Problems of application of criminal laws and their solutions following the enforcement of the new Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania

Straipsnyje dėmesys sutelkiamas į Lietuvos baudžiamųjų įstatymų taikymo problemas pereinant nuo 1961 m. Baudžiamojo kodekso prie 2000 m. Baudžiamojo kodekso. Pirmiausia apžvelgiamos universalios, visuotinai pripažįstamos principinės nuostatos, įtvirtintos tarptautinės teisės aktuose, kurios reglamentuoja baudžiamųjų įstatymų galiojimą ir taikymą laiko atžvilgiu. Pabrėžiama jų įtaka, nulėmusi senojo BK 7 straipsnio ir naujojo BK 3 straipsnio panašumą. Lyginamas šių abiejų straipsnių tekstas ir turinys, atkreipiant dėmesį j tam tikrus skirtumus ir jų teisinę reikšmę. Didžioji straipsnio dalis skiriama abiejų kodeksų gretinimui, išskiriant keturis variantus, kai: l) abu kodeksai atitinkamų veikų nenumato kaip nusikalstamų; 2) naujasis BK buvusius nusikaltimus dekriminalizuoja; 3) naujasis BK kriminalizuoja veikas, anksčiau nelaikytas nusikalstamomis; 4) naujasis BK tam tikru mastu perima senojo BK numatytus nusikaltimus. Aptariamos baudžiamojo įstatymo taikymo galimybės, būdingos kiekvienam iš šių variantų. Specialiai detalizuojamas sudėtingiausias — paskutinis variantas. Apibūdinamos keturios susiklostančios situacijos, kai naujasis BK, palyginti su senuoju BK, vertinamas kaip „identiškas", švelninantis baudžiamąją atsakomybę, ją griežtinantis arba „prieštaringas", evoliucionavęs tiek atsakomybės švelninimo, tiek ir griežtinimo linkme. Kiekvienai iš šių situacijų teikiamos baudžiamojo įstatymo taikymo rekomendacijos.In this article the attention is focused on the problems of application of criminal laws while proceeding from the Criminal Code of 1961 to the Criminal Code (CC) of 2000. The article starts with an overview of the universal and generally accepted principal rules included in the provisions of international law which regulate the validity and application of criminal laws within the aspect of time. The influence of these rules, which predetermined the similarity of Article 7 of the preceding CC to Article 3 of the new CC is emphasised. The text and content of both Articles is compared: attention is given to certain differences and their legal significance. The article gives references to the judgements passed by the European Court of Human Rights in concrete cases where Article 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were applied: Welch v. United Kingdom (9 February 1995); Jamil v. France (8 June 1995); G. v. France (27 September 1995); C.R. v. United Kingdom; S. W. v. United Kingdom (22 November 1995); Ecer and Zeyrek v. Turkey (27 February 2001); Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany, and K.H. W. v. Germany (22 March 2001). Special notice is given of the relationship between the validity of the criminal law and its application. Cases are indicated where the existing law is not applied, and, on the contrary – the ones which include the application of the law are no longer in effect. It is emphasised here that criminal law has no retroactive effect in abstracto. […] The main part of the article deals with the comparison of the two CCs. Four variants are highlighted: 1) when certain deeds are not considered to be criminal by both CCs; 2) when the new CC decriminalises former crimes; 3) when the new CC criminalizes deeds which were not considered as criminal before; 4) when the new CC to a certain degree adopts the deeds foreseen in the old CC. Possibilities of the application of criminal law in all four variants are being commented upon. The most complicated Variant 4 is analysed in a more detailed way. Four possible situations are described: where the new CC and the old CC are considered to be "identical"; making criminal liability more lenient; aggravating the criminal liability; or "contradictory", resulting from the criminal liability being made more lenient and more severe. Recommendations on how to apply criminal law in such situations are offered. Separate attention is given to such instances where both Codes – the previous and the current – are being applied simultaneously. The prevalence of the current Code in such cases is evidenced. Such conclusion arises from the new Law on the Enforcement and Implementation Procedure of the Criminal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and the Code of the Enforcement of Penal Sanctions (Official Gazette, 29 October 2002, No. IX-1162). Attention is drawn to the fact that the application of the current CC precludes the application of a new penalty which is stricter than the previous sentence. The article ends with conclusion and recommendations, as well a list of reference