No abstract

No abstract

Raksta tapšanas ideja ir saistīta ar Valsts policijas iesniegto priekšlikumu Tieslietu ministrijas Kriminālprocesa ekspertu pastāvīgajai darba grupai par grozījumiem Kriminālprocesa likuma 219. panta otrajā daļā. Kriminālprocesa likuma 219. pants “Automatizētās datu apstrādes sistēmā esošo datu kontrole” būtībā ir analogs Kibernoziegumu konvencijas 19. pantam, kas uzliek dalībvalstīm pienākumu pieņemt tādus tiesību aktus, kas atvieglotu to teritorijā esošo sistēmu pārmeklēšanu. Priekšlikuma būtība: atteikties pantā no nacionālās teritoriālās piemērošanas klauzulas, jo tā ierobežojot policijas iespējas iegūt pierādījumus, ja no pārmeklējamās sistēmas ir iespējams likumīgi piekļūt datiem, kas glabājas sistēmās, kas atrodas ārpus Latvijas Republikas teritorijas. Citiem vārdiem sakot, idejas būtība ir mainīt panta piemērošanas jurisdikciju no nacionāli teritoriālās uz pārrobežu. Diskusija par to, vai vienai dalībvalstij ir tiesības veikt datu sistēmu pārmeklēšanu citā dalībvalstī, notiek jau kopš Kibernoziegumu konvencijas pieņemšanas. Turklāt tā turpināsies vismaz līdz Konvencijas otrā Papildprotokola pieņemšanai, kur būtu jāatrisina jautājumi ar pārrobežu sistēmu pārmeklēšanu un datu izņemšanu. Rakstā tiks analizēts, vai un kā situācija, īpaši saistībā ar jurisdikciju kriminālprocesā, pēc Kibernoziegumu konvencijas un Kriminālprocesa likuma pieņemšanas ir mainījusies, un tiks sniegti priekšlikumi, kā efektīvāk būtu risināma problēma, kuru aktualizējusi Valsts policija. The article “Control of Data Located in Automated Data Processing Systems: National and International Application Aspects” is the result of the idea initiated by the proposal submitted by the Latvian State Police, to the Permanent Working Group of Criminal Procedure Experts of the Ministry of Justice regarding the amendment of Section 219, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Law “Control of Data in an Automated Data Processing System” is essentially analogous to Article 19 of the Cybercrime Convention, which obliges Member States to adopt such legislation as to facilitate the search of data in systems located within their territory. The essence of the proposal is to renounce the national territorial application clause in the Article, as it restricts the police operability to obtain evidence in criminal proceedings in situations where data stored in another computer systems are located outside of the territory of Latvia but are legally accessible from searchable system via Internet. In other words, to change the scope of jurisdiction of search and seizure to transborder search and seizure. The debate on whether one Member State is entitled to search and capture data in a system located in the territory of another Member State, is not new. It has been running since the adoption of the Convention and it is believed it will continue at least until the adoption of the Second Additional Protocol to the Convention, which should address issues related to cybercrime investigations. In the article, the authors will analyse what and how the situation has fundamentally changed since the adoption of the Cybercrime Convention and the Criminal Procedure Law, especially regarding the understanding of jurisdiction in the application of criminal procedural instruments. The authors also aim to provide their solutions for solving problems in relation with the proposal submitted by the State Police.

On January 2018 significant amendments to the Criminal Law and the Law On the Procedure for Application of the Criminal Law came into force in Latvia. These changes not only in the first time introduce the criminal responsibility for the emotional violence, but also determine the procedure for assessing emotional disparity, equating the effects to telepathic injuries.In the article, the author reviews a modality of crime “persecution” - cyber-persecution. Although the legislator in the annotation of the law provides that the article also shall be applicable to acts committed in cyberspace, at the same time, the author indicates some problems that may arise due to the narrow interpretation of the law by the law enforcement. The purpose of the article is to study the object (protected legitimate interest) and the objective side (actus reus) of the offense - cyber-stalking. For purposes of research, several methods have been used. The method of comparative analysis, for examination and comparison of external and international regulations. Methods of legal interpretation used to disclose the differences between the understanding of the written text of the definition of the crime and what ought to be understood in the meaning of the norm. Finally, the author presents the conclusions and proposals on the application of the norm.

Tiesību principus kā pastāvīgus tiesību avotus ir pētījuši daudzi Latvijas tiesībzinātnieki, piemēram, profesore Daiga Rezevska, Valsts prezidents Egils Levits, profesore Ineta Ziemele u. c. Jau kopš 1994. gada Satversmes tiesa konsekventi savā doktrīnā vispārīgos tiesību principus ir atzinusi par noteikumu, kas ierobežo likumdevēja rīcības brīvību. Praksē, ja runā par vispārīgo tiesību principiem, visbiežāk piemin tiesiskumu, taisnīgumu, vienlīdzību un samērīgumu. Taču, attīstoties tiesību doktrīnai, ir atzīts, ka Satversmes pirmajā pantā noteiktais, ka Latvija ir demokrātiska tiesiska valsts, ir uzskatāms par pamatnormu, no kuras tiek atvasināti vispārīgie tiesību principi. 21. gadsimtā, ko daudzi pamatoti dēvē par digitālo gadsimtu, ir radušies jautājumi par vispārīgo tiesību principu saturu šajā informācijas sabiedrības laikmetā. Informācijas sabiedrību nosacīti raksturo trīs faktori: tehnoloģijas, globalizācija un informācija. Neviens no tiem pēc savas pirmatnējās būtības nav juridisks. Taču šie faktori pirmo reizi ir radījuši situāciju, ka jaunie tehnoloģiskie risinājumi tiecas iziet ārpus juridiskās kontroles robežām, apdraudot sabiedrības tiesiskumu un taisnīgumu. Tāpēc demokrātiskai sabiedrībai ir īpaši svarīgi, lai tiesību politikas veidotāji, apzinoties šos riskus, attīstītu tehnoloģiski neitrālu valsts tiesību politiku. Šādas politikas īstenošanu valsts var īstenot tikai tad, ja tehnoloģiskās neitralitātes princips tiek atzīts par vispārīgo tiesību principu, kas izriet no Satversmes 1. panta. General principles of law have been studied by many Latvian scholars including, professor Daiga Rezevska, Egils Levits, professor Ineta Ziemele, and many others. Since 1994, Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia has consistently recognized the general principles of law in its doctrine as a provision that restricts the freedom of action of the legislator. In practice, when talking about the general principles of law, most often the rule of law, justice, equality, proportionality have been mentioned. However, as the doctrine of law develops, four overriding principles are also defined in Latvian constitutional law: (1) democratic state system; (2) rule of law; (3) socially responsible state; (4) nation state, which is not reflected in the text of the Satversme, but as an idea falls within the core of the Satversme. The 21st century, which many call the digital age, has raised questions about the content of general legal principles in this role in the information society. This era is relatively characterized by three factors: technology, globalization and information. None of these is legal in nature. However, these factors have, for the first time, created a situation where new technological solutions threaten to go beyond legal control, jeopardizing the rule of law and justice in society. Therefore, in a democratic society, it is essentially important that legal policy makers are aware of these risks and develop state legal policy in technology-neutral path. In order to reach such a goal, the principle of technological neutrality shall be recognized as a general principle of law, which derives from Article 1 of the Satversme.