This article concerns with typical legal provisions, that identifies level, scope and forms of state's involvement in international tax competition, also general legal background, that empowers or, on the opposite – restricts the effects of those provisions or various administrative practices, showing that there are certain criteria, enabling to describe international tax competition not only economically – as harmful or useful, or politically – as fair or unfair, but also legally – i.e. as legal or illegal. It is clear that individual legal provisions, that makes the essence of international tax competition, rarely operates separately and functionality, effectiveness or harmfulness of every preferential tax regime have to be analyzed having in mind all relevant elements that form certain regime, however object of legitimacy test first of all is each separate legal norm. Every of those separately taken norms have to satisfy not only general but also special, i.e. applied only in certain fields of law (administrative, civil, financial, tax etc.), legal criteria for form and substance (for example, to be set and applied by competent authority, non-discriminate, be proportionate etc.), that are set by the national law. Nevertheless, if aforementioned formal requirements are quite clear, their content should be assessed not only from the perspectives of national law or general legal principles, but also in the light of state's international obligations of different origin and legal weight.
This article concerns with typical legal provisions, that identifies level, scope and forms of state's involvement in international tax competition, also general legal background, that empowers or, on the opposite – restricts the effects of those provisions or various administrative practices, showing that there are certain criteria, enabling to describe international tax competition not only economically – as harmful or useful, or politically – as fair or unfair, but also legally – i.e. as legal or illegal. It is clear that individual legal provisions, that makes the essence of international tax competition, rarely operates separately and functionality, effectiveness or harmfulness of every preferential tax regime have to be analyzed having in mind all relevant elements that form certain regime, however object of legitimacy test first of all is each separate legal norm. Every of those separately taken norms have to satisfy not only general but also special, i.e. applied only in certain fields of law (administrative, civil, financial, tax etc.), legal criteria for form and substance (for example, to be set and applied by competent authority, non-discriminate, be proportionate etc.), that are set by the national law. Nevertheless, if aforementioned formal requirements are quite clear, their content should be assessed not only from the perspectives of national law or general legal principles, but also in the light of state's international obligations of different origin and legal weight.
This article concerns with typical legal provisions, that identifies level, scope and forms of state's involvement in international tax competition, also general legal background, that empowers or, on the opposite – restricts the effects of those provisions or various administrative practices, showing that there are certain criteria, enabling to describe international tax competition not only economically – as harmful or useful, or politically – as fair or unfair, but also legally – i.e. as legal or illegal. It is clear that individual legal provisions, that makes the essence of international tax competition, rarely operates separately and functionality, effectiveness or harmfulness of every preferential tax regime have to be analyzed having in mind all relevant elements that form certain regime, however object of legitimacy test first of all is each separate legal norm. Every of those separately taken norms have to satisfy not only general but also special, i.e. applied only in certain fields of law (administrative, civil, financial, tax etc.), legal criteria for form and substance (for example, to be set and applied by competent authority, non-discriminate, be proportionate etc.), that are set by the national law. Nevertheless, if aforementioned formal requirements are quite clear, their content should be assessed not only from the perspectives of national law or general legal principles, but also in the light of state's international obligations of different origin and legal weight.
This article concerns with typical legal provisions, that identifies level, scope and forms of state's involvement in international tax competition, also general legal background, that empowers or, on the opposite – restricts the effects of those provisions or various administrative practices, showing that there are certain criteria, enabling to describe international tax competition not only economically – as harmful or useful, or politically – as fair or unfair, but also legally – i.e. as legal or illegal. It is clear that individual legal provisions, that makes the essence of international tax competition, rarely operates separately and functionality, effectiveness or harmfulness of every preferential tax regime have to be analyzed having in mind all relevant elements that form certain regime, however object of legitimacy test first of all is each separate legal norm. Every of those separately taken norms have to satisfy not only general but also special, i.e. applied only in certain fields of law (administrative, civil, financial, tax etc.), legal criteria for form and substance (for example, to be set and applied by competent authority, non-discriminate, be proportionate etc.), that are set by the national law. Nevertheless, if aforementioned formal requirements are quite clear, their content should be assessed not only from the perspectives of national law or general legal principles, but also in the light of state's international obligations of different origin and legal weight.
