Suchergebnisse

Contents of a research. To achieve the uniform and efficient application and treatment of international jurisdiction rules enshrined in the New Lugano Convention. In order to disclose these rules and evaluate whether it is ensured the efficient hearing of civil cases between Lithuania and Norway, a state member of the EFTA, investigate legal acts which are in force nowadays and research ECJ case law and national case law of Lithuania and Norway. Aim of a research. Identify the international jurisdiction rules enshrined in the New Lugano Convention and investigate whether it is ensured the efficient hearing of civil cases between Lithuania and Norway, a state member of the EFTA. Results of a research. The aim and objectives, determined at the beginning of a research, achieved: defined the concept of international jurisdiction and assessed its relation with national jurisdiction; disclosed the legal acts regulating international jurisdiction in civil cases and determined their applicability order; identified the need of adoption of the New Lugano Convention and evaluated its place between other legal acts regulating international jurisdiction in civil cases; disclosed international jurisdiction rules enshrined in the New Lugano Convention and evaluated whether there is ensured parallel acting of the provisions of this legal act and of the Brussels I bis regulation; and assessed whether the hearing of civil cases between Lithuania and Norway, a state member of the EFTA, is efficiently ensured. After the evaluation of research results, provided possible suggestions for legislation improvement (amendmens of some articles of the New Lugano Convention) and other solution for ensurement of the efficient hearing of civil cases on regulation of international jurisdiction in the New Lugano Convention.

