Conditions for the Release of the Whistleblower from Criminal Liability

The principle of nullum crimen sine culpa in Polish criminal law from a constitutional perspective

Goals of criminal liability can be achieved without imposing a punishment or the actual execution of the punishment imposed on a person who has committed a criminal act. Therefore, modern Lithuanian Criminal Law provides for the following three forms of criminal liability realization: 1) imposition of punishment, 2) release from criminal liability, and 3) suspension of the execution of punishment or release from the execution of punishment. The traditional form of implementing criminal liability recognizes the imposition of punishment (sentencing). In this case, the court that has found a person guilty of a criminal act has the duty and the right to impose a punishment on him/her. Statistical data confirm that sentencing is essentially the main form of realization of criminal liability in Lithuania, which is applied in an average of two-thirds (or about 66 percent) of decisions in criminal cases. Meanwhile, release from criminal liability or suspension of execution of punishment and release from the execution of punishment can be considered as additional forms of realization of criminal liability. Statistical data show that the institute of release from criminal liability remained stable in the second place and consistently accounted for a fraction more than one quarter (or about 27 percent) of decisions on criminal cases each year. Meanwhile, the statistical data of the application of the institute of suspension of execution of punishment and release from the execution of punishment show that this form of realization of criminal liability solves only a relatively small (or about 7 percent) share of criminal cases.Release from criminal liability as a form of realization of criminal liability in Lithuania can be with or without the application of penal or reformative measures. Chapter VI of the General Part of the Criminal Code of Lithuania “Release from Criminal Liability” essentially provides the 8 main, general types of release from criminal liability: release from criminal liability when a person or criminal act loses its dangerousness (Article 36 of the CC), release from criminal liability due to minor relevance of a crime (Article 37 of the CC), release from criminal liability upon reconciliation between the offender and the victim (Article 38 of the CC), release from criminal liability on the basis of mitigating circumstances (Article 39 of the CC), release from criminal liability when a person actively assisted in detecting the criminal acts committed by members of an organized group or a criminal association (Article 39(1) of the CC), release of a whistleblower from criminal liability (Article 39(2) of the CC), release from criminal liability on bail (Article 40 of the CC), and Chapter X of the General Part of the Criminal Code of Lithuania “Peculiarities of Criminal Liability of Juveniles” – release of a minor from criminal liability (Article 93 of the CC). The greatest influence on the Lithuanian criminal system in the last six years (2018–2023) has been exerted by such types of release from criminal liability as release from criminal liability upon reconciliation between the offender and the victim and release from criminal liability on bail, and, to a lesser extent – release from criminal liability due to the minor relevance of a crime. Meanwhile, other types of release from criminal liability for objective reasons, consisting of the regulation of the entire application grounds and individual requirements, practically do not affect the criminal policy. On the other hand, some of these types of release from criminal liability (such as release from criminal liability due to the minor relevance of a crime, release from criminal liability upon reconciliation between the offender and the victim, release from criminal liability on the basis of mitigating circumstances and release from criminal liability on bail) have the potential to exert greater influence on the criminal policy, and therefore support the amendments and additions to the Criminal Code which aim to abandon unreasonable restrictions and expand the legal prerequisites for the application of individual types of release from criminal liability.

This article, in accordance with the doctrine of criminal law and court practice, seeks to evaluate the current legal regulation of the institute of insignificance in the Criminal Code of Lithuania and its application in court practice. The aim of the article is to determine the origin of insignificance and its basic idea, which in current legal science and practice is recognized as de minimis and/or the nullum crimen sine periculo sociali principle. It will also determine whether the current case law applies the notion of insignificance according to the legal purpose of this institute. Historical and international analysis of the de minimis principle has shown that insignificance can be one of the criteria (in addition to the ultima ratio and other principles) in assessing the necessity of criminalizing/decriminalizing behaviour. It may legally determine the offense as harmless (non-criminal), or deny the objective (actus rea) or subjective features of the criminal offense (mens rea). Additionally, - in accordance with the criteria of the necessity of criminal liability, effectiveness, and economic expediency - insignificance can be the basis for the absence of prosecution in a breach of public interest. The Criminal Code of Lithuania has established a mixed model, which has no analogue in the criminal laws of foreign countries. According to the concept of insignificance enshrined in the criminal law of Lithuania, this is not the basis for justification or non-prosecution, but the basis for release from criminal liability. The court must assess the individual elements of the crime through the prism of danger, not based on the qualification of the act, but on the legal consequences, i. e. on the application of release from criminal liability. The study has shown that the application of the institute of insignificance in case law is currently influenced by a stricter criminal policy: criminalization of less serious acts and/or severe sanctions for their commission, as well as the poor quality of the law and an inability to specify the boundaries of criminal behaviour. This determines court decisions where a person is released from criminal liability for the insignificance of the act, taking into account not only the constituent elements of the crime but also the socio-economic changes, living conditions, circumstances of the crime, etc. The indicative legal regulation allows the courts to apply the institute of insignificance flexibly and thus compensate for the “poor quality” of the law. Such an application of the institute of insignificance after the adoption of the Criminal Law in 2000, however, was not predicted, and is not a natural evolution of the original concept of insignificance.

