The modern Lithuanian legal doctrine recognises that criminal liability is a last resort (ultima ratio) protecting the society from various law violations. This idea has got deep roots in criminology and is obviously based on the position of rational approach towards the state criminal policy. However, it is not clear whether it is of obligatory legal status to the legislature and the courts. This article attempts to present the idea of a last resort as (...) a concept based on the constitutional principles of the rule of law, justice, proportionality and rationality in the legislation and case law. The author concludes that the main precursors of the ultima ratio principle are the German legal doctrine of protection of legal goods (Rechtsgüterschutz) and Harm principle respected in the common law tradition, as well as the need for protection of human rights in the democratic world. These concepts raise the duty of the legislator to justify the act of criminalisation by legitimate purpose and to comply with certain constitutional limits of application of criminal law. The idea of criminal liability as a last resort is recognised both in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court (obiter dictum) and in the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania reasoning particular decisions in criminal cases, especially delimiting criminal and other types of legal liability. The author concludes that the fact of discrepancy of criminal law to ultima ratio test can be one of the arguments in support of its objection to the Constitution and even the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. At the same time, the author of the article has found that many norms of the Criminal Code are in conflict with the idea of a last resort. (shrink)

Recently (2010–2011) new criminal legislation to combat illegal income and corruption was passed and publicly discussed in Lithuania. Within the list of the new legal measures, special attention should be paid to criminalisation of illicit enrichment, establishment of a model of extended property confiscation, reinforcement of responsibility for corruption-related offenses, a provision that not only property but also personal benefits may constitute a bribe. It can be seen from the explanatory letters attached to the draft laws and the political debate (...) that the new regulation is expected to achieve decisive breakthrough in the fight against corruption and illegal income. However, without any doubt as to the necessity to fight against those social evils, the author presents critical evaluation of the reform by applying the test of principles of criminal law, legal language and practical effectiveness. By making critical conclusions that the new criminal legislation deliberately lightens the prosecution’s goal of incrimination and the burden of proof, the author warns about the purposive instrumental nature of the new laws, which are balancing on the threshold of legitimacy. In the article the author reveals crucial shortcomings of the new legislation: in some aspects it lacks legal certainty, in other aspects it ignores the principles of guilt, presumption of innocence and proportionality as well as the conception of criminal law as a last resort (ultima ratio). As a result, the new legal means against illegal income and corruption leave space for applying inadequate repression beyond their intended purpose, in addition, they criminalise human conduct that is insufficiently dangerous and create preconditions for senseless criminal prosecutions and violation of human rights. (shrink)