The paper analyses the principal of legal expectations – a new and actually not much examined principal in Lithuanian law, which was started to be interpretated and practically applied after 2000. The Constitutional Court of Lithuania started the mentioned iniciative. Firstly, the paper analyses the development and practical need of the principal as well as the variety of all the other constitutional principals. Secondly, the paper analyses The Constitutional Court, Supreme Court and The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania decisions where were mentioned legal expectations. Moreover, it tries to comprise the interpretation of this principal in Lithuanian legal system with the one existing in European law. The paper briefly describes several most important legal cases, where the principal of legal expectations was applied. Finally, according to the analysis of Lithuanian legal practise, some ideas and suggestions for the legislator are formulated.
The paper analyses the principal of legal expectations – a new and actually not much examined principal in Lithuanian law, which was started to be interpretated and practically applied after 2000. The Constitutional Court of Lithuania started the mentioned iniciative. Firstly, the paper analyses the development and practical need of the principal as well as the variety of all the other constitutional principals. Secondly, the paper analyses The Constitutional Court, Supreme Court and The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania decisions where were mentioned legal expectations. Moreover, it tries to comprise the interpretation of this principal in Lithuanian legal system with the one existing in European law. The paper briefly describes several most important legal cases, where the principal of legal expectations was applied. Finally, according to the analysis of Lithuanian legal practise, some ideas and suggestions for the legislator are formulated.
The paper analyses the principal of legal expectations – a new and actually not much examined principal in Lithuanian law, which was started to be interpretated and practically applied after 2000. The Constitutional Court of Lithuania started the mentioned iniciative. Firstly, the paper analyses the development and practical need of the principal as well as the variety of all the other constitutional principals. Secondly, the paper analyses The Constitutional Court, Supreme Court and The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania decisions where were mentioned legal expectations. Moreover, it tries to comprise the interpretation of this principal in Lithuanian legal system with the one existing in European law. The paper briefly describes several most important legal cases, where the principal of legal expectations was applied. Finally, according to the analysis of Lithuanian legal practise, some ideas and suggestions for the legislator are formulated.
The paper analyses the principal of legal expectations – a new and actually not much examined principal in Lithuanian law, which was started to be interpretated and practically applied after 2000. The Constitutional Court of Lithuania started the mentioned iniciative. Firstly, the paper analyses the development and practical need of the principal as well as the variety of all the other constitutional principals. Secondly, the paper analyses The Constitutional Court, Supreme Court and The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania decisions where were mentioned legal expectations. Moreover, it tries to comprise the interpretation of this principal in Lithuanian legal system with the one existing in European law. The paper briefly describes several most important legal cases, where the principal of legal expectations was applied. Finally, according to the analysis of Lithuanian legal practise, some ideas and suggestions for the legislator are formulated.
Concerning the most complicated element of the non bis in idem, i.e. the notion of the "same acts", the Court had adopted the broad factual approach. The relevant criterion for the purposes of the application of the principle is the identity of the material acts understood as the existence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked together, irrespective of the legal classification or the legal interest protected. However, the definitive assessment in this regard is a matter for the competent national courts which must determine whether the material acts constitute a set of facts which are inextricably linked together in time, in space and by their subject-matter. The variety of the situations where this criterion was applied by the Court is analysed in the second part of the article. The authors make an attempt to distinguish the specific features of the "same acts" in the context of the trans-European non bis in idem principle in comparison with the purely national context and identify the eventual impact of the application of the transnational non bis in idem rule to the qualification of the offences.
Concerning the most complicated element of the non bis in idem, i.e. the notion of the "same acts", the Court had adopted the broad factual approach. The relevant criterion for the purposes of the application of the principle is the identity of the material acts understood as the existence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked together, irrespective of the legal classification or the legal interest protected. However, the definitive assessment in this regard is a matter for the competent national courts which must determine whether the material acts constitute a set of facts which are inextricably linked together in time, in space and by their subject-matter. The variety of the situations where this criterion was applied by the Court is analysed in the second part of the article. The authors make an attempt to distinguish the specific features of the "same acts" in the context of the trans-European non bis in idem principle in comparison with the purely national context and identify the eventual impact of the application of the transnational non bis in idem rule to the qualification of the offences.
