Takoskyra tarp administracinio teisės pažeidimo ir nusikalstamos veikos viešosios tvarkos sektoriuje

LTStraipsnio tikslas – atskleisti Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso 284 ir 285 straipsniuose aprašytas nusikalstamas veikas bei jas atriboti nuo atitinkamų Administracinių teisės pažeidimų kodekso174 ir 186 straipsniuose numatytų pažeidimų. Šis tikslas įgyvendinamas pasitelkiant istorinį, gramatinį, loginį metodus, detaliai analizuojant Lietuvos teismų praktiką bei joje kylančias problemas. Straipsnyje pirmiausia analizuojamas Baudžiamojo kodekso 284 straipsnis – viešosios tvarkos pažeidimas. Atskleidžiami veikos objektyvieji ir subjektyvieji požymiai, pirmosios straipsnio dalies atribojimo nuo antrosios dalies ypatumai. Vėliau pereinama prie Administracinių teisės pažeidimų kodekso 174 straipsnyje numatyto chuliganizmo atribojimo nuo esamo Baudžiamojo kodekso straipsnio. Antrajame straipsnio skyriuje analizuojami Baudžiamojo kodekso 285 straipsnyje nurodyti objektyvieji ir subjektyvieji požymiai bei pateikiami esminiai požymiai, skiriantys šią veiką nuo administracinio teisės pažeidimo, įtvirtinto Administracinių teisės pažeidimų kodekso 186 straipsnyje. Analizuojama teismų praktika bei siūlomi konkretūs problemų sprendimo būdai. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Viešoji tvarka; Chuliganizmas; Viešoji vieta; Public order; Hooliganism; Public place.

ENFrom Soviet times in Lithuanian criminal code was introduced term of „hooliganism“ which was criticized by Lithuanian scientists as one which is very loose and under which are accommodated all the criminal deeds which could not be penalised by other articles of criminal code. In Lithuanian Criminal code, which is in force from 1st of May 2003, the old term “hooliganism” was changed by term “violation of public order” which is contemporary, reflecting today’s criminal situation and the development of legal thought. But the problem is that in Lithuania is still in force the old code of Administrative law offences (from Soviet times) in which is still the old version of “hooliganism” which means that two codes are not harmonized together. The next problem – that the second part of article 284 of Criminal code (The offence of public order) which is not crime but only criminal offence for which there is no imprisonment is almost identical to the 174 article of Administrative law offences code. The aforementioned facts raise problems to the lawyers and others applying the aforementioned articles in practice.The aim of the article to disclose criminal offences described in the articles 284 and 285 of Lithuanian criminal code and also to distinguish them from adequate offences of Lithuanian administrative code – from articles 174 and 186. The aim is implemented by using historical, grammatical, logical methods, by analysing in detail Lithuanian court practice. First of all the author analyses the article 284 of Criminal code – the offence of public order, revealing its objective and subjective features, the main indications, distinguishing the first part of the article from the second part, later – the author proceeds to the differentiation of the article 174 of Administrative code from the second part of the article 284 of the Criminal code. In the second part of the article the author analyses the objective and subjective elements of the article 285 of the Criminal code and gives the main features distinguishing it from the administrative offence foreseen in the article 186 of Criminal code. The author analyses legal practice and suggests concrete proposals how to solve practical problems. [From the publication]