ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENCE IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AS THE GROUND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY
Abstract
The article deals with homogeneous group of administrative offences - administrative offences in the field of intellectual property as a basis of administrative liability. It is emphasized that the objective features of this administrative offence are its social harm, wrongfulness and punishment, and subjective ones are guilt and subjectivity. It is emphasized that only in the presence of all these features can one speak of qualifying an individual’s act as an administrative offence and resolving the issue of bringing him to administrative liability. The definition of the term “administrative offence in the field of intellectual property” is proposed as envisaged by the legislation on administrative liability of socially harmful, unlawful, guilty act, committed by the subjects of such unlawful acts that encroach on the set of property and personal non-property rights to the intellectual results. It is established that all warehouses of administrative offences in the field of intellectual property (art. 51-2, 107-1, 156-3 (in the part concerning intellectual property objects), 164-3, 164-6, 164-7, 164-8, 164-9, 164-13) there are such elements as objective signs and subjective features, which in their unity form the composition of administrative offences of this group. It is noted that the only generic object of these administrative offences is the group of public relations of intellectual property, which are protected by the law on administrative liability, and the subject of this group of public relations are objects of intellectual property. It is proved that the objective side of administrative offences in the field of intellectual property is a set of ways of infringement of intellectual property rights. Attention is drawn to the fact that in practice the violation of intellectual property rights to different objects has different economic, social and legal consequences, and therefore the degree of their social harm is different, and therefore there is a need to differentiate administrative liability depending on the intellectual property. Subjective signs of the administrative offences of this group, which are represented by their subject, are established, and the subjective side is characterized by the fact that they are committed only intentionally.
References
Olishevs’ky’j O.V. (2016). Social’no shkidly’vi naslidky’ spry’jnyattya informaciyi, shho misty’t’ propagandu kul’tu nasy’l’stva i zhorstokosti. Forum prava. 2. 135–139 [in Ukrainian].
Selivanenko V.V. (2013). Formy’ porushennya ta zaxy’st prav suspil’stva na ob’yekty’ intelektual’noyi vlasnosti u sferi oxorony’ zdorov’ya. Chasopy’s Ky’yivs’kogo universy’tetu prava. 3. 223–228 [in Ukrainian].
Pocilujko V.M. (2017). Naukova docil’nist’ porivnyal’no-pravovogo doslidzhennya zaxodiv zabezpechennya provadzhennya v kry’minal’ny’x spravax ta spravax pro administraty’vni pravoporushennya. Visny’k Chernivecz’kogo fakul’tetu Nacional’nogo universy’tetu “Odes’ka yury’dy’chna akademiya”. 4. 219–229 [in Ukrainian].
Kalyenichenko L.I. (2016). Ob’yekty’vno proty’pravne diyannya yak fakty’chna pidstava yury’dy’chnoyi vidpovidal’nosti (analiz galuzevogo zakonodavstva). Visny’k Xarkivs’kogo nacional’nogo universy’tetu vnutrishnix sprav. 4. 19–28 [in Ukrainian].
Py’s’mens’ky’j Ye.O. (2015). Realizaciya kry’minal’no-pravovoyi polity’ky’ shlyaxom kry’minalizaciyi ta dekry’minalizaciyi: analiz potochny’x zakonodavchy’x iniciaty’v. Chasopy’s Ky’yivs’kogo universy’tetu prava. 1. 230–234 [in Ukrainian].
Venger Yu.V. (2015). Vy’na yak sub’yekty’vna pidstava administraty’vnoyi vidpovidal’nosti yury’dy’chnoyi osoby’ za vchy’nene pravoporushennya u sferi standarty’zaciyi. Naukovy’j visny’k Mizhnarodnogo gumanitarnogo universy’tetu. Seriya : Yury’sprudenciya. 13(1). 85-87 [in Ukrainian].
Kozyurenko R.S. (2016). Zaxody’ administraty’vnoyi vidpovidal’nosti za vchy’neni pravoporushennya: ponyattya ta klasy’fikaciya. Visny’k Nacional’nogo universy’tetu “L’vivs’ka politexnika”. Yury’dy’chni nauky’. 845. 94–98 [in Ukrainian].
Chy’shko K.O. (2015). Administraty’vno-pravova kvalifikaciya ta kvalifikaciya administraty’vnogo pravoporushennya (prostupku): ponyattya, oznaky’, peredumovy’. Visny’k Xarkivs’kogo nacional’nogo universy’tetu vnutrishnix sprav. 3. 150–158 [in Ukrainian].
Kolpakov V.K. (2016). Fakty’chni oznaky’ ta yury’dy’chny’j sklad administraty’vnogo prostupku: ponyattya ta rozmezhuvannya. Visny’k Zaporiz’kogo nacional’nogo universy’tetu. Yury’dy’chni nauky’. 3. 160–170 [in Ukrainian].
My’ky’ty’n V.I. (2016). Okremi aspekty’ naslidkiv porushennya prav intelektual’noyi vlasnosti. Naukovy’j visny’k Xersons’kogo derzhavnogo universy’tetu. Seriya : Yury’dy’chni nauky’. 2(1). 79–83 [in Ukrainian].
Frolov O.S., Vasy’l’yev I.V. (2014). Zmist ta obsyag konceptu „sub’yekt administraty’vnogo pravoporushennya”. Derzhava i pravo. Yury’dy’chni i polity’chni nauky’. 66. 105–117 [in Ukrainian].
