Būtinasis reikalingumas eismo įvykių bylose

LTLietuvos baudžiamojoje teisėje būtinojo reikalingumo institutas yra aktualus, bet mažai nagrinėtas. Straipsnio autorius nagrinėja būtinąjį reikalingumą nauju požiūriu, t. y. konkretaus nusikaltimo sudėties atžvilgiu. Autorius pateikia būtinojo reikalingumo formalios atitikties Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso 281 straipsnyje įtvirtintai nusikaltimo sudėčiai objektyviuosius požymius, nagrinėja, kaip būtinojo reikalingumo teisėtumo sąlygos pasireiškia kelių transporto eismo saugumo ar transporto priemonių eksploatavimo taisyklių pažeidimo bylose, pateikia kelių praktinių pavyzdžių analizę. Straipsnyje pateikiamas autoriaus požiūris į veikos, atliktos būtinojo reikalingumo sąlygomis, subjektyviosios kontrolės ir kaltės santykį. Autorius išryškina ir sukonkretina būtinojo reikalingumo teisėtumo sąlygas, kurių nustatymas kelių transporto eismo saugumo ar transporto priemonių eksploatavimo taisyklių pažeidimo bylose yra probleminis. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Baudžiamoji atsakomybė; Būtinasis reikalingumas; Būtinasis reikalingumas, baudžiamoji atsakomybė; Eismo įvykiai; Eismo įvykis; Teismų praktika; Court practise; Criminal liability; Criminal responsibility; Necessity; Traffic accident; Traffic accidents.

ENIn the Lithuanian criminal law the institute of necessity is relevant; however, little research into it has been done so far. Cases when the defendants claim to have acted under the circumstances of necessity are rare. Courts acquit defendants on the grounds of the circumstances of necessity even less frequently. The author of the article analyses necessity from a new angle, i.e. with regard to the corpus delicti of a particular crime. The author presents the objective features of the formal compliance of necessity to the corpus delicti rule established in Article 281 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code. The author distinguishes between the objective features which are difficult to be proved and the ones getting insufficient attention. Normally, the values protected by criminal law, action and inaction and the establishment of the consequences provided for in the Criminal Code do not raise problems. The establishment of a causal relationship between the action or inaction and their consequences is more complex because, usually, a person makes several violations of the Road Traffic Rules; therefore, the Court, having stated that more than one traffic rule was violated during the traffic accident, has to find out which violation was the direct cause of the negative consequences. In this article special attention is paid to the subjective control of the behaviour of a person acting under the circumstances of necessity. According to the author, the subjective control of the behaviour of a person acting under the circumstances of necessity may be understood as an analogue of guilt.However, the author emphasizes that the subjective control of the behaviour of a person acting under the circumstances of necessity may be similar to a certain form and kind of guilt; however, it cannot coincide with guilt. What is more, a conclusion is made that the main feature of the subjective control of the behaviour of a person acting under the circumstances of necessity is the understanding of the benefit of an action for the public. The article analyses the way the conditions of the legitimacy of necessity appear in the cases of the violation of the Road Traffic Rules. The author makes a conclusion that the establishment of some legitimacy conditions, such as "danger to the values protected by law", "reality of danger" and "evidence of danger", does not cause any practical problems. In the theory and practice of criminal law most disputes arise regarding two legitimacy conditions describing the elimination of danger, i.e. regarding the conditions of "inability to eliminate the imminence of danger in other ways" and "less harm caused than was meant to be avoided". These particular legitimacy conditions influence the legal evaluation of human behaviour. These legitimacy conditions also justify the institute of necessity in respect of constitutional law. After the analysis of the conditions of the legitimacy of necessity a conclusion is made that a person’s subjective control has huge significance in proving these conditions. [From the publication]