UDC 343.21                                                                                                                                                          PDF

ORCID: 0000-0002-7582-2071

DOI 10.37566/2707-6849-2020-1(30)-5

Natalia ANTONIUK,

Judge of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, associate professor, Ph. D

Role of the footnotes to articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding differentiation of criminal responsibility 

Footnotes to articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine have a function of making understanding the essence of the features of the body of crime easier. These features are clarified or detailed in the footnotes. Nevertheless, sometimes the legislator awards the footnote with functions it does not comply with. Such an approach of the legislator led to the discussion if the footnote can prescribe the features of the body of crime as the disposition of the norm does.

However, the analysis of the footnotes to articles of the Criminal Code allows us to make the conclusion that the mentioned above approach is not executed in full scope by the legislator while constructing the text of the footnote.  In some footnotes the legislator clarifies such an important feature of crime as volume of damages, in the others – defines feature of repeated crime.  Moreover, sometimes the footnote substitutes the disposition of the article and leads to differentiation of criminal responsibility.

This is a rather paradoxical situation when criminality of the action is not directly prescribed in the disposition but takes ground from the supplemental element of the article. We can illustrate the above said using the example of the footnotes to articles 149 and 303 of the Criminal Code in the part of actions encroaching minor victims or victims under the age of 18 years old. For instance, in certain footnotes to these articles the legislator has prescribed that methods of committing these crimes don’t matter. So, methods as the essential features of bodies of mentioned crimes lose their obligatory role, if crimes are committed versus minors or persons under age. We suggest that the differentiation of criminal responsibility must not be done using footnotes.

It is necessary to mention an important differentiating role of the footnote to article 45 of the Criminal Code, which envisages list of corruption offences.  We suppose that such a key definitions shall be interpreted in certain articles of the Code but not in the footnotes.  Optimally – terminological chapter is to be implemented into the Criminal Code.

The footnote to the article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code must only detail or clarify the essence of the features of crime, but cannot broaden their essence or volume. The footnote shall not obtain normative character in the meaning of establishing criminality of the action.

If the necessity to define some unified notions in the Criminal Code occurs, then it should be defined within the borders of the terminological chapter of the code. Features of the body of crime must be directly prescribed in the disposition of the Special Part of the Criminal Code. It is necessary to remove footnotes-definitions and footnotes-lists to the terminological chapter. At the same time, it is important to remember that the terminological chapter in the General Part of the Code is cross-cutting. So, if the necessity to clarify or to detail something concerning the body of specific crime occurs, the legislator can easily do this with the use of the footnote.

Key terms: footnote, differentiation of criminal responsibility, disposition of the article.

References

Syvak M. M. Prymitky statei Osoblyvoi chastyny Kryminalnoho kodeksu Ukrainy: teoretyko-prykladnyi analiz. Dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk : 12.00.08. Kyiv, 2013, 180 s.

Knyzhenko O. O. Problemy zastosuvannia st. 369-2 Kryminalnoho kodeksu Ukrainy. Novitni kryminalno-pravovi doslidzhennia – 2016 : zb. nauk. pr. Mykolaiv : Ilion, 2016. S. 30-32.

Koruptsiini skhemy: yikh kryminalno-pravova kvalifikatsiia i dosudove rozsliduvannia / za red. M.I. Khavroniuka. Kyiv : Moskalenko O. M., 2019. S. 174

Krainyk H. S., Dunaieva T. Ye. Vyznachennia tiazhkykh naslidkiv ta istotnoi shkody v rozdili XVII Osoblyvoi chastyny Kryminalnoho kodeksu Ukrainy. Visnyk LDUVS im. E. O. Didorenka. 2017. № 2. S. 108 -116

Dudorov O. O. Vidhuk na dysertatsiiu M. M. Syvaka «Prymitky statei Osoblyvoi chastyny Kryminalnoho kodeksu Ukrainy: teoretyko-prykladnyi analiz». Kryminalne pravo: teoriia i praktyka (vybrani pratsi). Kyiv: Vaite, 2017. S. 872.

Kolos O. V. Problemy vyznachennia odnoridnosti zlochyniv. Pravo i suspilstvo. № 2. 2018. S. 151-155

Antoniuk N. O. Mnozhynnist zlochyniv: do pytannia pro vdoskonalennia dyferentsiatsii kryminalnoi vidpovidalnosti. Naukovi zapysky Instytutu zakonodavstva Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. № 3. 2020. S. 6-13

Navrotskyi V. O. Osnovy kryminalno-pravovoi kvalifikatsii : navch. Posibnyk. K. : Yurinkom Inter, 2006. 704 s.

Kalmykov D. O. Osoblyva chastyna kryminalnoho prava Ukrainy yak strukturna chastyna KK Ukrainy. Forum prava. 2012. № 1. S. 403-418

Trostiuk Z. A. Yurydychna pryroda ta perspektyvy vykorystannia prymitok u Kryminalnomu kodeksi Ukrainy. Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava. 2009. № 4. S. 302-307

Zahynei Z. A. Hermenevtyka kryminalnoho zakonu Ukrainy. Dys… doktora yuryd. nauk : 12.00.08. Kyiv, 2016. 636 s.

Postanova Tretoi sudovoi sudovoi palaty Kasatsiinoho kryminalnoho sudu u skladi Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 3 chervnia 2020 roku (sprava № 722/28/17, provadzhennia № 51-302км20). Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen : veb-sait. URL: http://reestr.court.gov.ua/Review/89763057