The fireworks at the celebration injured the eye of a minor: prosecutors charged the old man, his brother and the guard without evidence

The Vilnius Regional Court has declared that the charges against prosecutors M. Bogdiun for failure to perform their duties and serious health problems due to precaution have not been confirmed, thus the acquittal approved by the Šalčininkai court in October of the year past remains unchanged.

The acquittal of Bogdiunas’ brother was also announced: Kazimežas Bogdiunas had bought fireworks, which later injured a minor. Valerijus Kodzas, the guard of the nursing home, who lit fireworks during the celebration, was also acquitted.

The Šalčininkai District Municipality Administration, which has not acquitted and acquitted the accused, will not have to reimburse the minor’s medical expenses and pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages – more than 17 thousand euros – for having not resolved the claim of the victim.

The eldest of Eišiškės, his brother and the guardian of the nursing home were prosecuted for 2017. The disasters occurred during the Christmas tree lighting festival in December, when a fragment of fireworks shot into the sky injured a girl’s right eye .

During the preliminary investigation, the Šalčininkai prosecutors tried to show that M. Bogdiunas, acting as a public official, “did not perform his duties correctly, as a result of which a natural person suffered significant damage.”

According to prosecutors, the old man, organizing the 2017 December 6 around 5 p.m. The festive event, a fir-lighting ceremony with the use of civil pyrotechnics, fireworks, violated the decision of the Šalčininkai District Municipal Council to obtain permission to organize this celebration, and allowed fireworks to be placed in the courtyard of the yard, which easily damaged the girl’s health.

Prosecutors tried to assign 3.5 thousand to M. Bogdiun. Eur fine, and for his brother and tutor – 3 thousand. Eur fines. According to them, due to the negligent operation of the Eišiškės elder, by not following the established procedure both during the organization of the celebration and during the purchase of fireworks, the minor’s health was easily disturbed.

“METRO. Bogdiunas appointed K. Bogdiunas in charge of the procurement and launching of fireworks, and the latter, having acquired a set of fireworks batteries, placed it under the administration of the Šalčininkai district in the territory of the old age of Eišiškės and asked V. Kodzas to launch these fireworks in case (K. Bogdiunas) cannot return, prosecutor Sergei Korotchenko, who supported the state prosecutor’s office, explained to the court. – K. Bogdiunas, having experience in the life, realizing that the explosive device is about to be launched, that the fireworks may be defective or otherwise damaged, had to take into account not only the recommended distance, but also other circumstances, such as weather conditions (wind force and direction), but he did not and was not careful enough in choosing the wrong place for the fireworks set, which, when launched, pus The health of the minor was endangered by negligence “.

According to the prosecutor, the injured girl still has traces of fireworks in her eye, which negatively affect the victim’s health and can only be removed by surgery.

“The victim has a headache and nausea at night after the incident, and the incident still requires eye visits two or three times a year,” the prosecutor noted.

At that time, the court examining the criminal case, examining the case within the limits of the prosecution, did not establish the necessary objective feature of the composition of the crime in the act of the elder: the causal connection between the act and the consequences. .

According to the court, the young woman attended the celebration organized by the elderly with her grandmother, who did not see the moment of the injury.

“There were many people and children in the plaza,” the grandmother’s testimony cited the court. – The Christmas tree was in the center of the square. The old man said there would be fireworks soon. I pulled over in a stroller with a 2-year-old grandson and the grandson ran over to some friends, but I kept seeing her. Fireworks started, which were allowed from outside the hall building, only on one side. Looking up, I saw something burning fall to the ground. As the fireworks were nearing the end, the granddaughter’s friend brought the granddaughter over. The latter put his hand to the eye from which I saw blood dripping, but I could not see the injured eye. The granddaughter said that when she looked at the fireworks, something burned in her eyes. “

At that time, the old man from Eišiškės stated that it had been decided to spontaneously organize the celebration of the Christmas tree lighting, a week before the event, such an idea was presented by his brother and an employee of the cultural center.

