On the practice of implementing legislation on justified risk or extreme necessity, as circumstances precluding the criminality of the act of rescuers involved in emergency rescue operations

The presented study examines the practice of implementing legislation on justified risk or extreme necessity, as circumstances excluding the criminality of the actions of rescuers involved in emergency rescue operations. It is noted that, despite the increased attention from the legislator, as well as the scientific community, today it is necessary to improve the practice of implementing legislation on justified risk or extreme necessity, as circumstances excluding the criminality of the actions of rescuers involved in emergency rescue operations. There is no legally established mechanism for determining “imaginary” extreme necessity, which, according to the researcher, can be solved as follows: a person should be held liable only if, based on the current situation, he could and should have realized that the threats are actually no, the danger is imaginary. In this case, the responsibility for the harm caused comes for a negligent crime. In all other cases, we will talk about imaginary extreme necessity. The author's interpretation of such a term as “actions in conditions of uncertainty” is presented, which should be understood as the actions of officials and personnel of the fire department to eliminate the threat to life and health of people, save people when extinguishing fires and (or) carry out emergency rescue operations carried out in the absence of the necessary and sufficient information to make a decision on the methods and means of rescuing people, extinguishing a fire and (or) conducting emergency rescue operations and eliminating the consequences of an emergency.