Suchergebnisse

The article describes the phenomenon of singularity in criminal law, as well as its impact on the effectiveness of criminal sanctions. It is noted that the crisis of criminal law policy has led to the emergence of extremely dangerous trends. One of these is the singularity of criminal law. The article defi nes this as a modern phenomenon in criminal law that refl ects its crisis. It is pointed out that the term «singularity», which is widely used in physics, philosophy, and mathematics, can be used in criminal law to generalise the boundaries beyond which it seems poorly possible or impossible to describe phenomena in terms of current representation and understanding. Attention is drawn to the position of scientists who point to the absorption of positive criminal law by the anti-law within the framework of the singularity state. Emphasis is placed on leveling traditional criminal law institutions such as sanctions, punishment, and their preventive, protective, and punitive effects. The infl uence of the singularity on the effectiveness of criminal sanctions is shown. It is emphasised that globalisation in social networks generates a new phenomenon of parallel criminal law impact.

This article examines how subsidiarity can limit the exercise of EU procedural criminal law competence. It argues for a narrow understanding of subsidiarity, suggesting that EU procedural criminal law legislation can only be directed at problems which are of a cross-border nature. By analysing a specific piece of EU legislation, the new Victims Directive, it is shown how the subsidiarity principle can be enforced. The article sustains that the Victims Directive can be criticised on subsidiarity grounds as the directive fails to adequately account for the link between victim rights and the application of the principle of mutual recognition, since the directive fails to explain properly the need to regulate local victim rights. The article also draws some broader reflections on the justifications for EU harmonization. It is argued that EU initiatives in procedural criminal law have not primarily been driven by the need to facilitate mutual recognition and free movement but rather motivated by a general concern to deliver a common European sense of justice. Whilst this approach from the EU legislator can be justified from a moral perspective, it flies in the face of the idea that decisions should be taken as closely as possible in respect of citizens. ; Subsidiarity and EU criminal law

The development of electronic payment instruments and their online availability constitute important parts of the development of the EU payments market. Individual states adopt different approaches towards interpretation (legal aspects) and types of electronic payment instruments. To encourage sustainable payment services, minimize possible threats, and create favourable conditions for the development of new payment instruments, legislators adopt general legal acts stipulating the legal status of electronic payment instruments. However, the actual interpretation of payment instruments is often narrowed in legal practice, and does not cover payment instruments newly introduced to the market. A new insight into electronic payment instruments corresponding to the latest trends in the market is important in criminal law as well, because crimes related to the use of a payment instrument are common and difficult to investigate. In view of recent changes in payment services (the new Payment Services Directive in 2019), the norms of criminal law stipulating liability for the illegal disposal of electronic payment instruments must reflect circumstances predetermined by today's technological developments. In terms of criminal law, a technologically neutral conception of the payment instrument is necessary, to include a wider range of payment instruments that differ considerably from conventional personalized payment cards. The aim of this article is, therefore, to demonstrate that the current regulation of the Criminal Code of Lithuania lags behind the development of payment instruments, and in order to avoid excessive criminalization it is proposed to narrow the application of Article 214 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code.

The development of electronic payment instruments and their online availability constitute important parts of the development of the EU payments market. Individual states adopt different approaches towards interpretation (legal aspects) and types of electronic payment instruments. To encourage sustainable payment services, minimize possible threats, and create favourable conditions for the development of new payment instruments, legislators adopt general legal acts stipulating the legal status of electronic payment instruments. However, the actual interpretation of payment instruments is often narrowed in legal practice, and does not cover payment instruments newly introduced to the market. A new insight into electronic payment instruments corresponding to the latest trends in the market is important in criminal law as well, because crimes related to the use of a payment instrument are common and difficult to investigate. In view of recent changes in payment services (the new Payment Services Directive in 2019), the norms of criminal law stipulating liability for the illegal disposal of electronic payment instruments must reflect circumstances predetermined by today's technological developments. In terms of criminal law, a technologically neutral conception of the payment instrument is necessary, to include a wider range of payment instruments that differ considerably from conventional personalized payment cards. The aim of this article is, therefore, to demonstrate that the current regulation of the Criminal Code of Lithuania lags behind the development of payment instruments, and in order to avoid excessive criminalization it is proposed to narrow the application of Article 214 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code.