The main objective of the regulation 1/2003 was to create European competition Network (ECN) which could ensure proper enforcement of the EU competition law. Members of this network are national competition authorities and Commission which cooperate in vertical and horizontal dimensions. The base for cooperation in the ECN is articles 11 and 12 of the regulation 1/2003. Articles state that members of the ECN can cooperate in exchanging information and evidence in the network for the purpose of the application the EU competition rules. ECN also plays a role as a forum for the case allocation and ensures that case is dealt by the well-placed competition authority which can bring the entire infringement to an end. Master thesis discusses the main issues of cooperation in ECN and focuses on essential problems faced by competition authorities and undertaking. Paper also proposes possible solutions based on EU case-law and consideration of the competent EU competition law experts. First concern can be raised in the light of the application regulation 1/2003 which gives a wide power of discretion for the exchange of information in the ECN. This information can contain confidential elements therefore undertaking has to be protected from the disclosure this information. The lack of harmonization does not ensure such protection. Secondly, parallel competences of the competition authorities in the application EU competition rules can affect the right of undertakings to ne bis in idem. Master thesis discusses particular situations when this principle can be violated and states that the absent of the EU case-law in this field creates a legal uncertainty for the undertakings. Thirdly, a certain degree of legal uncertainty also exists in the application of the EU-wide Leniency programs. Absence of harmonization in this field creates difficulties for the undertaking because application for Leniency in a given national competition authority is not to be considered as application to any other authority. This means that once national competition authority decides not to take up the case the Leniency applicant can be prosecuted by another competition authority therefore undertakings should apply for all the authorities which could be well-placed to deal with the case.
The main objective of the regulation 1/2003 was to create European competition Network (ECN) which could ensure proper enforcement of the EU competition law. Members of this network are national competition authorities and Commission which cooperate in vertical and horizontal dimensions. The base for cooperation in the ECN is articles 11 and 12 of the regulation 1/2003. Articles state that members of the ECN can cooperate in exchanging information and evidence in the network for the purpose of the application the EU competition rules. ECN also plays a role as a forum for the case allocation and ensures that case is dealt by the well-placed competition authority which can bring the entire infringement to an end. Master thesis discusses the main issues of cooperation in ECN and focuses on essential problems faced by competition authorities and undertaking. Paper also proposes possible solutions based on EU case-law and consideration of the competent EU competition law experts. First concern can be raised in the light of the application regulation 1/2003 which gives a wide power of discretion for the exchange of information in the ECN. This information can contain confidential elements therefore undertaking has to be protected from the disclosure this information. The lack of harmonization does not ensure such protection. Secondly, parallel competences of the competition authorities in the application EU competition rules can affect the right of undertakings to ne bis in idem. Master thesis discusses particular situations when this principle can be violated and states that the absent of the EU case-law in this field creates a legal uncertainty for the undertakings. Thirdly, a certain degree of legal uncertainty also exists in the application of the EU-wide Leniency programs. Absence of harmonization in this field creates difficulties for the undertaking because application for Leniency in a given national competition authority is not to be considered as application to any other authority. This means that once national competition authority decides not to take up the case the Leniency applicant can be prosecuted by another competition authority therefore undertakings should apply for all the authorities which could be well-placed to deal with the case.
The main objective of the regulation 1/2003 was to create European competition Network (ECN) which could ensure proper enforcement of the EU competition law. Members of this network are national competition authorities and Commission which cooperate in vertical and horizontal dimensions. The base for cooperation in the ECN is articles 11 and 12 of the regulation 1/2003. Articles state that members of the ECN can cooperate in exchanging information and evidence in the network for the purpose of the application the EU competition rules. ECN also plays a role as a forum for the case allocation and ensures that case is dealt by the well-placed competition authority which can bring the entire infringement to an end. Master thesis discusses the main issues of cooperation in ECN and focuses on essential problems faced by competition authorities and undertaking. Paper also proposes possible solutions based on EU case-law and consideration of the competent EU competition law experts. First concern can be raised in the light of the application regulation 1/2003 which gives a wide power of discretion for the exchange of information in the ECN. This information can contain confidential elements therefore undertaking has to be protected from the disclosure this information. The lack of harmonization does not ensure such protection. Secondly, parallel competences of the competition authorities in the application EU competition rules can affect the right of undertakings to ne bis in idem. Master thesis discusses particular situations when this principle can be violated and states that the absent of the EU case-law in this field creates a legal uncertainty for the undertakings. Thirdly, a certain degree of legal uncertainty also exists in the application of the EU-wide Leniency programs. Absence of harmonization in this field creates difficulties for the undertaking because application for Leniency in a given national competition authority is not to be considered as application to any other authority. This means that once national competition authority decides not to take up the case the Leniency applicant can be prosecuted by another competition authority therefore undertakings should apply for all the authorities which could be well-placed to deal with the case.
