The purpose of this study was to solve the problem of prosecution for non-fulfillment of economic contractual obligations under martial law. Methodology. This study was carried out in a clear sequence, following the stages of studying the problem, based on the logic of the presentation of the material, with the aim of achieving the goals set in the article and fulfilling the defined tasks. During the research, such methods as the information-analytical method were used; system approach method; method of comparison and comparison; method of descriptive analysis; method of pragmatic approach; forecasting method. The results. It was established that criminal liability for non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of economic contractual obligations is not provided for by the current criminal legislation of Ukraine, although enforcement of such obligations (in particular, in critical conditions of martial law) by criminal legal means is appropriate and necessary. The scientific novelty is that we propose to eliminate this gap by including in the Special Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine Art. 2061, which will establish liability for breach of contract terms, namely, will provide for liability for non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of economic contractual obligations, if this resulted in large losses (the amount of such losses, namely those that are 500 or more times greater than the tax-free the minimum income of citizens, to be provided in the note to the specified article). As circumstances that will aggravate the punishment for the specified act, it is worth predicting a particularly large amount, which led to particularly significant losses (which are 1000 or more times greater than the tax-free minimum income of citizens), which should also be indicated in the note to this norm; repeatedly, that is, by a person who previously committed such a criminal offense; by a group of persons based on a prior conspiracy and others, if the specified acts are committed in the presence of other significant aggravating circumstances that will affect the type and amount of punishment. Practical significance. This study does not exhaust the indicated problems, but opens the prospect of further research in the field of ensuring the fulfillment of contractual economic obligations.

Introduction. The issue of compliance of the principles of sentencing with international standards and their significance for the criminal responsibility of special subjects of crime has not been specifically considered in the theory of criminal law. But this issue should be reflected, because in the vast majority of criminal liability is brought to persons who are endowed, along with mandatory, special mandatory features. The aim of the article. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the provisions of the criminal code of Ukraine that define the criminal responsibility of a special subject of crime correspond to the principles of sentencing, which are the embodiment of international standards for ensuring human rights, and how this is regulated at the level of national legislation. Results. The methodology of this study is to analyze and summarize the scientific and theoretical material, as well as compare the norms of domestic and international legislation in the field of ensuring respect for human rights-a special subject of crime in criminal legislation. International standards, which are mandatory and not Advisory in nature, are embodied in norms-principles that are fixed at the level of legislation. The main form of implementation of the law on criminal responsibility is sentencing by the court, so international legal standards are implemented in the form of sentencing principles that guarantee the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the subjects of crimes, including special ones. The principles of sentencing should include the principle of legality of punishment; the principle of certainty of punishment in a court sentence; the principle of expediency of punishment; the principle of justification and mandatory motivation of punishment in the sentence; the principle of justice of punishment; the principle of proportionality of punishment; the principle of humanity of punishment; the principle of individualization of punishment Conclusions. The principles of sentencing embody provisions that oblige to take into account all essential features relating to the characteristics of the offender and the circumstances of the crime. Compliance with these principles and their clear regulation will help to improve the criminal responsibility of special subjects of crimes. Therefore, these principles should be clearly regulated in the criminal code of Ukraine. It is advisable to include the principle of proportionality (conformity) of punishment in the list of sentencing principles. This study is not exhaustive and opens up the prospect of further research on this issue and improving domestic criminal legislation.

No abstract

Annotation: Despite the rather large number of works devoted to the study of the characteristic features of mental anomalies, which do not exclude criminal prosecution, the peculiarities of criminal prosecution of such persons, a number of insufficiently solved problems remain. In the criminal law of a number of countries, the liability of persons with mental anomalies has long been regulated within the institution of limited sanity. And in this aspect, the study of foreign experience in the legislative regulation of this institution is necessary. The purpose of the study is to study the rules of foreign criminal law, which determine the features of criminal liability of persons with mental anomalies, and compare them with the relevant rules of criminal law of Ukraine. Among the countries whose criminal law provides for limited sanity for persons with mental anomalies, there are two conditional approaches to the criminal liability of persons with mental anomalies (mental disorders) in accordance with the legal family: England-American and Romano-Germanic. In the vast majority of countries of the Romano-Germanic legal family, whose criminal law defines the specifics of the responsibility of persons with mental anomalies (limited sanity), criteria such as medical (mental anomaly or disorder) and psychological (lack of awareness and / or control of their actions). The criminal law of the England-American legal family does not have a clear definition of the concept, criteria and consequences of the state of limited sanity in the subject of the crime. The criminal legislation of Ukraine on determining the features of criminal liability of persons with mental anomalies in the form of their legislative definition corresponds to the legislation of the Romano-Germanic legal family. The legal criterion of limited sanity, which is defined in the theory of criminal law, should be called psychological, because it is an intellectual-volitional manifestation of behaviour, not legal. It may be legal to establish a medical and psychological criterion of limited sanity in the relevant norm with an emphasis on the criminal consequences that will have a mental anomaly on the criminal liability of such an entity.