According to art. 193 of the Penal Code, anyone who breaks into someone else’s house, apartment, premises, room or enclosed area or against the request of the authorized person does not leave such a place, subject to a fine, restriction of liberty or imprisonment for up to one year.
This offense can be committed by action, i.e. “getting into” places indicated in this provision 9dom, premises, room, fenced area), as by abandonment, i.e. when the perpetrator of these places does not leave against the demand of the entitled person.
One of the essential elements of the offense under art. 193 kk, Captain Ahab is the relation of the perpetrator to the object he was supposed to occupy or which he does not want to leave. It is intended to provide the perpetrator with “other people” property. Thus, only the person who is not entitled to the right of access to the object that is formally the property of “someone else” is entitled to the marks of the crime of violation of the housewife, on the basis of the provisions in force or existing between the parties.
Not allowing a given place is a further stay in a facility covered by the protection of the home, despite the explicit request to leave it expressed by the person entitled. A clear request to leave the place is required.
If the aggrieved party unequivocally demanded that the perpetrator leave the room or the area and if the offender does not immediately, having such an opportunity, he should treat his behavior as a refusal and, consequently, to implement the signs of a crime of domestic violence.
If the perpetrator has found a legal place on the site, the offense of violating the home can only come at the moment when the perpetrator does not make the demand to leave the place immediately.
If, in turn, the perpetrator stays in a given place illegally from the very beginning, the offense of violating the home is even before the perpetrator of the house violation is called to leave the facility, since he is illegally in this area and crimes are allowed without such a summons.
As explained by the Supreme Court, the condition for criminality for a violation of the home is the fencing of the land (property, plot) – fence, wall, fence, etc., not a ditch – because this fence indicates that the owner or owner does not want to enter third parties.
By “getting into” one should understand entering these places not so much by overcoming the physical obstacle, which in fact against the will of the entitled person. Therefore, it does not constitute an “upset” disturbing the inhabitants by knocking or knocking on the door.
Entering is an entrance connected with overcoming an obstacle, but it is not a physical obstacle, but a breach of the will of the authorized person, which for the perpetrator is a barrier to overcome. The manner of violation of the will of the person entitled may be different, but at the same time it is secondary, irrelevant from the point of view of the crime itself.
The charge of a house offense may also require an assessment as to whether the accused was also “eligible” to use the property. If such a person was also entitled to own the property, he had a legal title, eg renting this behavior would not cause criminal liability for violation of the home.
Therefore, in cases of this type, it is very often necessary to establish the relations of persons entitled to a given property and to reach other areas of law, especially civil or administrative law.
But if the owner gives away his property to another person in a certain scope, for example, I am renting my property, excluding my own right to use this item, it infringes the home tenant or tenant borrowing if he / she enters the area against the will of the user.