structure of this work. The main part of this master thesis examines reasons why Engel criteria was introduced and developed. Separate sections of this part examine each of the Engel criteria individually to reveal applicability and significance of each Engel criteria. Research results. The analysis showed that the main reason for introducing Engel criteria was ECtHR intent to reach the same meaning of the „criminal charge“ concept in all Member States of the Convention, because ECtHR feared that Member States will reclassify or decriminalize criminal offences to other branch of law in order to avoid an obligation to ensure rights and guarantees required by Article 6 of the Convention. After a comprehensive analysis the hypothesis was not confirmed. The analysis showed that an administrative offence is not always considered as a criminal offence in the juriprudence of the ECtHR because an administrative offence is not criminal in these circumstances: • When legal norm is exclusively directed to group possessing special status, • When a person is punished with small preventative measure, • When a person is punished with a compensatory fine which is equivalent to the damage caused, • When a person is punished by a deprivation of liberty which is not appreciably deprimental, • When the maximum possible penalty is very small and could not significantly affect a person, • Partly when there is no threat of criminal proceedings for a person or imposed fine has not been registered in the police register. In this paper conclusions were also made about the criminal nature of the administrative offences provided in the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania. It shows that majority of offences will be considered as criminal when applying the Engel criteria. Research recommendations. In order to reduce uncertainties which arise due to the admissibility of the Article 6 it is suggested to adopt an additional protocol for the Member States of the Convention. This additional protocol should ensure procedural guarantees needed in administrative proceedings more efficient. Due to the fact that Engel criteria are not always clear and sometimes contradictory it is recommended to do following changes: • To extend second criteria with additional sub-criteria “Classification of the offence in other EU countries”. To clarify applicability exceptions and relation with additional aspects. To take third criteria in consideration when penalty imposed is small. • To modify third criteria in order to consider not the biggest but most likely penalty in similar situations.