The main objective of the regulation 1/2003 was to create European competition Network (ECN) which could ensure proper enforcement of the EU competition law. Members of this network are national competition authorities and Commission which cooperate in vertical and horizontal dimensions. The base for cooperation in the ECN is articles 11 and 12 of the regulation 1/2003. Articles state that members of the ECN can cooperate in exchanging information and evidence in the network for the purpose of the application the EU competition rules. ECN also plays a role as a forum for the case allocation and ensures that case is dealt by the well-placed competition authority which can bring the entire infringement to an end. Master thesis discusses the main issues of cooperation in ECN and focuses on essential problems faced by competition authorities and undertaking. Paper also proposes possible solutions based on EU case-law and consideration of the competent EU competition law experts. First concern can be raised in the light of the application regulation 1/2003 which gives a wide power of discretion for the exchange of information in the ECN. This information can contain confidential elements therefore undertaking has to be protected from the disclosure this information. The lack of harmonization does not ensure such protection. Secondly, parallel competences of the competition authorities in the application EU competition rules can affect the right of undertakings to ne bis in idem. Master thesis discusses particular situations when this principle can be violated and states that the absent of the EU case-law in this field creates a legal uncertainty for the undertakings. Thirdly, a certain degree of legal uncertainty also exists in the application of the EU-wide Leniency programs. Absence of harmonization in this field creates difficulties for the undertaking because application for Leniency in a given national competition authority is not to be considered as application to any other authority. This means that once national competition authority decides not to take up the case the Leniency applicant can be prosecuted by another competition authority therefore undertakings should apply for all the authorities which could be well-placed to deal with the case.
The aim of the Master thesis was to investigate is the compensation for damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act not in breach of the just compensation principle in the Republic of Lithuania. The investigation was accomplished by analysis of related legal doctrine, valid legal regulation and case law. For the purpose of objective conclusions and recommendations for mentioned theme in the Republic of Lithuania also the compensation for damages arising from society beneficial land servitude was estimated by the specific examples in the case of the European Union. The first part of the Master thesis revealed that land servitude established by an administrative act is the pattern of ownership limiting while the expropriation is used in case of need to limit ownership in level that disproves its essence and means a loss of ownership. Despite differences the both legal institutions are possible to establish only in circumstances of society beneficial and objective based need, for instance to build infrastructure objects for public use, when the public interest appears. In such circumstances the subject of public administration enacts a decision for ownership limitation or loss and that determines administrative legal relations between legal parties. The conceptions of expropriation and servitude, i. e. land servitude established by an administrative act, are dual especially by different positions of legal parties when one legal party acquires particular rights whereas another legal party loses such rights or faces it limiting. This dualism inter alia is the reason of legal provided possibility to compensate damages arising from expropriation and servitude. In the Republic of Lithuania in case of expropriation damages are being compensated in compliance with the just compensation principle. The conception of this principle is the objective to restore person's lost status and ensure the balance of rights and legitimate interests between all interested parties in legal relations. After analysis done in the second part of the Master thesis it must be stated that legal regulations, which are in force in the Republic of Lithuania, determine that damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act can be compensated only by destroyed crops, plantation, felled timber market value and loss of lost possibility to use the whole land parcel or part of it by its basic purpose, manner and (or) nature. That does not refer to duration of servitude, loss of market value in land parcel part without servitude and other criterions causing damages while calculating compensation so that is the reason why the compensation for damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act conflicts with real or close to real damages. According to the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, in circumstances of civil legal relations damages arising from land servitude are being compensated in compliance with the just compensation principle. Damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act would be justifiable to compensate not in compliance with the just compensation principle in case of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania proved that compliance with the just compensation principle would be breach of public interest or other protected valuables, indicated other important justifiable circumstances. In absence from such circumstances it must be stated that persons who suffer damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act should be treated equally to those, who suffer damages arising from expropriation or those, who suffer damages arising from land servitude in circumstances of civil legal relations – as having the right to just compensation. The compensation for damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act in the Republic of Lithuania can be characterized as tentative because of relation only to three circumstances of damage rise. In consideration of valid legal provisions, case law and legal principles it must be stated that the compensation for damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act in the Republic of Lithuania is in breach of the just compensation principle. After estimation patterns from abroad in the third part of the Master thesis it must be stated that in the Republic of Latvia damages arising from public infrastructure beneficial land servitude are being compensated with reference to reduction of property value, current loss of investment and paper profit. In this state different attitude from existing in the Republic of Lithuania prevails – the circumstance that ownership is limited by installation, construction or development of society significant objects determines higher protection of ownership, which appears as the right of restricted land owner to compensation equivalent or close to equivalent damages. In the Republic of Poland land servitude revealing public interest, for instance land servitude for infrastructure projects, is accomplished by enactmend of an administrative decision on expropriation, therefore it falls into the scope of expropriation institution. In such circumstances damages are being compensated by market value of deprived or limited ownership in accordance with prospective variations of that market value in the future. That does not conform to condition in the Republic of Lithuania. In the Republic of Poland by analysed situation with some important exceptions compensation for damages prevails equivalent or close to equivalent damages, so that can be estimated as in conformity with standards of justice. If the competent authority limits by servitude land owner's ownership for the purpose of public interest in the Netherlands (the European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands with three special municipalities of the Netherlands located in the Caribbean), landowner of private property has the right to full compensation as well as in case of expropriation. That supposes basically the same estimation of consequences that may result from these two legal institutions, but does not conform to judical opinion in the Republic of Lithuania. Full compensation is considered as equivalent to landowner's losses including not only direct losses, but also additional related expenditures, so that comply with the just compensation principle. It must be stated that in all three cases of the European Union damages arising from society beneficial land servitude, contrary to the Republic of Lithuania, are being compensated in compliance with the just compensation principle.