From January 1, 2018, amendments to the Criminal Law, which provide criminal liability for the persecution of a person, came into force in Latvia. The constituent elements of persecution are defined as a specific form of violence.The aim of the paper is to describe the constituent elements of persecution based on the theory and practice of criminal law. During the study, the author provides a framework of the criminal law theory and outlines the elements of the persecution. The object of the study is the criminal relations, which arise from the persecution of another person. The subject of the study is the criminal legal framework to be followed for the determination of criminal liability. The following legal interpretation methods and approaches have been used in the study: grammatical, systematic, teleological, and historical, as well as analytical method for analysing doctrine and practice of criminal law. Doctrines of criminal law, national legislation, and the sources of legal literature relevant to the aim of the paper have been in the study, too.The analysis carried out leads to the conclusion that persecution covers a wide range of socio-psychological behaviour that manifests in the sacrifice’s victimization and specific harm caused to him/her. Persecution is an active illegal, threatening activity in the form of repeated or lasting tracking, surveillance of another person, expressing threats or unsolicited communication with such a person, if victim have had reasonable grounds to fear for their safety or the safety of their relatives

Press in an institution that has strong influence in spreading information through news. In its interaction with public, there are several news which contain the elements of defamation offense. Regarding this criminal act, the problem of criminal liability arises. This study aimed to know the press criminal liability which indicated defamation offense and the arrangement of press criminal liability in the future time. This study used normative juridical research method by doing library research. The results of the study revealed that based on the criminal law in Indonesia, criminal liability in the news indicated defamation offense committed by the press had been set in Criminal Code in accordance with Article 61 and 62 of Criminal Code on Publisher and Printing. Should the publisher and the printing meet the requirements contained in the Article then criminal liability can be imposed to the writer and the person in charge for the printing license. There is a distinction between Criminal Code and Law Number 40 of 1999 on Press in spotting the responsible parties. In Law Number 40 of 1999 on Press, criminal liability is imposed to the Chief Editor. The arrangement of criminal liability for the press committed defamation criminal act in the future time had been set in Article 753 and 754 of Legal Draft of Criminal Code. Keywords: Press, Criminal Liability, Defamation

The establishment of criminal liability, as well as the direct prohibition of human behavior that causes or may cause harm, constitutes one of the most important and complex tasks of criminal law. This mission derives from the fundamental need of society to protect its internal order and essential social relations, using the specific instruments of criminal law, considered the last and most energetic means of legal defense. In the doctrine of criminal law, an essential theoretical distinction has crystallized between the de facto basis and the de jure basis of criminal liability, each having its role in the process of establishing guilt and holding the person accountable. The de facto basis of criminal liability presupposes the finding of the existence of a concrete, prejudicial act, committed in the real world. This involves the identification and exact description of the conduct and the consequence produced or threatened, as well as the establishment of all elements related to the objective side of the crime: the illicit action or inaction, the socially dangerous consequence, the causal link, the means, the manner and the circumstances in which the act was committed. However, the mere presence of an act that corresponds to the objective characteristics of a crime is not sufficient to engage the criminal liability of a person. Criminal law does not only sanction the external manifestation of the conduct, but requires a complex, multidimensional analysis, which also includes other elements indispensable for the legal qualification. Consequently, there is a need to establish the de jure basis of criminal liability, which consists in determining the existence of all the constituent elements of the crime, in the sense fully defined by criminal legislation. This basis is much more comprehensive, because it involves not only verifying the objective side, but also the subjective side, the object of the crime, the subject of the crime and all the essential signs provided for by the incrimination norm. Only when all these elements are met can the existence of the crime be confirmed in the legal sense and, implicitly, the person can be held criminally liable. Thus, the composition of the crime becomes the true de jure basis for criminal liability, which is expressly provided for and enshrined by the legislation in force, more precisely by the provisions of art. 51 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova, which enshrines the principle according to which criminal liability can be incurred only if all the constitutive elements of the crime are present. In this regard, the doctrine emphasizes that, in the absence of any essential element of the composition, criminal liability cannot be established, even if the act itself presents a prejudicial appearance.