Contents of a research. To achieve the uniform and efficient application and treatment of international jurisdiction rules enshrined in the New Lugano Convention. In order to disclose these rules and evaluate whether it is ensured the efficient hearing of civil cases between Lithuania and Norway, a state member of the EFTA, investigate legal acts which are in force nowadays and research ECJ case law and national case law of Lithuania and Norway. Aim of a research. Identify the international jurisdiction rules enshrined in the New Lugano Convention and investigate whether it is ensured the efficient hearing of civil cases between Lithuania and Norway, a state member of the EFTA. Results of a research. The aim and objectives, determined at the beginning of a research, achieved: defined the concept of international jurisdiction and assessed its relation with national jurisdiction; disclosed the legal acts regulating international jurisdiction in civil cases and determined their applicability order; identified the need of adoption of the New Lugano Convention and evaluated its place between other legal acts regulating international jurisdiction in civil cases; disclosed international jurisdiction rules enshrined in the New Lugano Convention and evaluated whether there is ensured parallel acting of the provisions of this legal act and of the Brussels I bis regulation; and assessed whether the hearing of civil cases between Lithuania and Norway, a state member of the EFTA, is efficiently ensured. After the evaluation of research results, provided possible suggestions for legislation improvement (amendmens of some articles of the New Lugano Convention) and other solution for ensurement of the efficient hearing of civil cases on regulation of international jurisdiction in the New Lugano Convention.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse legal acts establishing the competence of Constitutional Court of Republic of Lithuania, as well to summarize the constitutional jurisprudence, which reveals the expand of boundaries of constitutional jurisdiction and to dispute main problems of competence of Constitutional Court. The paper is based on analysis of legal acts, decisions of Constitutional Court, juridical publications, articles and other sources. Constitutional Court is the institution implementing the protection of constitutional order, which ensures the supremacy of Constitution and constitutional justice. The competence of Constitutional Court is to review the compatibility of a law with the Constitution. This control includes enactments of Legislature, President and Executive organs. The Constitutional Court also decides on the compatibility of international agreements with the Constitution or the legality of elections and other. There are noticed some changes of limits of jurisdiction in the constitutional doctrine. There has been cases when the Court has decided on the conformity of legal acts with other chapters or priciples of Constitution than it was appealed. Sometimes it was analysed the constitutionality of other enactmens which were not questioned by a petitioner. Boundaries of competence were extended also by deciding on the conformity of legal acts with constitutional laws. Sometimes the object of investigation is invalid acts. Such practise of the Court provocates various discusions. One of sugestions to avoid this practise – to restrict powers of Constitutional Court by forbiding expansive interpretating of tasks and competence of Court. It is important to note that authority of the Court arise from the Constitution. The contraversial decisions of the Constitutional Court are based on interpretion and commentation, but these actions should be more motivated to avoid a violation of the Court's authority. To secure the constitutional protection in the highest level it would be favourable to establish an individual constitutional complaint and an institute of separate opinion of a judge in the constitutional system of Lithaunia, also to consider the possibility to request the European Court of Justice for preliminary decision about the meaning or validity of a particular piece of European Union law to solve the difficulties of interpretation of European Union law.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse legal acts establishing the competence of Constitutional Court of Republic of Lithuania, as well to summarize the constitutional jurisprudence, which reveals the expand of boundaries of constitutional jurisdiction and to dispute main problems of competence of Constitutional Court. The paper is based on analysis of legal acts, decisions of Constitutional Court, juridical publications, articles and other sources. Constitutional Court is the institution implementing the protection of constitutional order, which ensures the supremacy of Constitution and constitutional justice. The competence of Constitutional Court is to review the compatibility of a law with the Constitution. This control includes enactments of Legislature, President and Executive organs. The Constitutional Court also decides on the compatibility of international agreements with the Constitution or the legality of elections and other. There are noticed some changes of limits of jurisdiction in the constitutional doctrine. There has been cases when the Court has decided on the conformity of legal acts with other chapters or priciples of Constitution than it was appealed. Sometimes it was analysed the constitutionality of other enactmens which were not questioned by a petitioner. Boundaries of competence were extended also by deciding on the conformity of legal acts with constitutional laws. Sometimes the object of investigation is invalid acts. Such practise of the Court provocates various discusions. One of sugestions to avoid this practise – to restrict powers of Constitutional Court by forbiding expansive interpretating of tasks and competence of Court. It is important to note that authority of the Court arise from the Constitution. The contraversial decisions of the Constitutional Court are based on interpretion and commentation, but these actions should be more motivated to avoid a violation of the Court's authority. To secure the constitutional protection in the highest level it would be favourable to establish an individual constitutional complaint and an institute of separate opinion of a judge in the constitutional system of Lithaunia, also to consider the possibility to request the European Court of Justice for preliminary decision about the meaning or validity of a particular piece of European Union law to solve the difficulties of interpretation of European Union law.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse legal acts establishing the competence of Constitutional Court of Republic of Lithuania, as well to summarize the constitutional jurisprudence, which reveals the expand of boundaries of constitutional jurisdiction and to dispute main problems of competence of Constitutional Court. The paper is based on analysis of legal acts, decisions of Constitutional Court, juridical publications, articles and other sources. Constitutional Court is the institution implementing the protection of constitutional order, which ensures the supremacy of Constitution and constitutional justice. The competence of Constitutional Court is to review the compatibility of a law with the Constitution. This control includes enactments of Legislature, President and Executive organs. The Constitutional Court also decides on the compatibility of international agreements with the Constitution or the legality of elections and other. There are noticed some changes of limits of jurisdiction in the constitutional doctrine. There has been cases when the Court has decided on the conformity of legal acts with other chapters or priciples of Constitution than it was appealed. Sometimes it was analysed the constitutionality of other enactmens which were not questioned by a petitioner. Boundaries of competence were extended also by deciding on the conformity of legal acts with constitutional laws. Sometimes the object of investigation is invalid acts. Such practise of the Court provocates various discusions. One of sugestions to avoid this practise – to restrict powers of Constitutional Court by forbiding expansive interpretating of tasks and competence of Court. It is important to note that authority of the Court arise from the Constitution. The contraversial decisions of the Constitutional Court are based on interpretion and commentation, but these actions should be more motivated to avoid a violation of the Court's authority. To secure the constitutional protection in the highest level it would be favourable to establish an individual constitutional complaint and an institute of separate opinion of a judge in the constitutional system of Lithaunia, also to consider the possibility to request the European Court of Justice for preliminary decision about the meaning or validity of a particular piece of European Union law to solve the difficulties of interpretation of European Union law.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse legal acts establishing the competence of Constitutional Court of Republic of Lithuania, as well to summarize the constitutional jurisprudence, which reveals the expand of boundaries of constitutional jurisdiction and to dispute main problems of competence of Constitutional Court. The paper is based on analysis of legal acts, decisions of Constitutional Court, juridical publications, articles and other sources. Constitutional Court is the institution implementing the protection of constitutional order, which ensures the supremacy of Constitution and constitutional justice. The competence of Constitutional Court is to review the compatibility of a law with the Constitution. This control includes enactments of Legislature, President and Executive organs. The Constitutional Court also decides on the compatibility of international agreements with the Constitution or the legality of elections and other. There are noticed some changes of limits of jurisdiction in the constitutional doctrine. There has been cases when the Court has decided on the conformity of legal acts with other chapters or priciples of Constitution than it was appealed. Sometimes it was analysed the constitutionality of other enactmens which were not questioned by a petitioner. Boundaries of competence were extended also by deciding on the conformity of legal acts with constitutional laws. Sometimes the object of investigation is invalid acts. Such practise of the Court provocates various discusions. One of sugestions to avoid this practise – to restrict powers of Constitutional Court by forbiding expansive interpretating of tasks and competence of Court. It is important to note that authority of the Court arise from the Constitution. The contraversial decisions of the Constitutional Court are based on interpretion and commentation, but these actions should be more motivated to avoid a violation of the Court's authority. To secure the constitutional protection in the highest level it would be favourable to establish an individual constitutional complaint and an institute of separate opinion of a judge in the constitutional system of Lithaunia, also to consider the possibility to request the European Court of Justice for preliminary decision about the meaning or validity of a particular piece of European Union law to solve the difficulties of interpretation of European Union law.