The aim of the Master thesis was to investigate is the compensation for damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act not in breach of the just compensation principle in the Republic of Lithuania. The investigation was accomplished by analysis of related legal doctrine, valid legal regulation and case law. For the purpose of objective conclusions and recommendations for mentioned theme in the Republic of Lithuania also the compensation for damages arising from society beneficial land servitude was estimated by the specific examples in the case of the European Union. The first part of the Master thesis revealed that land servitude established by an administrative act is the pattern of ownership limiting while the expropriation is used in case of need to limit ownership in level that disproves its essence and means a loss of ownership. Despite differences the both legal institutions are possible to establish only in circumstances of society beneficial and objective based need, for instance to build infrastructure objects for public use, when the public interest appears. In such circumstances the subject of public administration enacts a decision for ownership limitation or loss and that determines administrative legal relations between legal parties. The conceptions of expropriation and servitude, i. e. land servitude established by an administrative act, are dual especially by different positions of legal parties when one legal party acquires particular rights whereas another legal party loses such rights or faces it limiting. This dualism inter alia is the reason of legal provided possibility to compensate damages arising from expropriation and servitude. In the Republic of Lithuania in case of expropriation damages are being compensated in compliance with the just compensation principle. The conception of this principle is the objective to restore person's lost status and ensure the balance of rights and legitimate interests between all interested parties in legal relations. After analysis done in the second part of the Master thesis it must be stated that legal regulations, which are in force in the Republic of Lithuania, determine that damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act can be compensated only by destroyed crops, plantation, felled timber market value and loss of lost possibility to use the whole land parcel or part of it by its basic purpose, manner and (or) nature. That does not refer to duration of servitude, loss of market value in land parcel part without servitude and other criterions causing damages while calculating compensation so that is the reason why the compensation for damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act conflicts with real or close to real damages. According to the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, in circumstances of civil legal relations damages arising from land servitude are being compensated in compliance with the just compensation principle. Damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act would be justifiable to compensate not in compliance with the just compensation principle in case of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania proved that compliance with the just compensation principle would be breach of public interest or other protected valuables, indicated other important justifiable circumstances. In absence from such circumstances it must be stated that persons who suffer damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act should be treated equally to those, who suffer damages arising from expropriation or those, who suffer damages arising from land servitude in circumstances of civil legal relations – as having the right to just compensation. The compensation for damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act in the Republic of Lithuania can be characterized as tentative because of relation only to three circumstances of damage rise. In consideration of valid legal provisions, case law and legal principles it must be stated that the compensation for damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act in the Republic of Lithuania is in breach of the just compensation principle. After estimation patterns from abroad in the third part of the Master thesis it must be stated that in the Republic of Latvia damages arising from public infrastructure beneficial land servitude are being compensated with reference to reduction of property value, current loss of investment and paper profit. In this state different attitude from existing in the Republic of Lithuania prevails – the circumstance that ownership is limited by installation, construction or development of society significant objects determines higher protection of ownership, which appears as the right of restricted land owner to compensation equivalent or close to equivalent damages. In the Republic of Poland land servitude revealing public interest, for instance land servitude for infrastructure projects, is accomplished by enactmend of an administrative decision on expropriation, therefore it falls into the scope of expropriation institution. In such circumstances damages are being compensated by market value of deprived or limited ownership in accordance with prospective variations of that market value in the future. That does not conform to condition in the Republic of Lithuania. In the Republic of Poland by analysed situation with some important exceptions compensation for damages prevails equivalent or close to equivalent damages, so that can be estimated as in conformity with standards of justice. If the competent authority limits by servitude land owner's ownership for the purpose of public interest in the Netherlands (the European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands with three special municipalities of the Netherlands located in the Caribbean), landowner of private property has the right to full compensation as well as in case of expropriation. That supposes basically the same estimation of consequences that may result from these two legal institutions, but does not conform to judical opinion in the Republic of Lithuania. Full compensation is considered as equivalent to landowner's losses including not only direct losses, but also additional related expenditures, so that comply with the just compensation principle. It must be stated that in all three cases of the European Union damages arising from society beneficial land servitude, contrary to the Republic of Lithuania, are being compensated in compliance with the just compensation principle.
