Baudžiamosios atsakomybės už transporto eismo saugumo taisyklių pažeidimus problemos pagal naująjį Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamąjį kodeksą

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjami atsakomybės už nusikalstamų veikų transporto eismo saugumui reglamentavimo ypatumai naujajame Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame kodekse (toliau – BK), jie lyginami su 1961 m. Baudžiamojo kodekso nuostatomis, taip pat užsienio šalių baudžiamaisiais įstatymais. Aptariami kai kurių veikų dekriminalizavimo klausimai, apžvelgiamos nusikalstamų veikų transporto eismo saugumui sudėčių konstrukcijos ypatybės. Praktinėje veikloje dažnai tenka taikyti BK 281 straipsnį, numatantį atsakomybę už kelių transporto eismo saugumo ar transporto priemonių eksploatavimo taisyklių pažeidimą, sukėlusį sunkius padarinius, todėl daugiausia dėmesio skiriama šio straipsnio dispozicijose įtvirtintų požymių apžvalgai, taip pat aptariamos bausmių bei baudžiamojo poveikio priemonių skyrimo perspektyvos. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Atsakomybė; Baudžiamoji atsakomybė; Baudžiamoji teisė; Eismo įvykis; Nusikaltimai transporto eismo saugumui; Criminal law; Criminal liability; Responsibility; Trafic accident; Trafic offences.

ENIn the article features of criminal responsibility for criminal acts against traffic safety according to the new Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which came into force since May 1, 2003 are examined. The system of criminal acts against traffic safety, corpus delicti of the crimes, some definitions are analyzed in comparison with another Criminal Code of Lithuania / approved in 1961/ and codes of foreign countries. The author states that it should be positively evaluated that criminal acts against traffic security are systematized on the grounds of specific object and placed in the separate section, also the structure of respective corpus delicti is revised in this Criminal Code. It should be emphasized that in comparison with foreign legal acts, the system of criminal acts against traffic security instituted in the Criminal Code of Lithuania definitely differs in its extent, construction of concrete dispositions and types of penalty. In this article some aspects of decriminalization are reviewed, for example operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or narcotic, psychotropic and other intoxicating substances if commission thereof is repeated within one-year period, and the main changes made by the legislator regarding the criminal acts against traffic safety are briefly explained.In general the author discusses the construction of the Article 281 that foresees responsibility for causing serious consequences by violating road traffic rules. In the Article 281 criminal responsibility is differentiated considering two main criteria: a degree of consequence (large material damages, moderate or serious bodily injury, death of a human being) and a fact of drunk or intoxicated driving. The author analyzes some aspects of the signs of this crime and assesses some problematic issues of terminology used by the legislator in the Article 281. Furthermore, attention is paid to forms of guilt – criminal negligence and recklessness – that can be considered to be typical to road traffic rules violation. The article also presents a short review and analysis of punishments for this crime. The author states that criminal policy in this field is becoming milder but it should be noted that in some cases the legislator is inconsistent with institutionalizing sanctions. [From the publication]