Кримінальна відповідальність за ухилення від призову за мобілізацією

Abstract

У дисертації науково обґрунтовано кримінальну відповідальність за ухилення від призову за мобілізацією, створено на цій основі удосконалену конструкцію ст. 336 КК України та розроблено рекомендації з вдосконалення відповідних законодавчих положень та практики їх застосування. Доведено, якість інально-правового забезпечення обороноздатності15 країни напряму залежить від її «військового досвіду»: наявність протягом певного історичного періоду розвитку військових оборонних та/або наступальних дій чи діючого збройного конфлікту позитивно впливає на норми кримінального закону, що були застосовані у цей час. Пропонується доповнити диспозицію ст. 336 КК України частиною 2 щодо ухилення від призову за мобілізацією під час воєнного стану або вчиненого військовослужбовцем; санкції частини 1 доповнити покараннями увигляді штрафу, громадських робіт та арештом, частини 2 – обмеженням волі. Обґрунтовано доцільність доповнення ст. 336 КК України частиною 3, що передбачає спеціальний вид звільнення від кримінальної відповідальності та ст. 26 закону України «Про мобілізаційну підготовку та мобілізацію» частиною 3 щодо обов’язкової умови при такому звільнені як повернення коштів, що витрачені правоохоронними органами, військовими комісаріатами та судом на всіх стадіях кримінального провадження.In the dissertation the author has scientifically grounded criminal responsibility for evasion from conscription for mobilization, created on this basis an improved composition of art. 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and developed recommendations for the improvement of the relevant legislative provisions and practice of their application. She has proved that the quality of the criminal defense of the country depends directly on its "military experience": the presence during a certain historical period of the development of military defensive and / or offensive actions or an active armed conflict has a positive effect on the criminal law rules that were applied at this timeThe expediency of supplementing part 3 of art. 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provides for a special type of exemption from criminal liability and part 3 of art. 26 of the Law of Ukraine "On Mobilization Preparation and Mobilization" concerning the mandatory condition for such a release is released as a refund of funds spent by law enforcement agencies, military commissariats and the court at all stages of criminal proceedings. Arguments regarding the ungroundedness of allegations made by certain16 scholars and public figures on the illegality of the four waves of partial mobilizations announced by the decrees of the President of Ukraine and, consequently, unlawful application of art. 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine - existing conflicts and gaps of legal regulation in this area are proposed to be decided on the basis of the constitutional principle of the rule of law as the fundamental principle for the administration of justice in Ukraine. The provisions of the science of criminal law regarding the need to take into account the historical experience of legal regulation of social relations during the development and adopting of new criminal laws have been improved. The author has characterized the mechanism of causing damage to the object of the crime as follows: a person who is subject to conscription for mobilization deliberately changes his/her status excludes himself/herself as a participant in the procedure established by laws and other normative and legal acts to maintain the combat and mobilization readiness of the Armed Forces and other military formations of Ukraine on level, which guarantees an adequate response to threats to the national security of the state. Such a person breaks his/her relations with the state in terms of the obligation to protect the latter, but continues to demand that the state perform its duties unilaterally to the "deviants". The most common reasons for avoiding conscription for mobilization have been established: 1) the reluctance to protect the country due to the failure of the government to fulfill its responsibilities regarding a proper standard of living; 2) fear of real threat to be killed during the ATO; 3) others (it is difficult to systematize them, since the courts do not indicate them in their sentences, and the allocation of a separate motive is made on the basis of study of all materials of the case). The norms of similarity and differences between the Criminal Code of Ukraine and foreign criminal laws have been established: evasion from conscription for mobilization is a crime in most post-Soviet countries, while in other countries criminal mobilization awards are not subject to criminal law, but processes that provide it. Individual countries generally do not envisage such a norm, while some contain general norms with a clear definition of the concepts of "wartime", "enemy" and others. It is proposed to supplement the disposition of part 2 of art. 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine concerning evasion from conscription for mobilization during martial law; sanctions of both parts are supplemented with punishments in the form of fines, public works and restraint of liberty. The author has found out that art. 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine became a "change-over coin" in the achievement by law enforcement of performance indicators - in fact, the norm does not fulfill the protective and educational function of criminal law, and is secure in relation to those who apply it.