Relevance and novelty. The article reveals the theoretical part of document falsification, analyses the essence and concept of document falsification as a criminal act, analyses the methods of document falsification and how they can be detected, and the dangerousness of the act of document falsification and its consequences. It examines how a pre-trial investigation is conducted in accordance with Article 300 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania and what criminal liability arises for forgery of documents. A quantitative study is conducted by conducting a questionnaire survey of prosecutors and assistant prosecutors in the regional prosecutor’s offices of the Panevėžys District Prosecutor’s Office, the Utena Prosecutor’s Office, revealing their concept of document forgery, how often it is encountered and what criminal liability is applied. The problem of the article – in judicial practice, conclusions can be found that any documents (private or official) can be forged if they contain information relevant to the emergence, change or termination of legal facts. In practice, there are cases when documents are signed with the permission of another person or documents are signed that do not have any legal force and this is already referred to as forgery of documents, but there are cases when the court of cassation states that the act is of minor importance or acquits the person (Forgery Laws…, 2023). This is not fundamentally a correct practice since the court of cassation must correct the errors of the first or appellate courts. The purpose of the article is to analyze the falsification of documents as a criminal act and the resulting criminal liability. The main problems. In court practice, conclusions can be found that any documents (private or official) can be forged if they contain information relevant to the emergence, change or termination of legal facts. In practice, there are cases when documents are signed with the permission of another person or documents are signed that do not have any legal force and this is already referred to as forgery of documents, but there are cases when the court of cassation states that the act is of minor importance or acquits the person. This is not fundamentally a correct practice, since the court of cassation must correct the errors of the first or appellate courts. Tasks of the article: 1) to examine the theoretical aspects of document forgery; 2) present methods of forging documents; 3) to analyze the legal norms arising in criminal liability for forgery of documents. The aim of the work. To analyze document falsification as a criminal act and the resulting criminal liability. The paper concluded the theoretical part of this work reveals the falsification of documents as a criminal act, methods of falsification, i.e. what liability arises in criminal law. The novelty. Documents perform an important task in the state, which convey various aspects of activities, and are also unavoidable in our daily life. In order to achieve selfish goals, or to try to hide mistakes, there is a need to falsify documents. The vagueness of the concept of a document has long encouraged researchers to be interested in the composition of document forgery (Forgery Laws…, 2023). However, today this topic is relevant not only because there is still no unequivocal and suitable for all cases document for the concept of Article 300 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, but also due to the fact that written documents are being replaced by electronic documents, the content of which is equivalent to written, paper documents. Society is changing and learning to use smart technologies, which encourages the emergence of new ways to authenticate documents. Documents, as a result of social relations, because they change accordingly with the changing needs of society, new ways of consolidating information appear. Court practice testifies that there is a greater need to analyze the content of a document in more detail, because it depends on whether it can be recognized as a document in a specific situation according to the meaning of Article 300 of the Civil Code. The outcome of the case depends on the correct interpretation of the content of the document. Therefore, forgery of documents is a hard-to-explain crime. As the result – It is very important to find out which crimes are related to forgery of documents and what criminal liability is applicable to them in criminal law. Forgery of documents is a crime, people do not reflect or accept it as a social norm. Forgery of documents is a negative collective social phenomenon, which causes negative repercussions in the social and political, state management, economic and international relations spheres. Methods: research methods used for the analysis of the scientific literature of the final thesis: analysis of scientific literature, analysis of judicial practice, analysis of legal acts, synthesis, comparison, integration.

