Suchergebnisse

The thesis consists of three main parts. The first part analyses the concept of market abuse and the main forms of market abuse, i.e. insider dealing and market manipulation. It also looks into the historical background to the emergence of the prohibition of market abuse, as well as the content and justification of the prohibition. Finally, this part provides a comparative analysis of EU legislation in the area of market abuse. The second part presents a comparative analysis of certain constituent elements of administrative offences (Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Markets in Financial Instruments ("LMFI"); Articles 14 and 15 of Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No 596/2014) and criminal acts (Articles 217 and 218 of the CC) relating to insider dealing and market manipulation. This part of the thesis discloses the content of the main criteria of distinction between administrative and criminal liability for market abuse, as well as identifies problematic aspects of the qualification of those acts. Given that the upper limit for penalties provided for in Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the LMFI, compared to the amounts of penalties provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences until 28 June 2017, is exceptionally high, the aim of the third part is to assess whether those penalties comply with the principles of justice and proportionality. The analysis also addresses the issue of whether the financial markets supervisory authority is an appropriate entity in charge of imposing those penalties. This part of the thesis also analyses the compliance of a sentence of imprisonment contained in the sanctions provided for in Articles 217 and 218 of the CC with the principles of justice and proportionality.

The thesis consists of three main parts. The first part analyses the concept of market abuse and the main forms of market abuse, i.e. insider dealing and market manipulation. It also looks into the historical background to the emergence of the prohibition of market abuse, as well as the content and justification of the prohibition. Finally, this part provides a comparative analysis of EU legislation in the area of market abuse. The second part presents a comparative analysis of certain constituent elements of administrative offences (Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Markets in Financial Instruments ("LMFI"); Articles 14 and 15 of Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No 596/2014) and criminal acts (Articles 217 and 218 of the CC) relating to insider dealing and market manipulation. This part of the thesis discloses the content of the main criteria of distinction between administrative and criminal liability for market abuse, as well as identifies problematic aspects of the qualification of those acts. Given that the upper limit for penalties provided for in Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the LMFI, compared to the amounts of penalties provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences until 28 June 2017, is exceptionally high, the aim of the third part is to assess whether those penalties comply with the principles of justice and proportionality. The analysis also addresses the issue of whether the financial markets supervisory authority is an appropriate entity in charge of imposing those penalties. This part of the thesis also analyses the compliance of a sentence of imprisonment contained in the sanctions provided for in Articles 217 and 218 of the CC with the principles of justice and proportionality.

The thesis consists of three main parts. The first part analyses the concept of market abuse and the main forms of market abuse, i.e. insider dealing and market manipulation. It also looks into the historical background to the emergence of the prohibition of market abuse, as well as the content and justification of the prohibition. Finally, this part provides a comparative analysis of EU legislation in the area of market abuse. The second part presents a comparative analysis of certain constituent elements of administrative offences (Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Markets in Financial Instruments ("LMFI"); Articles 14 and 15 of Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No 596/2014) and criminal acts (Articles 217 and 218 of the CC) relating to insider dealing and market manipulation. This part of the thesis discloses the content of the main criteria of distinction between administrative and criminal liability for market abuse, as well as identifies problematic aspects of the qualification of those acts. Given that the upper limit for penalties provided for in Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the LMFI, compared to the amounts of penalties provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences until 28 June 2017, is exceptionally high, the aim of the third part is to assess whether those penalties comply with the principles of justice and proportionality. The analysis also addresses the issue of whether the financial markets supervisory authority is an appropriate entity in charge of imposing those penalties. This part of the thesis also analyses the compliance of a sentence of imprisonment contained in the sanctions provided for in Articles 217 and 218 of the CC with the principles of justice and proportionality.

The thesis consists of three main parts. The first part analyses the concept of market abuse and the main forms of market abuse, i.e. insider dealing and market manipulation. It also looks into the historical background to the emergence of the prohibition of market abuse, as well as the content and justification of the prohibition. Finally, this part provides a comparative analysis of EU legislation in the area of market abuse. The second part presents a comparative analysis of certain constituent elements of administrative offences (Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Markets in Financial Instruments ("LMFI"); Articles 14 and 15 of Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No 596/2014) and criminal acts (Articles 217 and 218 of the CC) relating to insider dealing and market manipulation. This part of the thesis discloses the content of the main criteria of distinction between administrative and criminal liability for market abuse, as well as identifies problematic aspects of the qualification of those acts. Given that the upper limit for penalties provided for in Article 93(1)(14) and (17) of the LMFI, compared to the amounts of penalties provided for in the Code of Administrative Offences until 28 June 2017, is exceptionally high, the aim of the third part is to assess whether those penalties comply with the principles of justice and proportionality. The analysis also addresses the issue of whether the financial markets supervisory authority is an appropriate entity in charge of imposing those penalties. This part of the thesis also analyses the compliance of a sentence of imprisonment contained in the sanctions provided for in Articles 217 and 218 of the CC with the principles of justice and proportionality.