The aim of the Master thesis was to investigate is the compensation for damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act not in breach of the just compensation principle in the Republic of Lithuania. The investigation was accomplished by analysis of related legal doctrine, valid legal regulation and case law. For the purpose of objective conclusions and recommendations for mentioned theme in the Republic of Lithuania also the compensation for damages arising from society beneficial land servitude was estimated by the specific examples in the case of the European Union. The first part of the Master thesis revealed that land servitude established by an administrative act is the pattern of ownership limiting while the expropriation is used in case of need to limit ownership in level that disproves its essence and means a loss of ownership. Despite differences the both legal institutions are possible to establish only in circumstances of society beneficial and objective based need, for instance to build infrastructure objects for public use, when the public interest appears. In such circumstances the subject of public administration enacts a decision for ownership limitation or loss and that determines administrative legal relations between legal parties. The conceptions of expropriation and servitude, i. e. land servitude established by an administrative act, are dual especially by different positions of legal parties when one legal party acquires particular rights whereas another legal party loses such rights or faces it limiting. This dualism inter alia is the reason of legal provided possibility to compensate damages arising from expropriation and servitude. In the Republic of Lithuania in case of expropriation damages are being compensated in compliance with the just compensation principle. The conception of this principle is the objective to restore person's lost status and ensure the balance of rights and legitimate interests between all interested parties in legal relations. After analysis done in the second part of the Master thesis it must be stated that legal regulations, which are in force in the Republic of Lithuania, determine that damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act can be compensated only by destroyed crops, plantation, felled timber market value and loss of lost possibility to use the whole land parcel or part of it by its basic purpose, manner and (or) nature. That does not refer to duration of servitude, loss of market value in land parcel part without servitude and other criterions causing damages while calculating compensation so that is the reason why the compensation for damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act conflicts with real or close to real damages. According to the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, in circumstances of civil legal relations damages arising from land servitude are being compensated in compliance with the just compensation principle. Damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act would be justifiable to compensate not in compliance with the just compensation principle in case of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania proved that compliance with the just compensation principle would be breach of public interest or other protected valuables, indicated other important justifiable circumstances. In absence from such circumstances it must be stated that persons who suffer damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act should be treated equally to those, who suffer damages arising from expropriation or those, who suffer damages arising from land servitude in circumstances of civil legal relations – as having the right to just compensation. The compensation for damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act in the Republic of Lithuania can be characterized as tentative because of relation only to three circumstances of damage rise. In consideration of valid legal provisions, case law and legal principles it must be stated that the compensation for damages arising from land servitude established by an administrative act in the Republic of Lithuania is in breach of the just compensation principle. After estimation patterns from abroad in the third part of the Master thesis it must be stated that in the Republic of Latvia damages arising from public infrastructure beneficial land servitude are being compensated with reference to reduction of property value, current loss of investment and paper profit. In this state different attitude from existing in the Republic of Lithuania prevails – the circumstance that ownership is limited by installation, construction or development of society significant objects determines higher protection of ownership, which appears as the right of restricted land owner to compensation equivalent or close to equivalent damages. In the Republic of Poland land servitude revealing public interest, for instance land servitude for infrastructure projects, is accomplished by enactmend of an administrative decision on expropriation, therefore it falls into the scope of expropriation institution. In such circumstances damages are being compensated by market value of deprived or limited ownership in accordance with prospective variations of that market value in the future. That does not conform to condition in the Republic of Lithuania. In the Republic of Poland by analysed situation with some important exceptions compensation for damages prevails equivalent or close to equivalent damages, so that can be estimated as in conformity with standards of justice. If the competent authority limits by servitude land owner's ownership for the purpose of public interest in the Netherlands (the European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands with three special municipalities of the Netherlands located in the Caribbean), landowner of private property has the right to full compensation as well as in case of expropriation. That supposes basically the same estimation of consequences that may result from these two legal institutions, but does not conform to judical opinion in the Republic of Lithuania. Full compensation is considered as equivalent to landowner's losses including not only direct losses, but also additional related expenditures, so that comply with the just compensation principle. It must be stated that in all three cases of the European Union damages arising from society beneficial land servitude, contrary to the Republic of Lithuania, are being compensated in compliance with the just compensation principle.