In the doctrine of criminal law, there has not been an equable understanding of circumstances mitigating punishment, their legal nature, and functional purpose. The author believes that the current name of a mitigating situation in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as a situation mitigating only punishment does not reflect its purpose, since these situations are taken into account by the court when choosing other forms of criminal liability. The conclusion about the need to designate these circumstances as circumstances mitigating criminal liability is substantiated. The following definitions are proposed: "Circumstances that reduce criminal liability are factors that reduce the degree of public danger of a crime and (or) the identity of the perpetrator and, thus, affect the mitigation of responsibility by differentiating or individualizing it, or the impact on criminal liability is due to humanistic considerations". The author believes that circumstances mitigating punishment are provided both as elements of a crime and as circumstances outside the scope of the crime provided for in the list of mitigating circumstances (Article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). What both of these groups of mitigating circumstances have in common is that they influence liability in the direction of mitigating it. However, the functional significance of the circumstances provided for in specific crimes and those outside the crimes is different. Mitigation of the situation, which is provided as a sign of a crime, is a means of delineating criminal liability, and the most common form of its implementation is criminal punishment. The functional purpose of mitigating the consequences of situations that go beyond the derivatives of the element of crime is to facilitate the individualization of punishment for the person who committed the crime. The theory of criminal law vaguely evaluates the rules of sentencing, which are included in article 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in the presence of certain mitigating circumstances. The article criticizes the position of researchers who believe that the mitigation of punishment provided for in Article 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has not been carried out sufficiently. The author considers inappropriate to extend the norm of part 1 of Article 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to all circumstances of mitigating and exclude an indication of the absence of aggravating circumstances. The author believes that the prescription of part 4 of Article 62 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, regulating the imposition of punishment in the presence of pre-trial cooperation agreements, does not correspond to the nature and degree of public danger of the crime, in which the punishment in the form of death penalty and life imprisonment are unjustifiably lenient. In the author's opinion, it would be sufficient to prohibit the use of the death penalty and life imprisonment in the presence of pre-trial cooperation agreements. Excessive liberalization of special rules aimed at mitigating punishment contradicts the principle of sentencing and the goals facing criminal punishment.

A traditional criminal code performs several functions. It announces the law's commands to those whose conduct it seeks to influence. It also defines the rules to be used in deciding whether a breach of the law's commands will result in criminal liability and, if so, the grade or degree of liability. In serving the first function, the code addresses all members of the public. In performing the second function, it addresses lawyers, judges, jurors, and others who play a role in the adjudication process. In part because of these different audiences, the two functions call for different kinds of documents. To effectively communicate to the public, the code must be easy to read and understand. It must give a clear statement, in objective terms if possible, of the conduct that the law prohibits and under what conditions it is prohibited. Readability, accessibility, simplicity, and clarity characterize a code that most effectively articulates and announces the criminal law's rules of conduct. The adjudicators, on the other hand, can tolerate greater complexity. Clarity and simplicity are always a virtue, but the judgments required of adjudicators necessarily limit how simple the adjudication rules can be. While the public can be told rather easily and clearly that "you may not cause bodily injury or death to another person," when a prohibited injury or death does occur, the adjudicators need rules to determine whether the injurer ought to escape liability because he or she had no culpability, was insane, believed mistakenly but reasonably that the force used was necessary for self-defense, or for any number of other reasons. If liability is appropriate, the adjudication rules must determine the appropriate degree of liability, taking account of the actor's level of culpability, the extent of the injury, and a variety of other mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Many, if not most, of these liability and grading factors require complex and sometimes subjective criteria. The current practice of using a single code to perform both functions means that neither function is performed as well as it could be. Is it possible to draft two codes - a code to articulate the rules of conduct, written for lay persons, and a code to govern the adjudication process, written for criminal justice professionals? If one were to pull out of a current criminal code only those provisions that a lay person must know in order to remain law-abiding, what would such a document contain and what would it look like? If one were to organize a code to capture the decisional process for criminal adjudication, what would such a document contain and what would it look like? This Article attempts to answer these questions. We tentatively conclude that distinct codes of conduct and of adjudication can be drafted and can allow the criminal law to perform both functions more efficiently and successfully. The possibility of creating separate codes for separate functions is made feasible in part because each doctrine of criminal law typically serves one or the other function. For example, to communicate effectively to the members of the public the rules needed to conform their conduct to the requirements of law, a code need not clearly communicate the subtleties of the insanity defense, the detailed definitions of culpable states of mind, or the operation of the entrapment doctrine. That is, a code of conduct and a code of adjudication can be created by segregating the doctrines of criminal law into one or the other code according to the function that each doctrine performs. This Article outlines how a code of conduct and a code of adjudication can be drafted, and how taken together the two codes can better perform each of the two functions of present criminal codes. Part II discusses strategies for drafting an effective code of conduct, Part III for drafting a code of adjudication. Both discussions use examples from the complete models for a draft code of conduct in Appendix A and a draft code of adjudication in Appendix B. We do not offer these codes as refined, ready-to-enact models, but rather as illustrations of the drafting principles that we develop.