Intellectual property law in Lithuania is undergoing essential reform since restoration of Lithuanian independence. Most of the attention is dedicated to the development of statutory law. Examples from Lithuanian legal practice indicate that philosophical aspect of intellectual property remains forgotten. Even when statutory law governing intellectual property in Lithuania is harmonized with the international practice, automatic transfer of rules may not be justified. It is essential to understand the reasons and philosophical grounds of protection of intellectual property. Only in this way it is possible to solve practical problems, evaluate the relationship between the holders of exclusive rights and public interests, and to solve conflicts in the best possible way. The paper analyses main arguments and manifestation of natural and utilitarian concepts of law in intellectual property legal practice, paying special attention to property issue. The arguments of the natural and utilitarian concepts of law vary greatly, they stress different phenomenon and different priorities. Nevertheless, after summarising their ideas, one can state that establishment of property rights and their protection system is needed mainly because of scarce resources. Some justify acquisition of property because of its natural character, because of work put into it; the others justify property because of its social value, since private property allows exhaustion and distribution of scarce resources in the most efficient way. Despite different positions regarding purpose and aim of property rights, it is accepted that essential feature of property objects is their scarcity. The term "intellectual property" encourages drawing parallels and analogies with property rights to material objects. At a theoretical level, however, interpretation of intellectual property objects and rights analogously as traditional material property raises many discussions. The main arguments of the opponents of intellectual property are related to the relationship between intellectual and material property. Practical examples indicate that traditional concepts of property are not sufficient to provide consistent reasoning of intellectual property, because of specific nature of intellectual property, intangible objects, possibilities of information dissemination and other factors. It is rather easy to identify how concepts of law manifest in legal regulation, court practise, state politics, etc. Their ability to influence legal practise, however, is limited. There is no clear balance between natural and utilitarian concepts of law regarding intellectual property protection in Lithuanian practice. Questions of nature of intellectual property, principles of its existence and protection are not analysed in Lithuanian practice. Moreover, the politics of the Lithuanian legislator in this field is unclear and chaotic.
Intellectual property law in Lithuania is undergoing essential reform since restoration of Lithuanian independence. Most of the attention is dedicated to the development of statutory law. Examples from Lithuanian legal practice indicate that philosophical aspect of intellectual property remains forgotten. Even when statutory law governing intellectual property in Lithuania is harmonized with the international practice, automatic transfer of rules may not be justified. It is essential to understand the reasons and philosophical grounds of protection of intellectual property. Only in this way it is possible to solve practical problems, evaluate the relationship between the holders of exclusive rights and public interests, and to solve conflicts in the best possible way. The paper analyses main arguments and manifestation of natural and utilitarian concepts of law in intellectual property legal practice, paying special attention to property issue. The arguments of the natural and utilitarian concepts of law vary greatly, they stress different phenomenon and different priorities. Nevertheless, after summarising their ideas, one can state that establishment of property rights and their protection system is needed mainly because of scarce resources. Some justify acquisition of property because of its natural character, because of work put into it; the others justify property because of its social value, since private property allows exhaustion and distribution of scarce resources in the most efficient way. Despite different positions regarding purpose and aim of property rights, it is accepted that essential feature of property objects is their scarcity. The term "intellectual property" encourages drawing parallels and analogies with property rights to material objects. At a theoretical level, however, interpretation of intellectual property objects and rights analogously as traditional material property raises many discussions. The main arguments of the opponents of intellectual property are related to the relationship between intellectual and material property. Practical examples indicate that traditional concepts of property are not sufficient to provide consistent reasoning of intellectual property, because of specific nature of intellectual property, intangible objects, possibilities of information dissemination and other factors. It is rather easy to identify how concepts of law manifest in legal regulation, court practise, state politics, etc. Their ability to influence legal practise, however, is limited. There is no clear balance between natural and utilitarian concepts of law regarding intellectual property protection in Lithuanian practice. Questions of nature of intellectual property, principles of its existence and protection are not analysed in Lithuanian practice. Moreover, the politics of the Lithuanian legislator in this field is unclear and chaotic.
