Atskiri Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo įtakos baudžiamajai justicijai aspektai

Abstract

Šio straipsnio tikslas – pabandyti ištirti, kiek ir kokiais aspektais Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo jurisprudencijoje buvo nagrinėjami tiesiogiai su baudžiamąja teise (tik materialiąja) susiję klausimai, bei įvertinti tiek realią šio teismo įtaką atskleidžiant baudžiamosios teisės normų turinį, tų baudžiamųjų normų atitiktį Konstitucijai ir jos „dvasiai“, tiek konstitucinės jurisprudencijos poveikį įstatymo leidėjui

After the restoration of independence, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter – the Constitutional Court) has been operating for 22 years and has certain impact both to the legislator and the implementation of justice. The goal of the article is to analyse to what extent and in what aspects the Constitutional Court jurisprudence has dealt with Lithuanian criminal law (only the material one) issues. This aim is realised in two stages. The main function of the Constitutional Court is checking the constitutionality of legal acts which is discussed in the first section of the article through the analysis of the rulings of the Constitutional Court in which certain norms of the Criminal code were declared unconstitutional. The next, not less important, impact of the Constitutional Court to the criminal law is through the formation of the constitutional doctrine which is discussed in the second part of the article. It was concluded that during the analysed period only nine resolutions of the Constitutional Court were devoted to the questions of material criminal law, i.e. on the average, less than one resolution every two years, which in itself shows the relatively low direct impact of the Constitutional Court. During the researched period, one third of the cases, i.e., three rulings concerning certain norms of Penal Code (provision of death penalty for intentional murder with aggravating circumstances; inflexibility of the Criminal Code- lack of judicial discretion in provision of the kind and the extent of criminal penalties; the possibility to apply retroactively the norm of genocide for social and political groups) were recognized as unconstitutional.[...]