Matches in Saeima for { <http://dati.saeima.korpuss.lv/entity/speech/2015_10_08_321-seq375> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 13 of
13
with 100 items per page.
- 2015_10_08_321-seq375 type Speech.
- 2015_10_08_321-seq375 number "375".
- 2015_10_08_321-seq375 date "2015-10-08".
- 2015_10_08_321-seq375 isPartOf 2015_10_08_321.
- 2015_10_08_321-seq375 spokenAs 101.
- 2015_10_08_321-seq375 spokenText "Jā, kolēģi, tikai par būtību. Es domāju, ka ar deputātiem nekas šausmīgs nenotiks, ja viņi savā darba dienā, ceturtdienā, pastrādās drusciņ ilgāk. Es saprotu, ka gribētos varbūt pabeigt ātrāk, bet jautājums, manuprāt, ir pietiekami svarīgs un nopietns. Kolēģi, droši vien jūs visi esat dzirdējuši, ka mūsu Krimināllikumā ir pants “Piesavināšanās”. Saskaņā ar Krimināllikuma 179.pantu pie kriminālatbildības saucama persona, kas piesavinājusies vai izšķērdējusi viņam uzticēto mantu. Pants ir labs, un mums ir prakse, ka, piemēram, cilvēku notiesā par neliela apmēra kaut kādu piesavināšanos. Piemēram, cilvēks paņēma svešu televizoru, aiznesa uz lombardu, un, kaut gan bija jābrauc uz remontdarbnīcu, cena tam televizoram bija 40 eiro. Viņu sauc pie atbildības un notiesā. Bet mums ir amatpersonas. Un amatpersona, ja viņa izdara pārkāpumu, saucama pie atbildības par dienesta stāvokļa ļaunprātīgu izmantošanu. Un tur ir paredzēts, ka atbildība iestājas, ja ir būtisks kaitējums. Kā to interpretē diemžēl praksē? Praksē to interpretē tā: ja parastais mirstīgais izdarīja piesavināšanos par 5 eiro, 10 eiro, tad saucam pie atbildības, bet, ja amatpersona dara to pašu, tātad viņu mēs sauksim pie atbildības, ja ir nodarīti zaudējumi vismaz piecu minimālo mēnešalgu apmērā - 1800 eiro - un plus apdraudētas citas intereses. Mūsu prokuratūras pārstāvji, Tieslietu ministrijas pārstāvji komisijas laikā... komisijas sēdes laikā norādīja, ka tā ir nepareiza prakse, ka mēs nesaucam pie atbildības. Amatpersonu arī var saukt pie atbildības kā parastu mirstīgo pēc tā paša panta. Bet dzīvē tā nenotiek. Piemēram, informācija no viena procesa. Ir uzņēmīgs pašvaldības darbinieks, ir metāllūžņi. Viņš nolēma: kādēļ pašvaldībai ir jānodarbojas ar tādiem sīkumiem? Viņš paņēma, aizveda un savā vārdā nodeva, bet naudu ielika kabatā. Nu kāda problēma? Piecu minimālo algu apmēra nav, atbildības nav, neko ļaunu viņš neizdarīja! Ir, piemēram, dators. Kāpēc darbā jāizmanto dators, ja to var nodot bērnam? Aiznesa, iedeva bērnam. Ņemot vērā, ka datora cena nav piecas minimālās algas, nu tad var arī nesodīt. Tātad sanāk tā, ka mums ir dubultstandarti. Protams, var piekrist Tieslietu ministrijai, ka ir jāpiemēro 179.pants. Mums ir nepareiza prakse. Bet ko var darīt deputāti, ja prakse ir nepareiza un pat ģenerālprokurora vietnieks norāda, ka agrāk mums bija norādīts, ka atbildība ir? Tagad mēs grozījām pantu un tagad īsti nav skaidrs (No zāles dep. I.Zariņš: “Laiks! Laiks pārtraukumam!”), tāpēc es piedāvāju veidot speciālu pantu, paredzot atbildību amatpersonām par piesavināšanos, par izšķērdēšanu, lai visiem būtu skaidrs. Lai nebūtu tā, ka viens lasa tā, bet otrs lasa citādāk, un rezultāta nav. Lūdzu atbalstīt.".
- 2015_10_08_321-seq375 language "lv".
- 2015_10_08_321-seq375 speaker Andrejs_Judins-1970.
- 2015_10_08_321-seq375 translatedText "Yes, colleagues, I think nothing terrible about the substance, I think nothing terrible with the Members will happen if they did, on their day of work on Thursday, I realise that I would like to probably finish faster, but the question is, in my view, sufficiently important and serious for the College, probablyyou have all heard that our Criminal Code is a' dip' under Article 179 of the Criminal Law, the person who appropriated or squandered the assets assigned to him is a good one, and we have a practice that, for example, the man is on a small scalesome embezzlement, a man who took a candle in the orchet, took a phone to the renovators, the price of a televise was 40 euros, and But we have officials and officer if she is to commit an offence, if she is committing an offence ,the prosecution of the department's abuse of the state Un there is supposed to insist that liability stands out if there is significant harm As interpreted in practice? In practice: in practice it is interpreted: if the usual appropriated by 5 euro, 10 euro, then callto account, but if the official does the same thing, then we will call him to account if there is at least five monthly minimum monthly salaries - €1800 - and more of the other interests of Our Prosecutor, the Ministry of Justice, during the commissionthe Commission's meeting indicated that it was the wrong practice that we would not be prosecuted as an ordinary body of responsibility as an ordinary body, at the same Article But in life, information from one process is susceptible to a single process. A municipal worker, He decided to scrap it: why did the local authority have to deal with such minutiae? He took, took a load in his own name, but the money was put in the pocket of what is not, there is nothing wrong with him! As a computer, a computer should be used when it can be transferred to a child? It must apply Rule 179, we have the wrong practice But what if the practice is wrong, and even the deputy attorney general points out that, in the past, we had pointed out that responsibility is now, and now we amended the article and now it is not really clear (Nodrug DEP I Zartins: " time! Time for the break-up! ") so I propose building a special clause providing responsibility to officials for embezzlement, about the waste to be clear to everyone, and the other reads no differently, and the other reads no differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other read differently, and the other reads".
- 2015_10_08_321-seq375 mentions Q13561029.
- 2015_10_08_321-seq375 mentions Q1771611.
- 2015_10_08_321-seq375 mentions Q2167704.
- 2015_10_08_321-seq375 mentions Q1092499.