Intellectual property law in Lithuania is undergoing essential reform since restoration of Lithuanian independence. Most of the attention is dedicated to the development of statutory law. Examples from Lithuanian legal practice indicate that philosophical aspect of intellectual property remains forgotten. Even when statutory law governing intellectual property in Lithuania is harmonized with the international practice, automatic transfer of rules may not be justified. It is essential to understand the reasons and philosophical grounds of protection of intellectual property. Only in this way it is possible to solve practical problems, evaluate the relationship between the holders of exclusive rights and public interests, and to solve conflicts in the best possible way. The paper analyses main arguments and manifestation of natural and utilitarian concepts of law in intellectual property legal practice, paying special attention to property issue. The arguments of the natural and utilitarian concepts of law vary greatly, they stress different phenomenon and different priorities. Nevertheless, after summarising their ideas, one can state that establishment of property rights and their protection system is needed mainly because of scarce resources. Some justify acquisition of property because of its natural character, because of work put into it; the others justify property because of its social value, since private property allows exhaustion and distribution of scarce resources in the most efficient way. Despite different positions regarding purpose and aim of property rights, it is accepted that essential feature of property objects is their scarcity. The term "intellectual property" encourages drawing parallels and analogies with property rights to material objects. At a theoretical level, however, interpretation of intellectual property objects and rights analogously as traditional material property raises many discussions. The main arguments of the opponents of intellectual property are related to the relationship between intellectual and material property. Practical examples indicate that traditional concepts of property are not sufficient to provide consistent reasoning of intellectual property, because of specific nature of intellectual property, intangible objects, possibilities of information dissemination and other factors. It is rather easy to identify how concepts of law manifest in legal regulation, court practise, state politics, etc. Their ability to influence legal practise, however, is limited. There is no clear balance between natural and utilitarian concepts of law regarding intellectual property protection in Lithuanian practice. Questions of nature of intellectual property, principles of its existence and protection are not analysed in Lithuanian practice. Moreover, the politics of the Lithuanian legislator in this field is unclear and chaotic.
Intellectual property law in Lithuania is undergoing essential reform since restoration of Lithuanian independence. Most of the attention is dedicated to the development of statutory law. Examples from Lithuanian legal practice indicate that philosophical aspect of intellectual property remains forgotten. Even when statutory law governing intellectual property in Lithuania is harmonized with the international practice, automatic transfer of rules may not be justified. It is essential to understand the reasons and philosophical grounds of protection of intellectual property. Only in this way it is possible to solve practical problems, evaluate the relationship between the holders of exclusive rights and public interests, and to solve conflicts in the best possible way. The paper analyses main arguments and manifestation of natural and utilitarian concepts of law in intellectual property legal practice, paying special attention to property issue. The arguments of the natural and utilitarian concepts of law vary greatly, they stress different phenomenon and different priorities. Nevertheless, after summarising their ideas, one can state that establishment of property rights and their protection system is needed mainly because of scarce resources. Some justify acquisition of property because of its natural character, because of work put into it; the others justify property because of its social value, since private property allows exhaustion and distribution of scarce resources in the most efficient way. Despite different positions regarding purpose and aim of property rights, it is accepted that essential feature of property objects is their scarcity. The term "intellectual property" encourages drawing parallels and analogies with property rights to material objects. At a theoretical level, however, interpretation of intellectual property objects and rights analogously as traditional material property raises many discussions. The main arguments of the opponents of intellectual property are related to the relationship between intellectual and material property. Practical examples indicate that traditional concepts of property are not sufficient to provide consistent reasoning of intellectual property, because of specific nature of intellectual property, intangible objects, possibilities of information dissemination and other factors. It is rather easy to identify how concepts of law manifest in legal regulation, court practise, state politics, etc. Their ability to influence legal practise, however, is limited. There is no clear balance between natural and utilitarian concepts of law regarding intellectual property protection in Lithuanian practice. Questions of nature of intellectual property, principles of its existence and protection are not analysed in Lithuanian practice. Moreover, the politics of the Lithuanian legislator in this field is unclear and chaotic.