The present thesis is devoted to the analysis of collisions of courts' jurisdictions in civil cases involving a foreign element and the analysis of the problems caused by the regulation of law norms confirmed in General International Law, Foreign Law and Lithuanian Law. After becoming an EU member state, the growth of civil contentions involving a foreign element is noticeable in the Republic of Lithuania. According to the author of this thesis, the main task of the thesis is considered to be the evaluation of the right determination institute of civil law jurisdictions importance confirmed by International, Foreign and Lithuanian Law norms regulation as well as the courts' jurisprudence in the common world context. The thesis consists of three different parts. In the first part the author emphasizes the definition of collision of the courts' jurisdiction and the importance of its separate criteria by identification of the qualified court, the recognition of its taken judgments and implementation. After that, national laws of different countries (such as Germany, France, Lithuania, etc.), international (UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, etc.) and the European Union (EU) (Council Regulation 44/2001, etc.) rules of law as well as some legal provisions from the international legal assistance treaties signed by the Republic of Lithuania, that deals with civil cases' involving foreign element, attributability to the particular courts will be described in great detail. The second part reviews the practice of European Court of Justice, Permanent Court of International Justice as well as the courts of Lithuania and foreign countries. With respect to the discussion of this practice and criteria described in the first part of this thesis, the problems causing a great level of inconvenience in the private international law in the 21st century are identified. In the third part the author discusses various ways to solve problems, described in the previous chapter: the ability to incorporate forum non conveniens, lis alibi pendens doctrines into the legal framework of the Republic of Lithuania and possibilities of global and regional unification of legislation in collisions of courts' jurisdictions field. In the last sections of the third chapter the sociological research data concerned with opinions of Lithuanian judges about problems touched upon in the final master thesis are summarized. The analysis of data of this research was performed and the following results were achieved. The hypothesis presented in the introduction was supported as it was revealed the fact that it is not enough to apply only national or international efforts to solve collisions of jurisdictions problems in the civil cases which involves a foreign element. That is to say, all the states and international organisations must collaborate with each other and coordinate their positions among themselves in order to reach this purpose.

The present thesis is devoted to the analysis of collisions of courts' jurisdictions in civil cases involving a foreign element and the analysis of the problems caused by the regulation of law norms confirmed in General International Law, Foreign Law and Lithuanian Law. After becoming an EU member state, the growth of civil contentions involving a foreign element is noticeable in the Republic of Lithuania. According to the author of this thesis, the main task of the thesis is considered to be the evaluation of the right determination institute of civil law jurisdictions importance confirmed by International, Foreign and Lithuanian Law norms regulation as well as the courts' jurisprudence in the common world context. The thesis consists of three different parts. In the first part the author emphasizes the definition of collision of the courts' jurisdiction and the importance of its separate criteria by identification of the qualified court, the recognition of its taken judgments and implementation. After that, national laws of different countries (such as Germany, France, Lithuania, etc.), international (UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, etc.) and the European Union (EU) (Council Regulation 44/2001, etc.) rules of law as well as some legal provisions from the international legal assistance treaties signed by the Republic of Lithuania, that deals with civil cases' involving foreign element, attributability to the particular courts will be described in great detail. The second part reviews the practice of European Court of Justice, Permanent Court of International Justice as well as the courts of Lithuania and foreign countries. With respect to the discussion of this practice and criteria described in the first part of this thesis, the problems causing a great level of inconvenience in the private international law in the 21st century are identified. In the third part the author discusses various ways to solve problems, described in the previous chapter: the ability to incorporate forum non conveniens, lis alibi pendens doctrines into the legal framework of the Republic of Lithuania and possibilities of global and regional unification of legislation in collisions of courts' jurisdictions field. In the last sections of the third chapter the sociological research data concerned with opinions of Lithuanian judges about problems touched upon in the final master thesis are summarized. The analysis of data of this research was performed and the following results were achieved. The hypothesis presented in the introduction was supported as it was revealed the fact that it is not enough to apply only national or international efforts to solve collisions of jurisdictions problems in the civil cases which involves a foreign element. That is to say, all the states and international organisations must collaborate with each other and coordinate their positions among themselves in order to reach this purpose.

Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses, so called one-sided, one-way, unilateral, non-mutual, split, etc. clauses, are clauses which contain different provisions regarding jurisdiction for each party: when an asymmetric jurisdiction clause is concluded, one of the parties has a right to bring proceeding either in a court or arbitration, meanwhile the other party's right is limited – it can bring proceeding only to the arbitration or only to the court. Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are widely used in international financial markets when the contract between the borrower and the debtor is concluded. Although usually both parties in such agreements are business entities, asymmetric and hybrid clauses can also be found in a contract concluded between natural persons, or between a natural person and a legal person. This master's thesis mostly focuses on the question why asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are subject to such contradictory judgments from national courts and whether these jurisdiction clauses meet the requirements of international and European Union law. After analysing the reasons for the contradictions and their justification, the last parts of the master's thesis concentrate on providing recommendations and suggestions to the parties of the contract, which aspects need to be taken into account during the formulation of asymmetric or hybrid agreements, so that they would not be found null and void.

Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses, so called one-sided, one-way, unilateral, non-mutual, split, etc. clauses, are clauses which contain different provisions regarding jurisdiction for each party: when an asymmetric jurisdiction clause is concluded, one of the parties has a right to bring proceeding either in a court or arbitration, meanwhile the other party's right is limited – it can bring proceeding only to the arbitration or only to the court. Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are widely used in international financial markets when the contract between the borrower and the debtor is concluded. Although usually both parties in such agreements are business entities, asymmetric and hybrid clauses can also be found in a contract concluded between natural persons, or between a natural person and a legal person. This master's thesis mostly focuses on the question why asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are subject to such contradictory judgments from national courts and whether these jurisdiction clauses meet the requirements of international and European Union law. After analysing the reasons for the contradictions and their justification, the last parts of the master's thesis concentrate on providing recommendations and suggestions to the parties of the contract, which aspects need to be taken into account during the formulation of asymmetric or hybrid agreements, so that they would not be found null and void.

Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses, so called one-sided, one-way, unilateral, non-mutual, split, etc. clauses, are clauses which contain different provisions regarding jurisdiction for each party: when an asymmetric jurisdiction clause is concluded, one of the parties has a right to bring proceeding either in a court or arbitration, meanwhile the other party's right is limited – it can bring proceeding only to the arbitration or only to the court. Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are widely used in international financial markets when the contract between the borrower and the debtor is concluded. Although usually both parties in such agreements are business entities, asymmetric and hybrid clauses can also be found in a contract concluded between natural persons, or between a natural person and a legal person. This master's thesis mostly focuses on the question why asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are subject to such contradictory judgments from national courts and whether these jurisdiction clauses meet the requirements of international and European Union law. After analysing the reasons for the contradictions and their justification, the last parts of the master's thesis concentrate on providing recommendations and suggestions to the parties of the contract, which aspects need to be taken into account during the formulation of asymmetric or hybrid agreements, so that they would not be found null and void.

Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses, so called one-sided, one-way, unilateral, non-mutual, split, etc. clauses, are clauses which contain different provisions regarding jurisdiction for each party: when an asymmetric jurisdiction clause is concluded, one of the parties has a right to bring proceeding either in a court or arbitration, meanwhile the other party's right is limited – it can bring proceeding only to the arbitration or only to the court. Asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are widely used in international financial markets when the contract between the borrower and the debtor is concluded. Although usually both parties in such agreements are business entities, asymmetric and hybrid clauses can also be found in a contract concluded between natural persons, or between a natural person and a legal person. This master's thesis mostly focuses on the question why asymmetric and hybrid jurisdiction clauses are subject to such contradictory judgments from national courts and whether these jurisdiction clauses meet the requirements of international and European Union law. After analysing the reasons for the contradictions and their justification, the last parts of the master's thesis concentrate on providing recommendations and suggestions to the parties of the contract, which aspects need to be taken into account during the formulation of asymmetric or hybrid agreements, so that they would not be found null and void.