Contract law is the backbone of civil jurisprudence and the emphasis is on the treaty itself in all its glory. Both the literature and the case law have looked at fundamental issues of the treaty: what gives a contractual effect? What`s with him? What are the conditions for its creation? When can it be invalidated? What are the facilities in the event of an infringement? However, some of the issues that arise in contract law are fundamentally related to criminal jurisprudence, one of the fundamental pillars of public law, in the context of criminal liability in the event of non-act – an omission. Such a link between contract law and criminal jurisprudence, with emphasis on the treaty as a source of duty of action for an obligation of omission, still needs to be fully examined in the literature and case law, and this essay provides an original perspective on this. The purpose of this trial is to examine which contracts may serve as the source of the criminal justice obligation. The discussion focuses on several questions: first, can a contract serve as an obligation of action only if it is valid or can a null contract also serve as a source for such an obligation? Second, can a legally valid but non-binding contract (i.e., only financial compensation can be recovered in the event of an infringement) serve as a criminal obligation? Can. B Can a human services contract serve as a source, since it is accepted that such a contract cannot be applied specifically? Finally, can any contract, when it accepts a contractual contract, serve as an obligation for criminal action or can it serve only as a source of certain types of contracts? In this context, the question arises as to whether a contract that benefits a third party (where the third party is the victim) can serve as the source of the necessary duty to act and, if so, under what conditions? The answer to this question is part of the underlying rationale for the distinction between act and omission in the criminal justice system. Many scientists have discussed this issue. (2) p. This dissertation focuses on two main reasons that have been proposed to justify such a distinction, namely freedom and the basis of causation, and how each influences the determination of contracts that may serve as a source of duty to act.
It is possible to look at the issue from two different angles. First, criminal law is based on contract law for the purpose of a criminal conviction on the basis of contractual obligations; It is therefore necessary to check whether the contract in question is valid and whether it is enforceable. However, in the second perspective, criminal law differs from contract law. Therefore, even if there is no valid contract or if the contract is valid but not applicable in terms of contract law, it may be possible to convict a prosecutor on the basis of an obligation arising from the original contract.