The rapid development of information and communication technology has led to the emergence of various forms of digital-based crimes, including the dissemination of electronic information containing online gambling content through social media. This situation poses challenges for criminal law enforcement, as the parties involved are not limited to gambling operators but also include individuals who promote and facilitate access to online gambling platforms. This study aims to examine criminal liability for perpetrators who disseminate electronic information containing gambling content and to analyze judicial considerations in sentencing, referring to the Decision of the Tanjung Karang District Court Number 823/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Tjk. The method used is normative juridical research with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Data were collected through literature studies of relevant regulations, criminal law doctrines, and court decisions, and then analyzed using a descriptive qualitative method. The results show that the elements of criminal liability are fulfilled, including the existence of a criminal act, intent, capacity to be responsible, and the absence of grounds that eliminate criminal liability. Furthermore, the panel of judges’ considerations reflect a balanced assessment between juridical and non-juridical aspects, resulting in a decision that embodies legal certainty, justice, and utility. This study is expected to contribute to the development of criminal law, particularly in addressing online gambling crimes in the digital space.

Corporate crime is a unique crime against which excellent deterrence should be combated. However, these efforts are inversely proportional to the criminal law policies that serve as the basis for their implementation. The KUHP, the key pillar of the statute, merely acknowledges natural persons as subjects of criminal law. And they do not regard companies as criminal law topics. Crime laws must also be renewed. On this basis, a criminal policy will be discussed in Indonesia about the criminal liability scheme. The results of studies indicate that criminalization of all types of corporate crime was regarded as a crime according to positive criminal law in Indonesia. The relationship between one and the other criminal code differs however. The Criminal Code notes that the crime modes sometimes perpetrated by the companies were considered a criminal offense but should be performed by a normal individual. In other words, it may be claimed that companies have not been considered subjects of criminal law by the Criminal Code. However, in some criminal law laws out of the Criminal Code, companies have been treated as targets of criminal legislation and should be responsible for their acts. In Indonesia, the criminal liability scheme introduced by the Positive Legislation seeks to identify and delegate hypotheses where the errors and the source of authorities they have are assessed. The requirements in one criminal law and the other, however, are comprehensively different. For instance, a criminal must not be the manager, but someone who does anything in or for the sake of a company and the act is carried out within the framework of a corporation. It is not, however, expressly specified by the draft Law on the Criminal Code that the criminal is convicted so as to understand that the criminal is not liable for the crime he commits because criminal liabilities were transferred to the company. The draft Criminal Code Act (RKUHP) has accommodated companies as subjects of criminal law and arranged procedures for criminal liability. It can be seen from the principle of the renewal of criminal law that future criminal law would regard business offences as criminal actions and that penal penalties will be imposed on the company. The established provisions clearly show that the model and philosophy embraced are the doctrines of vicarious responsibility, even though there are shortcomings in the model.

The acceptance of the corporation as the subject of a criminal act, causing problems in the accountability of corporate criminal acts, because of the existence of vague norms that cause injustice and uncertainty in its application. In this study, there are two main problems, namely regulation of corporate criminal liability in criminal law in Indonesia and the prospect of criminal law on the liability of corporate criminal acts in Indonesia from the perspective of ius constituendum. The research method used is a normative legal research method with a statutory approach, comparison study and legal concepts analysis. The results of the study are: (1) As a vague norm in the regulation of corporations as the subject of criminal acts that can be accounted for in the Criminal Code and several laws outside the Criminal Code have regulated corporations as the subject of criminal acts that can be accounted for in criminal law, (2) The prospect of regulating corporate criminal liability in the 2019 Draft Criminal Code has completely and firmly regulated corporations as the subject of criminal acts and can be accounted for in criminal law and accepts absolute criminal liability and certain substitute criminal liability.