In numerous sources of administrative law of interwar Lithuania the major role was given to a monetary fine. Furthermore, legislative acts also provided for administrative sanctions that restricted special rights (e.g. rights allowing engaging in certain activities etc.). The right of administrative punishment was provided for different authorities, from ministers to ordinary policemen; however, the biggest jurisdictional powers were vested in the county governor. We may claim that the growth of jurisdictional powers of administrative authorities in interwar Lithuania was based exceptionally on feasibility arguments. While solving the problems of criminal justice resulting from work overload of courts and aiming to ensure public order in the state and lawfulness in general, administrative sanctions were regarded to be efficient and appropriate measures to achieve these aims. Administrative punishment compensated for the things that were impossible to implement by jurisdictional activities of courts.

In numerous sources of administrative law of interwar Lithuania the major role was given to a monetary fine. Furthermore, legislative acts also provided for administrative sanctions that restricted special rights (e.g. rights allowing engaging in certain activities etc.). The right of administrative punishment was provided for different authorities, from ministers to ordinary policemen; however, the biggest jurisdictional powers were vested in the county governor. We may claim that the growth of jurisdictional powers of administrative authorities in interwar Lithuania was based exceptionally on feasibility arguments. While solving the problems of criminal justice resulting from work overload of courts and aiming to ensure public order in the state and lawfulness in general, administrative sanctions were regarded to be efficient and appropriate measures to achieve these aims. Administrative punishment compensated for the things that were impossible to implement by jurisdictional activities of courts.

One of the most effective ways to ensure order in society is to apply legal liability measures to law violations. Administrative responsibility is one of the legal administration types implemented through suitable measures – administrative sanctions. Administrative sanctions are designated to punish and educate the person who made administrative violations so that he could respect the rules of collective living. Also, it is desirable that both the violator and other individuals do not make new violations, which means that administrative sanction is a very important measure to ensure legal order. Because of the large amount of administrative violations and the aspiration to prevent them as well as to prevent legal offence, the need of a more effective and faster reaction (by employing administrative sanctions) to administrative violations arose. This resulted in the alterations of the Code of Administrative Violations that came into force in January 1, 2011, on which the institute of administrative order was established. With the establishment of this institute the problem of the extremely large workload of courts was to be solved, the fund of designated administrative sanctions was to be raised into the budget more operatively, and most importantly –the process of the least dangerous administrative violation cases' solutions was to be quickened and simplified. The essence of an administrative order is that it is submitted to the violator within ten working days, starting from the date the protocol of administrative violation is presented (or sent), and the fine, equal to half of the minimum fine indicated in the article of the Code (wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen), has to be paid on voluntary basis. An administrative order cannot be designated if in a sanction of the Code of Administrative Violations' article, wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen, a larger than eight hundred sixty eight euro maximum fine is provided, or a different kind of administrative sanction, not a monetary one, is foreseen as the main or additional fine (except a warning). Moreover, it cannot be designated if the person has repeatedly committed an administrative violation within a year, (foreseen in the respective article), or the violation is made with property damages which are fully compensated. Although it might seem that the institute of administrative order is quite clearly regulated, problems arise now and then while applying it in practice. While examining the problems of application and interpretation of the institute of administrative order, the biggest difficulty appears to be valuing what effect does the factor that in his case the administrative order was already applied have on the violator. Dealing with the question of legal causes of the administrative order fulfilment in court practice, it may be noted that court valuing is different than conceived by the legislator. Analyzing the explanatory note of laws on which the institute of administrative order was established, it may be observed that with this institute administrative sanction aims were sought to be achieved in the fastest and thriftiest way. These aims are to punish the guilty one, to correct and educate the violator as well as to warn other people, so that they would not make violations. This means that in its own nature the institute of administrative law is a tool used to apply the states' constraint (in this case – sanction) for the people, who made an administrative violation. However, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shares a different view. While examining administrative order application's legal consequences question, the court formed a practice that is carried out in this manner: after the administrative order is voluntarily fulfilled, the person is not considered guilty by administrative procedure, which means that an administrative order is not considered as an administrative sanction. It is important to mark that this practice is applied by almost every court which deals with administrative violation cases. While analyzing this situation, the question of how to value the institute of administrative order arises. In order to answer this question, the attention was focused on both the theoretical and practical side of the problem. Through legal doctrine and courts jurisprudence this paper seeks to determine if applying the institute of administrative order in practice helps implement the aims conceived by the legislator, and also if subjects applying the institute of administrative order interpret it rightly. First of all, the theoretical foundation of administrative liability, the concept and its conditions of appearance are being issued. In another chapter, the institute of administrative sanction is being investigated – the traits that identify administrative sanctions, their matters, kinds and caused consequences. In the third chapter of this paper, the institute of administrative order is analysed – the aims of the legislator, the institute's explanatory problems which arise in practice, and, of course, the consequences caused by the administrative order fulfilment. At the end of this work the conclusions and suggestions on how to solve the problem issued in this paper are presented. Legal doctrines, courts' jurisprudence, and the analysis of national as well as international documents showed that administrative order both in its nature and content is a tool for applying administrative sanctions to the people who have made administrative violations. This means that an administrative order is considered to be an administrative sanction.