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the whether the termination of a referendum initiative is valid if based of an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. The core questions, investigated in this thesis consists of whether the refusal to hold a referendum concerning a legal draft, which potentially does not meet the requirements arising from the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania constrain the citizens right to a referendum; can the Central Election Commission's and the Parliament's constitutional evaluation towards the citizens provided legal draft can be interpreted as some sort constitutional control. The arisen problem is examined in three parts of this thesis. The first parts presents background to this situation. On 2014 July 11'th the Constitutional Court of Lithuania adopted a resolution which the interpreted the additional powers to the Central Election Commission and the Parliament. This resolution established, that in order to prevent unconstitutional constitutional amendments to the Constitution, the Central Election Commission and the Parliament must be granted the jurisdiction to prevent such a referendum to take place, if it would be non-compliant with the fundamental provisions established in the Constitution or would lead to unconstitutional consequences. These powers themselves created an obligation, both to the Central Election Commission and the Parliament to check the contents of the submitted legal draft and to evaluate its compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Given the fact that a submitted legal draft is certain for constitutional checks not only in form, but also in terms of content, the question arises, what criteria should the Central Election Commission and the Parliament follow. For this reason, this part analyses what the fundamental constitutional values are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and what kind of the safeguard mechanism is instilled. These criteria will provide a some sort of basis that could be determined in accordance with the legal draft. The second part deals with the situation where the Central Electoral Commission, within its jurisdiction, stated that a citizens' group submitted legal draft law does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution, thus shall not be put to vote in a referendum. For the same reason, the Parliament must refuse to hold a citizens' initiated referendum, even if such an initiative is at a request of 300 thousand citizens. Due to the fact that the requirement to call to provide 300 thousand signatures itself shows that the subject at hand is attributable to the major questions of the country. Parliament's refusal to hold such a referendum would not be an infringement of the sovereign powers held by the people. However, the question arises whether the refusal to call a referendum based on a legal draft, which potentially do not meet the requirements arising from the Constitution disproportionately restricts the right to call a referendum, which should by guaranteed by the Constitution. For this reason, this part will examine what are the real prospects to initiate and to call a referendum in Lithuania on behalf of the citizens, assessing how these perspectives have changed since the Constitutional Court adopted the mentioned resolution. This analysis will reveal possibility of a citizens' initiative and referendum, this analysis will determine whether the existing legal regulation does not create disproportionate difficulties in the implementation of the right to a referendum. The third part deals with the Lithuanian's Constitutional Court's exclusive right to interpret the concept of the Constitution; the analysis of the Central Electoral Commission's and the Parliament's content of powers and the constitutional practices of foreign countries. For this reason, this part will address the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania's prerogative to interpret the concept of the Constitution and why this exclusive right belongs to the Constitutional Court of Lithuania. This part will analyze whether the Central Electoral Commission and the Parliament right, to analyze the citizens provided legal draft in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania implements functions consisting a degree of constitutional control as well as the implementation of such a practice should be seen in relation to the recommendations of the Venice Commission. This analysis will answer the question of whether the current legal regulation creates preconditions for citizens' groups to be rejected the referendum provided by a bill based on an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. The analysis revealed that the only authority competent to assess the legal draft submitted for referendum, compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, since only the Constitutional Court has the exclusive right to interpretation of constitutional rules, which can cause legal consequences. Given the fact that the interpretation of the Constitution is the Constitutional Court exclusive right and that only the official interpretation of the Constitution should lead would lead to legal consequences, it must be concluded that the possible non-compliance of the Constitution setting, based on an unofficial interpretation is not sufficient enough to refuse to hold a referendum. The Central Election Commission has not been provided with an opportunity to apply to the Constitutional Court questioning the submitted legal draft; a legal draft law, according to the Legal Code of Administrative Cases, is not subject of interpretation by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, therefor it also not a subject of interpretation to the Constitutional Court. The Lithuanian Parliament adopted resolutions can possibly be subject of constitutional control, but that depends entirely on the will of the members of the Parliament. Evaluating these circumstances, it must be concluded that the Lithuania's current legal regulation of does not meet the recommendations of the Venice Commission. The absence of a clear possibility for a legal draft to be submitted for interpretation by the Constitutional Court, limits the right to an referendum initiative on behalf of the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania also preventing the referendum in accordance with unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. In accordance with these circumstances, it was found that both of the Parliament and the Central Election Commission's decision to refuse to register a referendum initiative or to hold a referendum on the basis, that the legal draft non-compliant with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is considered an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution that cannot be a sufficient to restrict the citizens constitutional right to a referendum.