This article examines the institution of exemption from criminal liability as an alternative to criminal prosecution and correlation with the principle of presumption of innocence on the basis of current criminal procedure legislation, scientific researches and judicial practice (case law). It is established that the initial position of scholars, who adhere to the opinion of contradiction of the institution of exemption from criminal liability with the principle of presumption of innocence, is that, in itself, the fact of exemption from criminal liability indicates a guilty plea and requires sentencing in accordance with Part 1 of the Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine. It was found out that reference of some scholars to commitment of a crime by a person is possible only due to availability of guilty verdict, not a court ruling. Because, there are many norms in legislation which may restrict certain citizens’ rights on the basis of ceasing a criminal case under «non-rehabilitative» circumstances. Other ones propose to abandon the institution of exemption from criminal liability in general and advocate expanding the scope of the institution of release from punishment, improving other means of criminal law regulation of the crime which is established by a guilty verdict of a court. It is being proved that the principle of presumption of innocence while exempting from criminal liability is not restricted: the prescriptions of presumption of innocence should be assessed, firstly, as not included into the mechanism of criminal liability, and secondly – as criminal law measures which are an alternative to punishment. Exemption of a person from criminal liability remains to be an effective means to resolve a criminal law dispute in cases prescribed by law. A person who has committed a criminally punishable act is, in no way, limited in their rights, much less in the right to implement the principle of the presumption of innocence. Key words: alternative, liability, exemption (release), punishment, presumption of innocence.

The acceptance of the corporation as the subject of a criminal act, causing problems in the accountability of corporate criminal acts, because of the existence of vague norms that cause injustice and uncertainty in its application. In this study, there are two main problems, namely regulation of corporate criminal liability in criminal law in Indonesia and the prospect of criminal law on the liability of corporate criminal acts in Indonesia from the perspective of ius constituendum. The research method used is a normative legal research method with a statutory approach, comparison study and legal concepts analysis. The results of the study are: (1) As a vague norm in the regulation of corporations as the subject of criminal acts that can be accounted for in the Criminal Code and several laws outside the Criminal Code have regulated corporations as the subject of criminal acts that can be accounted for in criminal law, (2) The prospect of regulating corporate criminal liability in the 2019 Draft Criminal Code has completely and firmly regulated corporations as the subject of criminal acts and can be accounted for in criminal law and accepts absolute criminal liability and certain substitute criminal liability.

An ever-increasing proportion of cases of hate speech appear in virtual space, especially in light of today's current events, such as the difference of opinion on the prevention of a past pandemic, the issue of homosexuals in the country or the ongoing war in neighbouring countries, as a result of which not only discussions take place in the virtual environment, but also various statements that can be considered hate speech can often be found. In addition, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR), on some issues, requires corrections of the imperfections of the Lithuanian legal regulation, introducing a different and often even opposite approach to the regulation of criminal responsibility for spreading hate speech and its application in Lithuania. As a result, it is necessary to constantly assess and monitor whether Lithuania's position on criminal liability for spreading hate speech still meets international standards and what are the latest problems encountered when applying this criminal liability. Therefore, the purpose of the research is to analyse the peculiarities and problems of the Lithuanian legal regulation of criminal liability for spreading of the hate speech and its application in case law in the context of the case law of the ECHR. So, the tasks of the research are based on two main area of this analysis, i.e. the challenges in Lithuanian criminal law of qualifying the spread of hate speech as a criminal offense, the challenges arising in Lithuanian case law regarding the assessment of dangerousness, incriminating criminal liability for spreading hate speech, and together these issues are evaluated in the context of the case law of the ECHR. The article uses research methods such as systematic analysis, document analysis, the deduction analysis, comparative analysis and generalization methods. The analysis of this article substantiated the difficulties that arise not only in classifying the dissemination of hate speech as a criminal act, especially in assessing the evaluation of the content of hate speech and the incrimination of the qualifying features of publicity, but also significant challenges in the case law of Lithuanian courts, when the assessment of the dangerousness of the criminal offense for spreading hate speech is based on four essential criteria, however, they are often given different evaluative weight, or even one or the other is not evaluated at all or is evaluated contrary to even the international case law of the ECHR.