One of the most effective ways to ensure order in society is to apply legal liability measures to law violations. Administrative responsibility is one of the legal administration types implemented through suitable measures – administrative sanctions. Administrative sanctions are designated to punish and educate the person who made administrative violations so that he could respect the rules of collective living. Also, it is desirable that both the violator and other individuals do not make new violations, which means that administrative sanction is a very important measure to ensure legal order. Because of the large amount of administrative violations and the aspiration to prevent them as well as to prevent legal offence, the need of a more effective and faster reaction (by employing administrative sanctions) to administrative violations arose. This resulted in the alterations of the Code of Administrative Violations that came into force in January 1, 2011, on which the institute of administrative order was established. With the establishment of this institute the problem of the extremely large workload of courts was to be solved, the fund of designated administrative sanctions was to be raised into the budget more operatively, and most importantly –the process of the least dangerous administrative violation cases' solutions was to be quickened and simplified. The essence of an administrative order is that it is submitted to the violator within ten working days, starting from the date the protocol of administrative violation is presented (or sent), and the fine, equal to half of the minimum fine indicated in the article of the Code (wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen), has to be paid on voluntary basis. An administrative order cannot be designated if in a sanction of the Code of Administrative Violations' article, wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen, a larger than eight hundred sixty eight euro maximum fine is provided, or a different kind of administrative sanction, not a monetary one, is foreseen as the main or additional fine (except a warning). Moreover, it cannot be designated if the person has repeatedly committed an administrative violation within a year, (foreseen in the respective article), or the violation is made with property damages which are fully compensated. Although it might seem that the institute of administrative order is quite clearly regulated, problems arise now and then while applying it in practice. While examining the problems of application and interpretation of the institute of administrative order, the biggest difficulty appears to be valuing what effect does the factor that in his case the administrative order was already applied have on the violator. Dealing with the question of legal causes of the administrative order fulfilment in court practice, it may be noted that court valuing is different than conceived by the legislator. Analyzing the explanatory note of laws on which the institute of administrative order was established, it may be observed that with this institute administrative sanction aims were sought to be achieved in the fastest and thriftiest way. These aims are to punish the guilty one, to correct and educate the violator as well as to warn other people, so that they would not make violations. This means that in its own nature the institute of administrative law is a tool used to apply the states' constraint (in this case – sanction) for the people, who made an administrative violation. However, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shares a different view. While examining administrative order application's legal consequences question, the court formed a practice that is carried out in this manner: after the administrative order is voluntarily fulfilled, the person is not considered guilty by administrative procedure, which means that an administrative order is not considered as an administrative sanction. It is important to mark that this practice is applied by almost every court which deals with administrative violation cases. While analyzing this situation, the question of how to value the institute of administrative order arises. In order to answer this question, the attention was focused on both the theoretical and practical side of the problem. Through legal doctrine and courts jurisprudence this paper seeks to determine if applying the institute of administrative order in practice helps implement the aims conceived by the legislator, and also if subjects applying the institute of administrative order interpret it rightly. First of all, the theoretical foundation of administrative liability, the concept and its conditions of appearance are being issued. In another chapter, the institute of administrative sanction is being investigated – the traits that identify administrative sanctions, their matters, kinds and caused consequences. In the third chapter of this paper, the institute of administrative order is analysed – the aims of the legislator, the institute's explanatory problems which arise in practice, and, of course, the consequences caused by the administrative order fulfilment. At the end of this work the conclusions and suggestions on how to solve the problem issued in this paper are presented. Legal doctrines, courts' jurisprudence, and the analysis of national as well as international documents showed that administrative order both in its nature and content is a tool for applying administrative sanctions to the people who have made administrative violations. This means that an administrative order is considered to be an administrative sanction.

