The Problems of Application of Criminal Laws and their Solutions Following the Enforcement of the new Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
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where the existing law is not applied, and, on the contrary – the ones which include the application of the law are no longer in effect.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. This effect may only arise upon the commitment of a certain criminal deed. The relation between the previous and the current CC is analysed according to three criteria: criminality of deeds, punishability of their perpetrators, and the rest of the legal status of such persons.
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 references.
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. This effect may only arise upon the commitment of a certain criminal deed. The relation between the previous and the current CC is analysed according to three criteria: criminality of deeds, punishability of their perpetrators, and the rest of the legal status of such persons.
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 references.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
