Does the Lithuanian case law have sufficiently developed criteria to allow proper application of the institution of excuse from criminal liability due to minor nature of a crime?

Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso 37 straipsnyje, numatyta kad asmuo, padaręs nusikaltimą, gali būti teismo atleistas nuo baudžiamosios atsakomybės, dėl nusikaltimo mažareikšmiškumo. Ir nors šiame straipsnyje yra numatyti kriterijai, kuriais remiantis yra vertinamas nusikaltimo mažareikšmiškumas, tačiau plačiau jie nedetalizuojami ir nepaaiškinami, todėl praktikoje kyla šio instituto taikymo problemų. Pirmiausia šis institutas taikomas tuomet, kai asmens padaryta veika atitinka visiems baudžiamajame įstatyme numatytiems nusikaltimo sudėties požymiams, tačiau ji iš esmės nedaro žalos įstatymo saugomoms vertybėms. Ir nors įstatyme numatyta, kad mažareikšmiškumas taikomas tik nusikaltimams, visgi teismų praktikoje pasitaiko šio instituto pritaikymas baudžiamiesiems nusikaltimams, dėl šios veikos mažo pavojingumo. Vienas svarbiausių kriterijų sprendžiant mažareikšmiškumo taikymą yra veikos pavojingumas. Pavojingumas pasireiškia (apibūdinamas) dviems elementais - pavojingumo pobūdis ir pavojingumo laipsnis. Kadangi šie kriterijai įstatymo leidėjo nėra plačiau detalizuoti, tai kiekvienu konkrečiu atveju teismas turi įvertinti visas bylos aplinkybes svarstant mažareikšmiškumo pritaikymą, dėl ko kyla šio instituto taikymo problemų. Todėl, ypatingas dėmesys teismų praktikoje turi būtų pakankamai išvystytiems kriterijams leidžiantiems tinkamai taikyti atleidimą nuo baudžiamosios atsakomybės dėl mažareikšmiškumo. Taip pat teismų praktikoje pasitaiko atveju, kai veika yra pripažįstama mažareikšme, nors pačioje veikoje nėra visų nusikalstamos veikos požymių, kas reiškia, kad asmuo aplamai negali būti traukiamas baudžiamojon atsakomybėn. Atsižvelgiant į visas aptartas aplinkybes baigiamajame darbe bus bandoma išsamiau išnagrinėti mažareikšmiškumo institutą, jo taikymo sąlygas, taikymo ribas, turinį, paskirtį ir didžiausia darbo dalis bus skirta nagrinėti teismų praktiką, identifikuojant esminius šio instituto taikymo kriterijus bei probleminius aspektus, kad šio instituto pagrindų taikymas būtų be galimų teisės spragų.Article 37 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania provides that a person that has committed a crime may be excused from criminal liability by a court of law due to minor nature of a crime. And although the above Article sets forth the criteria which are the basis for identifying the minor nature of a crime, but they are not detailed or explained further. Hence, the practice faces issues around the application of this institute. First, this institute is invoked when an offence committed by a person meets all characteristics of the body of a crime as set forth in the criminal law, but does not essentially cause any harm to the values protected by the law. In practice, courts face the following issue: the cases where a person has not committed a crime at all since their actions have not reached such degree of gravity that would render them illegal, and this implies that the person as may not be prosecuted at all, whereas a court finds that the actions are criminal, but excuses them due to minor nature. There is a problem here and that is determining the boundary distinguishing between the actions that are not dangerous at all, thus not criminal, and those that are criminal, yet of minor nature. Another important aspect is the fact that the legislator has provided for this institution of excuse from criminal liability exclusively for crimes, although the Code of the Republic of Lithuania establishes 2 types of criminal acts: i.e. 1) crimes and 2) misdemeanours. And even though the law stipulates that minor nature shall only apply to crimes, nonetheless, there are cases in judicial case law where the courts of lower instances disregard the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania and invoke minor nature for misdemeanours owing to the low gravity of this offence. The question is what are the reasons behind the law prohibiting to consider a misdemeanour to be of minor nature. It is thought that the key difference lies in the nature and degree of gravity. Therefore, it is necessary to outline the differences that help distinguish between a crime and a misdemeanour. One of the key criteria for minor nature to be invoked is the gravity of an offence. Gravity manifests in (is characterised by) 2 elements: the nature of gravity and the degree of gravity. Following a study of judicial case law, these 2 elements can be defined as follows: the nature of gravity outlines the characteristics of an offence by revealing its severity through the contents of a crime, whereas the degree of gravity shows how severe an offence is or how high its severity is. The gravity of an offence stems from a variety of objective and subjective characteristics of a criminal offence. Therefore, determination of minor nature of an offence requires both objective and subjective characteristics to be taken into account. The courts mainly focus on objective characteristics: i.e. the nature, implications, place and time of the offence and other circumstances. Certainly, subjective characteristics (fault, aim and motives) are not left out without consideration as the perpetrator’s aims and motives also help demonstrate the gravity of a criminal offence better when identifying minor nature of the offence. Because the above criteria are not specified in further detail by the legislator, in every individual case the court must take account of all facts when considering whether minor nature should be invoked; thus this causes issues pertinent to the application of this institute. The case law considering whether minor nature should be invoked firstly takes account of the amount and nature of the harm caused that highlights the gravity of an offence since it is the main characteristic that distinguishes between a criminal offence and a non-criminal act. Hence, the case law must put a particular focus on sufficiently developed criteria to allow proper application of the excuse from criminal liability due to minor nature of a crime. Given the above facts, the final thesis will attempt to examine the institute of minor nature, the prerequisites for its application, the scope, content and purpose thereof in more detail, whilst the major part of the thesis will be dedicated to analysing judicial case law identifying fundamental criteria for the application of this institution and any problematic aspects thereof to make the application of the framework of the institution free from any legal gaps. Objectives of the thesis: to outline the concept of the institution of excuse from criminal liability, its place within the criminal justice system and its relationship with other institutions of criminal law, to unfold the general characteristics of the excuse from from criminal liability due to minor nature, its legal implications and prerequisites for its application, and to analyse the practical issues around the application of the excuse from criminal liability due to minor nature. Goal of the study: following the analysis of judicial case law concerning the characteristics of and prerequisites for the application of minor nature of a crime, the goal is to assess whether the criteria have been developed sufficiently to allow proper application of the institution of excuse from criminal liability for a crime