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the whether the termination of a referendum initiative is valid if based of an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. The core questions, investigated in this thesis consists of whether the refusal to hold a referendum concerning a legal draft, which potentially does not meet the requirements arising from the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania constrain the citizens right to a referendum; can the Central Election Commission's and the Parliament's constitutional evaluation towards the citizens provided legal draft can be interpreted as some sort constitutional control. The arisen problem is examined in three parts of this thesis. The first parts presents background to this situation. On 2014 July 11'th the Constitutional Court of Lithuania adopted a resolution which the interpreted the additional powers to the Central Election Commission and the Parliament. This resolution established, that in order to prevent unconstitutional constitutional amendments to the Constitution, the Central Election Commission and the Parliament must be granted the jurisdiction to prevent such a referendum to take place, if it would be non-compliant with the fundamental provisions established in the Constitution or would lead to unconstitutional consequences. These powers themselves created an obligation, both to the Central Election Commission and the Parliament to check the contents of the submitted legal draft and to evaluate its compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Given the fact that a submitted legal draft is certain for constitutional checks not only in form, but also in terms of content, the question arises, what criteria should the Central Election Commission and the Parliament follow. For this reason, this part analyses what the fundamental constitutional values are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and what kind of the safeguard mechanism is instilled. These criteria will provide a some sort of basis that could be determined in accordance with the legal draft. The second part deals with the situation where the Central Electoral Commission, within its jurisdiction, stated that a citizens' group submitted legal draft law does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution, thus shall not be put to vote in a referendum. For the same reason, the Parliament must refuse to hold a citizens' initiated referendum, even if such an initiative is at a request of 300 thousand citizens. Due to the fact that the requirement to call to provide 300 thousand signatures itself shows that the subject at hand is attributable to the major questions of the country. Parliament's refusal to hold such a referendum would not be an infringement of the sovereign powers held by the people. However, the question arises whether the refusal to call a referendum based on a legal draft, which potentially do not meet the requirements arising from the Constitution disproportionately restricts the right to call a referendum, which should by guaranteed by the Constitution. For this reason, this part will examine what are the real prospects to initiate and to call a referendum in Lithuania on behalf of the citizens, assessing how these perspectives have changed since the Constitutional Court adopted the mentioned resolution. This analysis will reveal possibility of a citizens' initiative and referendum, this analysis will determine whether the existing legal regulation does not create disproportionate difficulties in the implementation of the right to a referendum. The third part deals with the Lithuanian's Constitutional Court's exclusive right to interpret the concept of the Constitution; the analysis of the Central Electoral Commission's and the Parliament's content of powers and the constitutional practices of foreign countries. For this reason, this part will address the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania's prerogative to interpret the concept of the Constitution and why this exclusive right belongs to the Constitutional Court of Lithuania. This part will analyze whether the Central Electoral Commission and the Parliament right, to analyze the citizens provided legal draft in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania implements functions consisting a degree of constitutional control as well as the implementation of such a practice should be seen in relation to the recommendations of the Venice Commission. This analysis will answer the question of whether the current legal regulation creates preconditions for citizens' groups to be rejected the referendum provided by a bill based on an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. The analysis revealed that the only authority competent to assess the legal draft submitted for referendum, compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, since only the Constitutional Court has the exclusive right to interpretation of constitutional rules, which can cause legal consequences. Given the fact that the interpretation of the Constitution is the Constitutional Court exclusive right and that only the official interpretation of the Constitution should lead would lead to legal consequences, it must be concluded that the possible non-compliance of the Constitution setting, based on an unofficial interpretation is not sufficient enough to refuse to hold a referendum. The Central Election Commission has not been provided with an opportunity to apply to the Constitutional Court questioning the submitted legal draft; a legal draft law, according to the Legal Code of Administrative Cases, is not subject of interpretation by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, therefor it also not a subject of interpretation to the Constitutional Court. The Lithuanian Parliament adopted resolutions can possibly be subject of constitutional control, but that depends entirely on the will of the members of the Parliament. Evaluating these circumstances, it must be concluded that the Lithuania's current legal regulation of does not meet the recommendations of the Venice Commission. The absence of a clear possibility for a legal draft to be submitted for interpretation by the Constitutional Court, limits the right to an referendum initiative on behalf of the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania also preventing the referendum in accordance with unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. In accordance with these circumstances, it was found that both of the Parliament and the Central Election Commission's decision to refuse to register a referendum initiative or to hold a referendum on the basis, that the legal draft non-compliant with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is considered an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution that cannot be a sufficient to restrict the citizens constitutional right to a referendum.