One of the most effective ways to ensure order in society is to apply legal liability measures to law violations. Administrative responsibility is one of the legal administration types implemented through suitable measures – administrative sanctions. Administrative sanctions are designated to punish and educate the person who made administrative violations so that he could respect the rules of collective living. Also, it is desirable that both the violator and other individuals do not make new violations, which means that administrative sanction is a very important measure to ensure legal order. Because of the large amount of administrative violations and the aspiration to prevent them as well as to prevent legal offence, the need of a more effective and faster reaction (by employing administrative sanctions) to administrative violations arose. This resulted in the alterations of the Code of Administrative Violations that came into force in January 1, 2011, on which the institute of administrative order was established. With the establishment of this institute the problem of the extremely large workload of courts was to be solved, the fund of designated administrative sanctions was to be raised into the budget more operatively, and most importantly –the process of the least dangerous administrative violation cases' solutions was to be quickened and simplified. The essence of an administrative order is that it is submitted to the violator within ten working days, starting from the date the protocol of administrative violation is presented (or sent), and the fine, equal to half of the minimum fine indicated in the article of the Code (wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen), has to be paid on voluntary basis. An administrative order cannot be designated if in a sanction of the Code of Administrative Violations' article, wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen, a larger than eight hundred sixty eight euro maximum fine is provided, or a different kind of administrative sanction, not a monetary one, is foreseen as the main or additional fine (except a warning). Moreover, it cannot be designated if the person has repeatedly committed an administrative violation within a year, (foreseen in the respective article), or the violation is made with property damages which are fully compensated. Although it might seem that the institute of administrative order is quite clearly regulated, problems arise now and then while applying it in practice. While examining the problems of application and interpretation of the institute of administrative order, the biggest difficulty appears to be valuing what effect does the factor that in his case the administrative order was already applied have on the violator. Dealing with the question of legal causes of the administrative order fulfilment in court practice, it may be noted that court valuing is different than conceived by the legislator. Analyzing the explanatory note of laws on which the institute of administrative order was established, it may be observed that with this institute administrative sanction aims were sought to be achieved in the fastest and thriftiest way. These aims are to punish the guilty one, to correct and educate the violator as well as to warn other people, so that they would not make violations. This means that in its own nature the institute of administrative law is a tool used to apply the states' constraint (in this case – sanction) for the people, who made an administrative violation. However, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shares a different view. While examining administrative order application's legal consequences question, the court formed a practice that is carried out in this manner: after the administrative order is voluntarily fulfilled, the person is not considered guilty by administrative procedure, which means that an administrative order is not considered as an administrative sanction. It is important to mark that this practice is applied by almost every court which deals with administrative violation cases. While analyzing this situation, the question of how to value the institute of administrative order arises. In order to answer this question, the attention was focused on both the theoretical and practical side of the problem. Through legal doctrine and courts jurisprudence this paper seeks to determine if applying the institute of administrative order in practice helps implement the aims conceived by the legislator, and also if subjects applying the institute of administrative order interpret it rightly. First of all, the theoretical foundation of administrative liability, the concept and its conditions of appearance are being issued. In another chapter, the institute of administrative sanction is being investigated – the traits that identify administrative sanctions, their matters, kinds and caused consequences. In the third chapter of this paper, the institute of administrative order is analysed – the aims of the legislator, the institute's explanatory problems which arise in practice, and, of course, the consequences caused by the administrative order fulfilment. At the end of this work the conclusions and suggestions on how to solve the problem issued in this paper are presented. Legal doctrines, courts' jurisprudence, and the analysis of national as well as international documents showed that administrative order both in its nature and content is a tool for applying administrative sanctions to the people who have made administrative violations. This means that an administrative order is considered to be an administrative sanction.

A fair assessment of the evidence is very important in any type of process. For this purpose, it is very often useful to follow the findings of specialists and experts. The results of expert research are used to implement the tasks of administering justice. Timely and high-quality expert investigations should help courts to establish the truth in administrative cases, and pretrial investigation institutions to detect offenses quickly and in detail. The purpose of this study is to analyze the status of private experts during the administrative process, determining the relevance of their findings in the evidentiary process. The study found that the application of expertise in the administrative process is of particular importance. A private forensic expert has a dual status in administrative proceedings, i. y. he may act as a specialist in his field and draw up the relevant documents in accordance with the legislation governing that field, or he may act as a private forensic expert who draws up the findings of an expert examination in accordance with procedural law and the Forensic Law. The status of a forensic expert is a procedural status and is to be used in accordance with the Law on Administrative Procedure and the Law on Forensic Examination only in actions related to the parties to the proceedings in the investigation and hearing of cases. A private expert who performs forensic examination or privately consults the parties to the proceedings must comply with the provisions of the Code of Professional Ethics of Forensic Experts and the rights and obligations established in the Law on Administrative Procedure and the Law on Forensic Examination. An analysis of the provisions of the above-mentioned legal regulation and case law leads to the conclusion that private experts are subject to the same requirements in the administrative process as for forensic experts, but their rights are limited.