Конкуренція між кримінально-правовими положеннями, що передбачають окремі види звільнення від кримінальної відповідальності

Abstract

Доведено хибність твердження про неможливість конкуренції між окремими видами звільнення від кримінальної відповідальності. Обґрунтовано, що під час визначення найбільш «пільгової» норми, на підставі якої допустиме звільнення від кримінальної відповідальності, потрібно зважати на те, чи зберігатиметься можливість притягнення особи до кримінальної відповідальності у майбутньому; чи є обов’язковим для суду прийняття відповідного рішення; на яке коло кримінальних правопорушень та осіб, котрі їх учинили, розрахована ця норма; які умови для звільнення від кримінальної відповідальності встановлені за інших рівних умов. Proper delineation of different types of exemption from criminal liability, the solution of competition between the legal norms foreseen such exemption are important in practice. However, law enforcers, within closing criminal proceedings (termination of criminal prosecution) and releasing from criminal liability, do not even think about the existence of such competition and about the need to choose a legal norm that is more advantageous for the accused. Sometimes the competition of criminal law norms in legal literature is reduced only to the competition of these rules within the qualifcation of an act prohibited by the Criminal Code of Ukraine. This article is devoted to the analysis of credibility of this statement, possibility of competition within the procedure of releasing from criminal liability, as well as to the mode of action under such competition. The impossibility of competition between certain types of exemption from criminal responsibility has been criticized. It is noted that it’s impossible to give universal recommendations for determining the most «proftable» norm on the basis of which the exemption from criminal responsibility is permissible. However, the following conditions have to be taken into consideration: 1) whether the possibility of bringing a person to criminal responsibility in the future will remain; 2) whether it is obligatory for the court to make a decision on exemption from criminal responsibility; 3) which offences and persons who committed them the norm is settled for; 4) what (more or less strict) conditions for exemption from criminal responsibility are settled, when other conditions are equal. It is proved that the differentiation mechanism of types of exemption from criminal responsibility after effective repentance and after reconciliation with the victim should be as follows: if there is a victim (in the procedural sense) the proceedings should not be closed under Art. 45 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. There is a special institution - the closure of criminal proceedings after reconciliation of the perpetrator with the victim (Article 46 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) for exemption from criminal responsibility in such cases. The exemption from criminal responsibility after effective repentance is expedient to apply if the encroachment harms the public interest. It is substantiated that a special rule, regarding one fxed in Article 45 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, is foreseen by Part 4 of Article 311 of this Code - because it foresees the conditions of exemption from criminal responsibility of a person who has committed a specifc criminal offense. The unambiguity and categoricalness of the statement, under which in Article 45 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is not foreseen a general type of exemption from criminal responsibility regarding the special ones foreseen by the Special Part, is criticized; it is proved that at least one such exception exists;