“They told me that there are no events in Eišiškės, it is necessary to organize a festive event, but I said that such a celebration is not planned and there are no funds in the budget for it,” said M. Bogdiunas. – According to the job description, the major must supervise the implementation of the requirements and procedures of the municipal council, and does not have the function of organizing or controlling events. If there are important celebrations, we try to coordinate. A brother and an employee of the cultural center said that they would contribute to the organization of the celebration, so I accepted. The cultural worker had to secure the cultural side of the event – Santa Claus and Snow White, and the old man – to decorate the Christmas tree, hang ornaments and light them. My brother, as a natural person, offered to buy fireworks for his money. “

The elder did not hide that he knew that according to the current procedure, all events must have a permit: “The event organizer is responsible for any event on the elder’s territory. During cultural events, permits are requested at the Šalčininkai Cultural Center. Permission to stop traffic is coordinated with the police and the owner of the road. There were a few days left before the event, so it was physically impossible to reconcile, since a formal permit had to be requested a month in advance. Each resident of Eišiškės contributed as much as they could, the surrounding roads were closed, signs were built, we fenced the territory with the “Stop” bar so that cars would not enter the square during the event. “

According to the old man, before the event, his brother brought fireworks, which he built in the fenced yard between the garages behind the senior building.

“It is a safe place and it is around 5 pm The fireworks started in the parking lot behind the district building, which was surrounded by a metal fence, said the old man. – Unauthorized persons cannot enter this place. We thought that there was no way that fireworks could fall from this place to people. It was the safest place. From this place to the Christmas tree it was more than 50 meters. For safety reasons, we ask everyone to stand retired to the Christmas tree, the majority retired. “

The old man did not immediately learn that fragments of fireworks that fell during the celebration injured the boy’s eye: “I did not notice any confusion in the event at that time, nor did anyone complain about the damage to the cars parked at the place where the fireworks were fired. “

After evaluating the case data, the panel of judges observed that they did not confirm either the causal link between the actions of the acquitted M. Bogdiunas and the minor minor minor disorder, nor the intellectual content of M. Bogdiunas’ guilt.

“In addition, the panel of judges decides that the pre-trial investigation was incomplete and that the charge against Mr. Bogdiun was made without due investigation and evaluation of other collateral factors completely unrelated to the filing or non-filing of the event request. festive “- It should be noted that in the present case, none of the numerous people who were in the square, except the minor, was injured, the vehicle was not damaged, nor did any of the witnesses directly see the injured minor in the investigation prior to the judgment. not precisely defined. “

According to the court, there is no evidence in the event that there was evidence of a violation of the Civil Pyrotechnic Devices Control Act in force at the time of the incident.

“In the circumstances of the case, it has been established that the pyrotechnic articles of category F2-F3 were acquired from the UAB Vilniaus Saliutas, which is legally contracted and authorized to market pyrotechnic articles, according to the procedure in force at that time. a special permit to use fireworks F2-F3. it was good, the launch site met the requirements, – said the panel chaired by judge Aiva Survilienė. – On the other hand, during the investigation it was not investigated which category of pyrotechnics was actually used during the incident, nor are there data in the file on the inspection carried out by the UAB Vilniaus Saliutas, seized assets, their validity period and compliance with and etc. “

According to the judges, according to criminal law, a person is only liable if he is guilty of a crime; This means that the guilt of the perpetrator is not presumed in criminal law, but must be determined for each criminal act.

“The rules of the Criminal Procedure Law prohibit, in the event of unresolved doubts about the relevant circumstances of the case, accepting a conviction or an act to be qualified on the basis of an accusation, whose characteristics are not properly established and indisputably proven” emphasized the court. – There is insufficient evidence to conclude that a crime may have been committed and to reach a conviction. An analysis of the content of the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings suggests that unproven guilt is equivalent to proven innocence ”.

And such evidence of guilt, according to the court, is not in the case. In addition, the court emphasized that not all unlawful conduct committed in the service of a public official, especially carelessness, is considered only as a criminal act that requires the application of criminal repression.

“The practice of cassation, based on constitutional jurisprudence, constantly emphasizes that whenever it is necessary to judge an act as a crime or other violation of the law, it is very important to evaluate what results can be achieved by other means not related to punishment. (administrative, disciplinary, civil sanctions or through public influence, etc.) ”, noted the Panel of Judges of the Vilnius Regional Court.