Види покарань у санкції ч. 1 ст. 296 чинного Кримінального кодексу України: неприховані хиби з прихованим змістом

Abstract

Розглянуто проблему некоректного законодавчого визначення видів покарань у санкції ч. 1 ст. 296 Кримінального кодексу України, якою встановлено кримінальну відповідальність за хуліганство, з погляду деяких конститутивних приписів Загальної частини зазначеного нормативно -правового акта. Акцентовано увагу на недотриманні вітчизняним правотворчим органом принципу системності формулювання окремих положень чинного Кримінального кодексу. Продемонстровано конкретні порушення логіко- юридичного характеру, наявність яких фактично унеможливлює коректне застосування ч. 1 ст. 296 КК України. Запропоновано можливі шляхи подолання наявної проблеми, серед інш ого з урахуванням відповідного досвіду деяких країн Європи.The author has studied the problem of incorrect legislative definition of the types of punishments in the sanction of Part 1 of the Art. 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which establishes criminal liability for hooliganism, from the point of view of some constitutive pro- visions of the General Part of the specified regulatory legal act. The emphasis has been placed on the non- observance by the domestic law -making agency of the principle of systematic formulation of certain provisions of the current Criminal Code. The author has demonstrated specific violations of logical and legal nature, the presence of whic h actually makes it impossible to correctly apply Part 1 of the Art. 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The author has suggested possible ways to overcome the existing problem, including the consideration of the relevant experience of some European countries. Thus, the substantive part of the article begins with the review of specific types of penalties prescribed in the sanction of Part 1 of the Art. 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely a fine, arrest and community service. We observe the gradual transition to a direct analysis of each of these punishments from the point of view of the relevant provisions of the General Part of the current Criminal Code, which determine the content and rules of their application in the norms of the Special Part. Undoubtedly, the possibility of the existence of the specified norm of the analyzed punishments in the sanction has argued the expediency of revision of their form and content, with substantiation of expediency of introducing the corresponding amendments bo th to Part 1 of the Art. 296 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and to the Articles 53, 56, 60, 61, 65, 99, 100, 101. We note that the current wording of the sanction of Part 1 of the Art. 296 cannot properly perform the tasks of the criminal policy of Ukraine, because the norm is actually deprived of a flexible mechanism for its application in practice. The incorrect combination of fines, arrest and community service as the main types of punishment for the so-called simple hooliganism is believed the reason for this situation, because the inclusion of such penalties in the sanction of Part 1 of the Art. 296 took place without taking into account some features of their purpose, prescribed in the relevant provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Two main ways to solve this problem have been suggested. Relevant arguments of some domestic researchers have been provided; references to specific provisions of certain countries of the European Union, where the similar issue found the appropriate decision, have been used in detail.Рассмотрена проблема некорректного законодательного определения видов наказаний в санкции ч. 1 ст. 296 Уголовного кодекса Украины, которым установлена уголовная ответственность за хулиганство, с точки зрения некоторых конститутивных предписаний Общей части указанного нормативно правового акта.