RESUMEN: La agresión terrorista ha supuesto, a nivel nacional y internacional, el problema de la creación de un sistema penal de reacción a tal fenómeno. Sin embargo, la necesidad de una contestación urgente ha tenido como consecuencia una incertidumbre general que lleva en sí misma el riesgo de la negación del Estado de derecho para adoptar la lógica del derecho penal del enemigo. Este escrito -a través el análisis de la teoría de Gunther Jakobs, teórico del derecho penal del enemigo- describe las repercusiones, parafraseando a Ferrajoli, de una falta de "asimetría entre Estados de derecho y violencia extra legal". ABSTRACT: The fear of terrorism has created, at national and international level, a criminal law system to react to this phenomenon. The need for a rapid answer to the problem has led to legal uncertainty that carries with it the risk of the negation of the legal state to adopt the logic of the enemy's criminal law. This writing, through the analysis of the theory by Gunther Jakobs, theorist of the enemy's criminal law, describes which are the negative repercussions of a lack of "asymmetry between legal state and extra legal violence" mentioning Luigi Ferrajoli. PALABRAS CLAVE: ciudadano,enemigo,pena,derecho penal,Estado de derecho. KEYWORDS: Citizen, enemy, punishment, criminal law, legal state.

Subject of this publication is torture as an interrogational instrument in criminal proceedings from a legal history point of view. Thereby, the author makes a distinction between torturing the accused on the one hand and, on the other hand, torture as an instrument to force a witness' incriminating testimony against third parties (in German: Zeugenfolter), torture as a means to avert dangers (lifesaving torture), torture as an additional cruelty to the accused's punishment (in German: Straffolter), and corporal punishment for lying in court. Only the first manifestation, namely torturing the accused intending to extort his confession, is the real subject of this paper. Volume I covers the following historical periods: Code of Hammurabi; Germanic Law; Roman Law; Age of the Kingdom of the Franks; High Middle Ages.

This article examines the preparation of the much-debated War Criminals Decree (WCD) of 4 May 1945 by the Norwegian exile government in London and the courts' later use of the law as the legal foundation for the reckoning with German war criminals. More specifically, we show how two central clauses in the Norwegian Constitution of 1814 were challenged by this decree, which combined national and international law in a hitherto unknown manner, and its use: The principle of legality (§ 96) and the prohibition of retroactivity (§ 97). Our article, based on unpublished documents from the Justice Department's (JD) archives, argues that the government's view 1942–1945 changed from defending these clauses to undermining them, by lowering the judicial bar for the passing of death sentences. It is, however, also argued that the courts, even if they did not challenge the WCD legally, nevertheless through their conscientious treatment of war crimes cases 1945–1949 drastically reduced the law's intended harshening effect on sentences and thus also the significance of its controversial constitutional aspects.

According to the Criminal Law, the protection of the natural human environment implies specific incriminations, i.e., environmental crimes that are punishable to preserve and create a healthy environment for the human species in line with the economic and technical development. Environmental problems created by society's progress (civilization) have political, economic, scientific, and legal, i.e., international legal dimensions. Today, a common topic is an ecological crisis caused by pollution and contamination of Earth, i.e., the disturbance of the balance and rhythm of the biosphere. Using the natural resources of our planet in a way that destroys it and prevents its regeneration requires special Criminal Law sanctions that will protect the natural environment and preclude our planet from becoming unsuitable for life. Therefore, we can increasingly use the term ecocide, i.e., utilizing natural resources without considering the necessity of developing a strategy for the use, harmonization, and preservation of a healthy human environment. This is a dualistic approach that links the protection of nature as an independent asset to protect the human quality of life as an individual and social issue. The paper will analyze the effectiveness of environmental protection from the Criminal Law aspect and point out the need for a more significant application of Administrative Law measures, especially the preventative ones, as a more effective tool for environmental protection.