Peculiarities and problems of criminal liability for work of third country nationals while implementing Directive 2009/52/EC

2012 m. sausio 6 d. įsigaliojo naujai priimtas Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso (toliau – ir BK) 292-1 straipsnis, įtvirtinantis baudžiamąją atsakomybę asmenims, įdarbinusiems nelegaliai esančius trečiųjų šalių piliečius. Baudžiamasis kodeksas papildytas šiuo straipsniu siekiant Lietuvai įgyvendinti 2009 m. birželio 18 d. priimtą Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvą 2009/52/EB, kuria numatomi sankcijų ir priemonių nelegaliai esančių trečiųjų šalių piliečių darbdaviams būtiniausi standartai. Straipsniu siekiama atskleisti BK 292-1 straipsnio objektyviuosius ir subjektyviuosius požymius, ypač kad straipsnio dispozicijoje vartojama gana daug terminų ir sąvokų, iš kurių nė vienas Baudžiamajame kodekse nėra paaiškinamas, kartu ir šio BK straipsnio atribojimo nuo ATPK 41-3 straipsnio („Nelegalus darbas“) kriterijus, kadangi priėmus naują BK 292-1straipsnį administracinė atsakomybė už nelegalų darbą nesikeitė, bei įvertinti, ar Lietuva įgyvendina visus direktyvoje nustatytus įsipareigojimus, kiek tai susiję su baudžiamosios atsakomybės nustatymu darbdaviui.While implementing Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third country nationals (hereinafter referred to as ‘Directive’), Lithuania supplemented the Lithuanian Criminal Code with an additional Article 292-1, entitled "Labour of illegally staying third country nationals in the Republic of Lithuania", which came into force on 6 January 2012. The author of this article aims to find out whether the main goals and objectives of the Directive regarding criminal liability of the employer have been fully transposed into national law, and by using various scientific methods and the objectives of the Directive, to reveal the objective and subjective attributes of Article 292-1 of the Criminal Code. The second aim is to discuss the criteria distinguishing criminal liability from administrative liability enshrined in Article 41-3 of the Lithuanian Code of Administrative Offences, in particular that that article was not changed at the time of establishing criminal liability. The detailed scientific analysis revealed that Lithuania has essentially transposed all the basic requirements and obligations of the Directive, even though it was somewhat late (the Member States were obliged to implement the Directive by 20 July 2011, and Article 292-1 has come into force on 6 January 2012, while the Law Prohibiting Illegal Work has not yet been enacted). In addition, only four of the five criminal offences enumerated in Article 9 of the Directive have been fully implemented. The Lithuanian legislators have not established criminal liability for an infringement committed by employer using work or services of an illegally staying third country national, with the knowledge that he or she is a victim of trafficking in human beings. This infringement is partially criminalised in Articles 147-1 and 147-2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, but in order to punish the employer one needs either to establish one of the alternative means by which the will of the third country national has been affected (e.g. coercion, force or threat, deceit or fraud, abuse of authority or abuse of a vulnerable position and etc.), which is not required by the Directive and, in the author’s opinion, makes practical application of criminal liability in this respect rather difficult. Another problem related to the implementation of the Directive is that we still do not have the respective Law and no systemic approach exists, while in the Criminal Code none of the terms used in Article 292-1 are defined and the law enforcement authorities might encounter practical difficulties in applying that Article, in particular considering that some of the definitions could be found only in the Directive itself. Possible difficulties could arise while deciding on whether criminal or administrative liability should arise in cases of continuous or persistently repeated infringements, because in the Criminal Code this feature is defined as "for business purposes", which is rather subjective and should be established in every single case after thorough evaluation of factual data