Teismo baudžiamojo įsakymo priėmimo proceso problemos ir tobulinimo perspektyvos

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjama viena iš supaprastintų, pastaruoju metu labai dažnai taikomų, baudžiamojo proceso formų1 – teismo baudžiamojo įsakymo priėmimo proceso (toliau ir – teismo baudžiamojo įsakymo procesas) institutas ir jo taikymo problemos. Dėmesys skiriamas prokuroro pareiškimo dėl proceso užbaigimo teismo baudžiamuoju įsakymu ir teismo baudžiamojo įsakymo turiniui, ypač siūlomos ir skiriamos bausmės motyvams. Taip pat straipsnyje analizuojama galimybė teismui perduoti baudžiamąją bylą prokurorui tyrimui papildyti, kai ji buvo gauta su prokuroro pareiškimu dėl teismo baudžiamojo įsakymo priėmimo. Be to, įvertinama šiuo metu susiklosčiusi teismų praktika teismo baudžiamojo įsakymo priėmimo proceso metu skiriant laisvės atėmimo bausmę ir keliamas klausimas dėl būtinumo teismo baudžiamąją įsakymą įteikti platesniam subjektų ratui, nei šiuo metu numatyta baudžiamojo proceso įstatyme. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Teismo baudžiamasis įsakymas; Supaprastintas baudžiamasis procesas; Prokuroro pareiškimas; Bausmės skyrimas; Penal order; Summary process; Plea made by a prosecutor; Appointing of punishment.

ENThe author analyses the most significant challenges in applying Section 1 of Chapter 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which concerns penal order. Firstly, some doubts are highlighted about the regulation of articles 419 and 421 of this code. In the author’s opinion, there are some omissions in the current regulation: the law does not regulate the motivation of the suggested punishment by the prosecutor, and nor does it regulate the motivation of the imposed punishment in the penal order. Because of this, the regulation should be changed and the motivation should be a compulsory element of the penal order and the plea made by the prosecutor. The next part of the article concerns the specifics of applying Article 420 Part 1 in court practice, noting the possibility of returning a criminal case to the prosecutor for additional pretrial investigation. The author recognizes that court practice in this field is not permanent, so it is suggested that a correction should be made to the law and the possibility should be established of returning a criminal case to the prosecutor for additional pretrial investigation. Also, some doubts are highlighted about the possibility of imposing a sentence of imprisonment by adopting a penal order, especially when punishments are added. The author states that court practice is continuing in the wrong way, with a lot of examples in which courts impose the final punishment of imprisonment.In the author’s opinion, such practice does not meet the main aim of the summary process, so should be changed. The last challenge that the article discusses is the delivery of an adopted penal order. The current regulation states that a penal order must be delivered only to the accused. But there are some problems when the court does not find the residence of the accused, and in those circumstances the time validity of the penal order is unclear. Because of that, the penal order should be determined more persons, which should get the penal order. [From the publication]