Having arrived at the conclusion that principles inherent in national legal systems of the member states cannot constitute the basis for substantiating state liability for the acts attributable to courts of final instance, the author invokes the method of teleological interpretation and examines whether it is enough to base the doctrine of state liability for the acts attributable to national courts of final instance on the principle of effectiveness. The author concludes that the ECJ acts within the framework of the EC Treaty and the object and the purpose of the Treaty require a state to be liable for the act attributable to a court of final instance if it adopts a decision that is incompatible with the EC law.
Having arrived at the conclusion that principles inherent in national legal systems of the member states cannot constitute the basis for substantiating state liability for the acts attributable to courts of final instance, the author invokes the method of teleological interpretation and examines whether it is enough to base the doctrine of state liability for the acts attributable to national courts of final instance on the principle of effectiveness. The author concludes that the ECJ acts within the framework of the EC Treaty and the object and the purpose of the Treaty require a state to be liable for the act attributable to a court of final instance if it adopts a decision that is incompatible with the EC law.
The subject matter of master thesis is the concept of the crime of genocide in national and international law. Analysis begins by explaining the origins of this concept and following it's evolution in both legal systems. In order to give a full and particular account on the notion of the crime of genocide, the concept is examined by splitting it into several different elements, while using the traditional scheme of analysis in Lithuanian criminal law (object, objective side, subject and subjective side are researched separately). Master thesis also points out the problems related to defining the meaning of separate elements of the concept of genocide. By examining and comparing various opinions expressed by official institutions and scientists on these questions, author seeks to find a solution which poses least problems in legal and practical terms. In master thesis attention is also given to comparative analysis of the concept of genocide in national and international law. Author examines the differences between these concepts and historical, legal and political reasons behind said differences and their present and possible impact to criminal law theory and practice. Master thesis was written while using international legal documents (Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, statutes of international criminal tribunals, the Statute of International Criminal Court), international and national case law, Lithuanian legal acts, scientific literature. In author's opinion, given analysis is useful to persons, who specialize in criminal law, to law students and generally to everyone interested in the so-called "crime of crimes" – genocide.
The subject matter of master thesis is the concept of the crime of genocide in national and international law. Analysis begins by explaining the origins of this concept and following it's evolution in both legal systems. In order to give a full and particular account on the notion of the crime of genocide, the concept is examined by splitting it into several different elements, while using the traditional scheme of analysis in Lithuanian criminal law (object, objective side, subject and subjective side are researched separately). Master thesis also points out the problems related to defining the meaning of separate elements of the concept of genocide. By examining and comparing various opinions expressed by official institutions and scientists on these questions, author seeks to find a solution which poses least problems in legal and practical terms. In master thesis attention is also given to comparative analysis of the concept of genocide in national and international law. Author examines the differences between these concepts and historical, legal and political reasons behind said differences and their present and possible impact to criminal law theory and practice. Master thesis was written while using international legal documents (Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, statutes of international criminal tribunals, the Statute of International Criminal Court), international and national case law, Lithuanian legal acts, scientific literature. In author's opinion, given analysis is useful to persons, who specialize in criminal law, to law students and generally to everyone interested in the so-called "crime of crimes" – genocide.
