Review

Measures of a criminal nature, which are applied within the framework of criminal liability of a person for crimes affecting water resources, are an exemption from punishment and its serving. Most punishments for offenses concerning water resources allow for a guilty plea to probation. Today, the courts are quite active in applying for this exemption.

The purpose of the article is to identify the main problems that arise when courts apply the rules of the Criminal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) of Ukraine to the discharge on probation for crimes affecting water resources.

The analysis of case law demonstrated the following problems:

1. In their judgments, the courts did not give proper reasons for the decision to apply the discharge on probation, limited to a simple (without proper justification) reservation on the gravity of the crime (s) committed. Therefore, the individual features of a particular crime when applying Art. 75, 76 of the Criminal Code were not specified in court decisions.
2. As a rule, the courts do not have problems in identifying the features of the offender and follow the provisions of the decision of Plenum of Ukrainian Supreme Court "On the practice of imposing criminal penalties".
3. Other circumstances of the case (although the PSPU did not clarify their content in the mentioned resolution "On the practice of imposition by criminal courts") were determined by the courts mainly taking into account the presence or absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. However, the analysis of the case law has shown that the courts do not unreasonably consider and/or do not take into account circumstances that indicate the possibility or impossibility of release of a guilty person from serving a sentence in a situation when such release is contrary to the interests of the victim or society.
4. The court must determine the probationary period during which the sentenced person is being tried. The court's determination of the probationary period must be based on establishing its duration from one year to three years. Analysis of case law on the application of Art. 75 of the Criminal Code to persons who committed crimes affecting water resources, demonstrated that increasing (increasing) the severity of these crimes directly affects the increase in the length of the trial period. However, in some cases, the courts in their decisions ignore the proper motivation and validity of determining (electing) the duration of such exam periods.
5. When the court discharge on probation, it shall impose upon the convicted the duties specified in part 1, 2 Art. 76 of the Criminal Code. The conducted analysis of the case law proved that using Art. 75, 76 of the Criminal Code for committing these crimes, the courts in their sentences determine the obligations under Art. 76 of the Criminal Code without violating the requirements of this article of the Criminal Code and not deviating from such requirements. However, again, the proper justification for imposing a specific duty on the courts is not at all cited and limited to the usual definition of such duties.

Key words: punishment, discharge on probation, the probation period, water resources, measures of criminal nature.