Abstract

In the study carried out is analyzed the first normative way of expressing the harmful act mentioned in par.(1) art.278 PC RM: setting an explosion, arson, or any other action that creates the danger of causing death, bodily injury, damage to health, essential damage to property or to the environment or other severe consequences. It has been shown that in accordance with the criminal law of the Republic of Moldova, the list of prejudicial acts listed in par.(1) art.278 PC RM has open content, which may imply other socially dangerous actions / inactions. It has been argued that the phrase ”other serious consequences” in the text of par.(1) art.278 PC RM suggests that as a result of other consequences can occur only those comparable to death, bodily injury, damage to health, essential damage to property or to the environment. It has beennshown that the “other acts”, “other serious consequences” in the text of par.(1) art.278 PC RM, even though it has a generalncharacter is in line with the requirement of the predictability of the criminal law. The legal nature of terrorist acts confersnto the recipient of the criminal law the possibility ofnforesee which other acts may be ways of expressing prejudicial act. For the same reasons, the perpetrator is in a position to foresee the content of the phrase “other serious consequences”.

Authors and Affiliations