TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

1

Avtorja dogmatično in primerjalno analizirata tako imenovano tatvine storitve. Pri tem izhajata iz nemške kazenske zakonodaje, ki ta delikt – drugače kot slovenska – že dolgo inkriminira. Inkriminacija šteje tam za pomembno dopolnitev inkriminacije goljufije. Pojem tatvine storitve označuje najrazličnejše možne primere neupravičenega uživanja koristi tuje storitve. Storilec, ki tako ravna, življenjsko gledano s tem poškoduje premoženje drugega. Predmet kazenskopravne analize opisanega dejanja in njegovih učinkov v zunanjem svetu so predvsem vprašanja izvršitvenega ravnanja, prepovedane posledice, objekta varstva, predmeta in oškodovanca tega kaznivega dejanja, kot tudi vpraša- nje njegove narave. Po nemškem kazenskem zakoniku (StGB) je, utemeljeno, tatvina storitve storitveno-opustitveno nepopolno dvoaktno, s tem pa tudi ogrozitveno kaznivo dejanje. Prispevek ob teh vprašanjih obdeluje tudi teža- ve, v katere bi zakonodajalec zabredel, če bi obravnavani delikt inkriminiral v popolni dvoaktni in poškodbeni obliki. Vpliv teh lastnosti tatvine storitve na njeno prepovedano posledico, ki je po StGB začetek koriščenja storitve ali zagotovitev dostopa do prireditve, je bistven. Najočitnejši rezultat te delitve predmeta kaznivega dejanja na storitev in prireditev pa je alternativna narava primarne dispozicije, ki opisuje izvršitveno ravnanje obravnavanega delikta.

The authors dogmatically and a comparatively analyse the dishonest obtaining of another’s services. Doing so, they follow German criminal substantive law, which, in contrast to Slovenian criminal law, incriminates the act, supplemental to the incrimination of fraud. Perpetrator who obtains the services dishonestly damages the net wealth or the property of another. A criminal law analysis of the described act and its effects in the outer world finds as its objective especially the questions, regarded to the criminal act, the prohibited consequence of the act, the legal good, which the present incrimination guards, the object of the criminal act and its damaged party, as well as the questions related to the nature of the criminal act. StGB, understandably, incriminates theft of services as a commisive-ommisive criminal act, which consists of one manifested and one non-manifested act. It is also not required for the perpetrator to inflict damage on another’s net wealth for the criminal act to be complete. There is also a considerable influence which the described characteristics impose on the prohibited consequence (the initiative moment of using another’s service or the assurance of an access to an event), postulated by the criminal norm. The result of the distinction making between the two forms of criminal act’s object influences the nature of the disposition, which describes the perpetrator’s acting. It is, therefore, an alternative disposition.

Incrimination of Obtainig Services by Deception as in German StGB – Yes or No?