| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.07 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Este trabalho científico versa sobre o artigo 11.º n.º 2 do CP, o qual isenta de responsabilidade criminal dos entes coletivos por factos puníveis praticados no exercício de prerrogativas de poder público. A partir da atual redação do artigo 11.º n.º 2 do CP podemos ver duas grandes problemáticas a necessitar urgentemente de serem dissipadas do nosso ordenamento jurídico a fim de garantir a eficácia dos princípios basilares da segurança jurídica, da igualdade e da justiça. A primeira problemática diz respeito à diferenciação normativa que se dá principalmente no plano de imputação do facto à pessoa coletiva. Enquanto no artigo 11.º n.º 2 do CP se exclui expressamente a responsabilidade criminal do Estado, das pessoas coletivas no exercício de prerrogativas de poder público e das organizações internacionais de direito público, o mesmo já não acontece nos regimes especiais. A segunda problemática alude à falta de rigor da terminologia “pessoas coletivas no exercício de prerrogativas de poder público”. A par destas questões relevantes complementam-se outras que auxiliarão o leitor a compreender que o atual artigo 11.º n.º 2 do Código Penal precisa de ser revisto. A título exemplificativo: “Poderá ficar excluída a responsabilidade criminal de uma empresa pública quando está em causa um ilícito de corrupção passiva, cometido em seu nome e no seu interesse, em troca de um ato a que corresponde o exercício de uma prerrogativa de poder público?” E que responsabilidades teriam o Município de Pedrogão Grande e de Castanheira de Pera no incêndio de Pedrogão Grande em 2017? Acreditamos que esta investigação, que teve como base a exaustiva análise de doutrina, de jurisprudência e de legislação proveniente tanto de Portugal como de países estrangeiros, vá contribuir para a revisão do atual artigo 11.º n.º 2 do Código Penal Português.
This scientific paper deals with Article 11(2) of the Criminal Code, which exempts collective entities from criminal liability for punishable acts committed in the exercise of public power prerogatives. From the current wording of Article 11(2) of the Criminal Code, we can see two major problems that urgently need to be dispelled from our legal system in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the basic principles of legal certainty, equality and justice. The first problem concerns the normative differentiation that occurs mainly at the level of imputation of the fact to the legal person. While Article 11(2) of the Criminal Code expressly excludes the criminal liability of the state, legal persons exercising prerogatives of public power and international organisations governed by public law, this is no longer the case in the special regimes. The second problem refers to the lack of rigour in the terminology ‘legal persons exercising prerogatives of public power’. In addition to these relevant issues, there are others that will help the reader understand that the current Article 11(2) of the Penal Code needs to be revised. For example: ‘Can the criminal liability of a public company be excluded when there is an offence of passive corruption committed on its behalf and in its interest, in exchange for an act that corresponds to the exercise of a prerogative of public power?’ And what responsibility did the Pedrogão Grande and Castanheira de Pera municipalities have for the Pedrogão Grande fire in 2017? We believe that this research, which was based on an exhaustive analysis of doctrine, case law and legislation from both Portugal and foreign countries, will contribute to the revision of the current article 11(2) of the Portuguese Penal Code.
This scientific paper deals with Article 11(2) of the Criminal Code, which exempts collective entities from criminal liability for punishable acts committed in the exercise of public power prerogatives. From the current wording of Article 11(2) of the Criminal Code, we can see two major problems that urgently need to be dispelled from our legal system in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the basic principles of legal certainty, equality and justice. The first problem concerns the normative differentiation that occurs mainly at the level of imputation of the fact to the legal person. While Article 11(2) of the Criminal Code expressly excludes the criminal liability of the state, legal persons exercising prerogatives of public power and international organisations governed by public law, this is no longer the case in the special regimes. The second problem refers to the lack of rigour in the terminology ‘legal persons exercising prerogatives of public power’. In addition to these relevant issues, there are others that will help the reader understand that the current Article 11(2) of the Penal Code needs to be revised. For example: ‘Can the criminal liability of a public company be excluded when there is an offence of passive corruption committed on its behalf and in its interest, in exchange for an act that corresponds to the exercise of a prerogative of public power?’ And what responsibility did the Pedrogão Grande and Castanheira de Pera municipalities have for the Pedrogão Grande fire in 2017? We believe that this research, which was based on an exhaustive analysis of doctrine, case law and legislation from both Portugal and foreign countries, will contribute to the revision of the current article 11(2) of the Portuguese Penal Code.
Description
Keywords
Pessoas colectivas de direito público Poder público Poderes de soberania Autoridade administrativa Responsabilidade criminal Teses de mestrado - 2025 Legal persons governed by public law Public power Sovereign powers Administrative authority Criminal liability