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the whether the termination of a referendum initiative is valid if based of an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. The core questions, investigated in this thesis consists of whether the refusal to hold a referendum concerning a legal draft, which potentially does not meet the requirements arising from the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania constrain the citizens right to a referendum; can the Central Election Commission's and the Parliament's constitutional evaluation towards the citizens provided legal draft can be interpreted as some sort constitutional control. The arisen problem is examined in three parts of this thesis. The first parts presents background to this situation. On 2014 July 11'th the Constitutional Court of Lithuania adopted a resolution which the interpreted the additional powers to the Central Election Commission and the Parliament. This resolution established, that in order to prevent unconstitutional constitutional amendments to the Constitution, the Central Election Commission and the Parliament must be granted the jurisdiction to prevent such a referendum to take place, if it would be non-compliant with the fundamental provisions established in the Constitution or would lead to unconstitutional consequences. These powers themselves created an obligation, both to the Central Election Commission and the Parliament to check the contents of the submitted legal draft and to evaluate its compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Given the fact that a submitted legal draft is certain for constitutional checks not only in form, but also in terms of content, the question arises, what criteria should the Central Election Commission and the Parliament follow. For this reason, this part analyses what the fundamental constitutional values are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and what kind of the safeguard mechanism is instilled. These criteria will provide a some sort of basis that could be determined in accordance with the legal draft. The second part deals with the situation where the Central Electoral Commission, within its jurisdiction, stated that a citizens' group submitted legal draft law does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution, thus shall not be put to vote in a referendum. For the same reason, the Parliament must refuse to hold a citizens' initiated referendum, even if such an initiative is at a request of 300 thousand citizens. Due to the fact that the requirement to call to provide 300 thousand signatures itself shows that the subject at hand is attributable to the major questions of the country. Parliament's refusal to hold such a referendum would not be an infringement of the sovereign powers held by the people. However, the question arises whether the refusal to call a referendum based on a legal draft, which potentially do not meet the requirements arising from the Constitution disproportionately restricts the right to call a referendum, which should by guaranteed by the Constitution. For this reason, this part will examine what are the real prospects to initiate and to call a referendum in Lithuania on behalf of the citizens, assessing how these perspectives have changed since the Constitutional Court adopted the mentioned resolution. This analysis will reveal possibility of a citizens' initiative and referendum, this analysis will determine whether the existing legal regulation does not create disproportionate difficulties in the implementation of the right to a referendum. The third part deals with the Lithuanian's Constitutional Court's exclusive right to interpret the concept of the Constitution; the analysis of the Central Electoral Commission's and the Parliament's content of powers and the constitutional practices of foreign countries. For this reason, this part will address the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania's prerogative to interpret the concept of the Constitution and why this exclusive right belongs to the Constitutional Court of Lithuania. This part will analyze whether the Central Electoral Commission and the Parliament right, to analyze the citizens provided legal draft in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania implements functions consisting a degree of constitutional control as well as the implementation of such a practice should be seen in relation to the recommendations of the Venice Commission. This analysis will answer the question of whether the current legal regulation creates preconditions for citizens' groups to be rejected the referendum provided by a bill based on an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. The analysis revealed that the only authority competent to assess the legal draft submitted for referendum, compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, since only the Constitutional Court has the exclusive right to interpretation of constitutional rules, which can cause legal consequences. Given the fact that the interpretation of the Constitution is the Constitutional Court exclusive right and that only the official interpretation of the Constitution should lead would lead to legal consequences, it must be concluded that the possible non-compliance of the Constitution setting, based on an unofficial interpretation is not sufficient enough to refuse to hold a referendum. The Central Election Commission has not been provided with an opportunity to apply to the Constitutional Court questioning the submitted legal draft; a legal draft law, according to the Legal Code of Administrative Cases, is not subject of interpretation by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, therefor it also not a subject of interpretation to the Constitutional Court. The Lithuanian Parliament adopted resolutions can possibly be subject of constitutional control, but that depends entirely on the will of the members of the Parliament. Evaluating these circumstances, it must be concluded that the Lithuania's current legal regulation of does not meet the recommendations of the Venice Commission. The absence of a clear possibility for a legal draft to be submitted for interpretation by the Constitutional Court, limits the right to an referendum initiative on behalf of the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania also preventing the referendum in accordance with unofficial interpretation of the Constitution. In accordance with these circumstances, it was found that both of the Parliament and the Central Election Commission's decision to refuse to register a referendum initiative or to hold a referendum on the basis, that the legal draft non-compliant with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is considered an unofficial interpretation of the Constitution that cannot be a sufficient to restrict the citizens constitutional right to a referendum.