CRIMINALIZATION LACKING LEGAL MEANINGFULNESS: DRAFT LAW № 6084

Abstract

On November 2, 2021 the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted in first reading as basis draft law№ 6084 “Concerning amending the Criminal Code of Ukraine by introducing criminal liability for forgingdocuments in the sphere of preventive vaccination”. Before adopting this draft law № 6084 in first reading as basisthe Major scientific-expert department of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine concluded on whether it was concordantwith the Ukrainian Constitution, other laws, rules of legal technique and common sense at constructing thosecriminal norms. Finally, there were 4 points issued stating solely, or all in general, that this draft law is absolutelyunsubstantial and lack quality of legal drafting. After familiarization with this draft law masterpiece for the secondreading, the Main Legal Department of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, noted same mistakes as already emphasizedby the Major scientific-expert department, and underlined additional ones (most of them are connected with qualityof legal drafting). Among the authors of the draft law № 6084 there are 7 persons (D.A. Shmigal, S.K. Ionushas,M.B. Radutsky, A.E. Kostin, Yu.Yu. Aristov, A.O. Radina, I.O. Klympush-Tsyntsadze), among which 2 persons areHonoured lawyers of Ukraine (2021), and one has legal professional education, other have no legal background atall. It looks really odd that such a group of authors with two Honoured lawyers of Ukraine can not construct withoutmistakes a meaningful, concordant with the CCU structure, according to legal drafting rules (as 4thyear studentsof legal universities already do) draft law including just one (1!) article to the Criminal Code of Ukraine. So, we conclude that draft law № 6084 in its contents and quality of criminal norms construction does not comply with theprinciple of legality, rules of legal drafting and rises many more concerns as regards incorporation into the CCU,than even is apt to achieve its declared aim neither de jure, nor de facto. Besides, it creates legal uncertainty, doubleand exaggerated criminalization, and would obviously lead to further problems in its application and additionalcorruption risks in the sphere of criminal justice.