General Part

Section 2.

Crime.

Chapter 8.

Circumstances excluding the criminality of the act.

Article 42. Necessary defense.

1. The action committed in the state of necessary defense, is not considered a crime, i.e., when defending the life, health and rights of the defender or other person, or defending the state interests from socially dangerous encroachments, or from a real threat, defending oneself by inflicting damage to the perpetrator of the encroachment, provided the necessary defense was not exceeded.

2. When defending a person’s life from dangerous violence or real threat of such violence, any damage can be inflicted, including death.

3. The person is entitled to the right of necessary defense, regardless of the possibility to avoid the encroachment or to appeal to other persons or state bodies, as well as, regardless of the person’s special training or official position.

4. Such deliberate actions which obviously for the self-defender are inadequate with the nature and extent of danger of the encroachment are considered acts of excessive defense.

5. Use of weapon or any other means or objects for the purpose of defense from assault of an armed person or assault of a group of persons, as well as for the purpose of prevention of illegal and forced intrusion into an apartment or other building, is not considered an act of excessive defense, irrespective of the degree of damage incurred by the offender.

General Part

Section 2.

Crime.

Chapter 8.

Circumstances excluding the criminality of the act.

Article 44. Urgent necessity.

1. Inflicting damage to the interests protected by criminal law in the state of urgent necessity, is not considered a crime, i.e., to eliminate the imminent danger to the life, health, rights and legal interests of the given person or persons, to the interests of the society or the state, if this danger could not be eliminated by other means and no limits of urgent necessity have been exceeded.

2. Willfully inflicted damage obviously disproportionate to the imminent danger, its degree and the considerations of elimination of the danger, when the legally protected interests suffered equal or greater damage compared to the prevented damage, is considered exceeding of urgent necessity.

General Part

Section 2.

Crime.

Chapter 8.

Circumstances excluding the criminality of the act.

Article 46. Justified risk.

1. Inflicting damage to the interests protected by criminal law is not considered a crime, when undertaking justified risk to achieve socially useful goals.

2. Risk is considered justified, if the mentioned goal could not be achieved without an action (or inaction) of risk, and when the risking person takes measures to prevent the danger to the interests protected by criminal law.

3. Risk is considered unjustified, if it obviously involves the death of third persons, or the threat of an ecological or public disaster.

Article 32. Necessary Defence

1. The person who has committed the act in the state of necessary defence, i.e., when defending the life, health, rights and freedoms, lawful interests of the defending or other person, or lawful interests of society or state from illegal encroachments provided for by this Code or real threat thereof, defending oneself by inflicting damage to the perpetrator of the encroachment, shall not be subject to criminal liability, provided the necessary defence did not exceed the necessary limits.

2. A person shall be entitled to the right of necessary defence, regardless of the possibility to avoid the illegal encroachment or apply for help to other persons or competent bodies, as well as regardless of the person’s professional or other special skills or official position.

3. Excess of necessary defence shall be deemed to be an intentional infliction of such a damage to the perpetrator of encroachment, which is inadequate to the nature and danger of the illegal encroachment and does not arise from the necessity of defence.

4. An intentional deprivation of the person who has committed an illegal encroachment of life is not considered an excess of necessary defence if in the given situation the defence from the encroachment was not possible through inflicting a lighter harm, or the person defending himself/herself ought not to have or could not have realized the possibility to inflict lighter harm.

5. Excess of necessary defence shall be deemed to be a crime, if it is prescribed in the Special Part of this Code.

6. If in the given situation due to fear, anxiety disorder, stress or other objective or subjective factors the defending person ought not to have and could not have realized that an illegal encroachment or its real threat were absent, then the act causing harm shall be considered as committed in a state of necessary defence. If in the given situation the defending person could have realised that the illegal encroachment was absent, he/she shall be subject to criminal liability for causing harm negligently. If in the given situation the defending person has exceeded the limits of the necessary defence, he/she shall be subject to criminal liability for committing a criminal offence with excess of necessary defence.

7. The situation of necessary defence is absent, if there has been a provocation of necessary defence, that is when with the aim of causing harm to the person, the defending person has provoked the latter to commit an illegal encroachment.


Article 34. Extreme Necessity

1. The person who has inflicted harm to the interests protected by criminal law in the state of extreme necessity, i.e. eliminating of the imminent threat to the life, health, rights, freedoms and lawful interests of the given person or other persons, an imminent threat to the lawful interests of the society or the state, shall not be subject criminal liability provided in the given situation it was not possible to eliminate the threat by other means and no limits of extreme necessity have been exceeded.

2. Intentionally inflicted harm obviously inadequate to the nature and degree of the imminent threat, and the circumstances of elimination of the threat, shall be deemed to be exceeding the limits of extreme necessity, if the interests protected by criminal law suffered equal or greater harm compared to the prevented damage.

3. Exceeding the limits of extreme necessity is absent, provided in comparison to the prevented harm an equal or bigger harm was caused in case of a direct threat to the life or health of the person, his/her close relative or close person. This provision does not relate to persons, whose professional duties include protection of life, health, rights and freedoms or lawful interests of other persons, as well as the lawful interests of the society or the state.

4. The situation of extreme necessity is absent, if the threat has been created as a result of actions of the person preventing it. In that case, the efforts of the person aimed at the prevention of the threat shall be taken into account as a circumstance mitigating the criminal liability or punishment.

5. If in a situation of extreme necessity, the person inflicting harm fails to prevent the imminent threat, the person shall be subject to criminal liability for negligently inflicting harm, if he/she could have realized that the measures undertaken by him/her were not sufficient to prevent the threat.

6. A situation of extreme necessity is absent if there has been a provocation of extreme necessity, that is when with a purpose of inflicting harm to interests protected by law the person creates a threat through his/her act for other interests protected by law, and then inflicts harm to interests protected by law as if being in a situation of extreme necessity.