Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKujalis, Pavelas
dc.date.accessioned2015-02-10T12:52:36Z
dc.date.available2015-02-10T12:52:36Z
dc.identifier.urihttps://www3.mruni.eu/ojs/jurisprudence/article/view/3361/3157
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.mruni.eu/handle/007/13496
dc.description.abstractA new Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania was passed on September 26, 2000. It notably changed the institute structure of circumstances that eliminate criminal responsibility and position in the system of other standards. These changes also touched the necessity, in which several new regulations appeared; this article is dedicated to one of them. The article analyzes the problem of a person whose right to use the regulations of necessity is being limited. This regulation of necessity became very urgent after acceptance of the new Criminal Code. In the beginning of the article, the author notes that the regulation of necessity for the first time appeared in Lithuanian Criminal Laws in January 16, 1919, when the Russian Criminal Statute of 1903 was admitted as a valid criminal law in the territory of Lithuania. However, in spite of such long history of the regulation of necessity being discussed, theoretical position for its application has not been formed in the criminal law of Lithuania. This issue was only mentioned in Literature dedicated to the problems of necessity without paying sufficient attention to it. Therefore, it can be clearly stated that this is the first research dedicated to this issue of necessity. The author of the article suggests to call the person, whose right to use regulations of necessity is being limited, a special subject of necessity. The author also says that this regulation of necessity may be applied only in case of the special subject of necessity being inactive. The author, further on looking into the problem of special subject of necessity, discusses its relationship with the person fulfilling his professional duty (Article 30 of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania) and with the crime subject. The article discusses opinions and arguments of various scientists of criminal law that stand as the basis for the issue discussed. An attention is drawn on the formulation that provides special subject of necessity of Part 3 of Article 31 of Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which is little informative and in the author’s opinion is imperfect. The author draws a conclusion while examining the problem of special necessity subject that a person will not be able to justify the unfulfilled duty by the regulations of necessity when his inaction corresponds to two regulations. Firstly, it is general requirement for criminal responsibility for inaction. Secondly, when the danger that appears because of fulfilling the duty is not going to excel the limits of his professional or other preparation. However, if inaction of special subject does not correspond to any of the conditions mentioned above, and there are other regulations of necessity in his activity, his inaction will be acknowledged as legal. Following these conditions, the author gives suggestions for amendment of Part 3 of Article 31 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania.en
dc.language.isolten
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.titleBūtinojo reikalingumo nuostatų taikymo problema įsigaliojus naujajam Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajam kodeksuien
dc.typeArticleen
dc.description.abstract-ltPriėmus naująjį Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamąjį kodeksą (toliau – LR BK), būtinojo reikalingumo normoje atsirado kelios naujos nuostatos. Vienai iš jų ir skirtas šis straipsnis. Ši nuostata įtvirtinta 31 straipsnio 3 dalyje ir numato asmenų grupę, kurių teisė pasinaudoti būtinuoju reikalingumu yra ribojama. Pradėdamas nagrinėti tokių asmenų problemą, autorius siūlo juos vadinti specialiaisiais būtinojo reikalingumo subjektais. Nagrinėdamas specialųjį būtinojo reikalingumo subjektą, autorius aptaria jo santykį su gretutiniais baudžiamosios teisės institutais, t. y. su asmeniu, vykdančiu profesinę pareigą (LR BK 30 str.), ir su nusikalstamos veikos subjektu. Straipsnyje daug dėmesio skiriama BK 31 straipsnio 3 dalies taikymo sąlygoms. Autorius pateikia argumentus, kuriais vadovaujantis galima teigti, kad tam tikrais atvejais specialusis būtinojo reikalingumo subjektas gali pateisinti pareigos nevykdymą būtinojo reikalingumo nuostatomis. Nagrinėdamas LR BK 31 straipsnio 3 dalies formuluotę, autorius parodo, kad ji yra nepakankamai informatyvi ir, autoriaus nuomone, netobula. Toks nagrinėjamos formuluotės netobulumas gali turėti neigiamos įtakos taikant LR BK 31 straipsnio 3 dalį praktiniame teisėsaugos institucijų darbe, todėl straipsnyje pateikiamas patobulintas šios formuluotės variantas.en
dc.identifier.aleph000001481en
dc.publication.sourceJurisprudencija, 2003, 37(45)en
dc.subject.facultyTeisės fakultetasen
dc.subject.keywordBūtinasis reikalingumasen
dc.subject.keywordBaudžiamasis kodeksasen
dc.subject.publicationtypeS5en
dc.subject.sciencedirection01S - Teisėen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record