Suchergebnisse

Every human being living in the State of Nature had equal opportunities. Because of the growth of human race, this state altered and the interests of each individual person began to intersect, especially when talking about property. As a result, the rights and freedoms of each individual person were taken under threat. Therefore people began to organize themselves into societies in order to solve collective issues of society all together. When they had elected the most competent representatives, able to represent the interests of all Nation the best they could, people living in the State of Nature voluntarily waived their rights for handling particular issues in collective manner. The first aim of the representatives was the welfare of people. Thus the fundamental institute of the highest government was born. However, decisions taken in the name of all the people would have no power if they could not be enforced and would not reflect interests of the Nation. Seeking to implement supervision, the executive power was established which took care of the general welfare and the realization of all decisions. Thus, having a different purpose in society, legislature and executive authorities acted solely for their own sphere. Therefore, legislature and executive authorities could represent and work for the people as fair as possible. This is the basic idea of the historical division of powers which, variously modified or pure, as the security of democracy, was adopted by the majority of the most developed states in Western Europe and other states. Thus, the aim of every up-to-date democratic and, in particular, postcommunistic regime state is to establish a framework of powers which would perfectly guarantee the rights and freedoms of ordinary member of society and would not revive undemocratic governance trends, when power is concentrated in the hands of the central government. According to the division of powers doctrine stated in the founding works, the governance of state must be established as three divided powers - legislative, executive and judicial powers. As it was mentioned before, each branch of government has only the powers assigned to it and they can neither delegate nor take over functions from the other branches of government. In no way the one branch of government can be interblended with other. However, separation of powers does not mean that legislative, executive and judicial powers are autonomous - this means that they cooperate in a manner seeking to reach the level of balance that no power has an advantage over the other. This principle has to be continuously carried out in respect of parliamentary control of government. Only this way will properly safeguard the Nation's rights and freedoms. Based on the experience of legal history in Lithuania and other foreign countries there was implemented the principle of division of powers. However, the framework of constitutional division of powers in the Republic of Lithuania has a modified nature. This conclusion can be made on the basis of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court ruling where unreasoned finding was made that the member of Seimas at the same time in accordance with the exception to the principle of division of powers provided in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania may be appointed to do duties as a member of the executive branch of government (the Government). In this way, the situation arises where such member of Seimas, taking the parliamentary control and having responsibility to monitor the activities of the executive branch, controls himself. This could result in the abuse of power and dissipation of resources. In this instance, a person being the member of Seimas and also a member of executive branch, shall receive the Constitution set salary for both possitions. Typically, such member of Seimas does not participate in the plenary sittings of Seimas because of the workload in the Government. This problem to be solved is in a competence of Constitutional Court but its power under the doctrine of the division of powers is limited because it would have the opportunity to speak only if called upon by a group of persons referred to in the Constitution. In addition, Constitutional Court has the competence to state only in the limits of the Constitution. As a result, the exceptions stated by Constitutional Court as being established in the Constitution, the principle of division of powers will be implemented in a manner mentioned above. Another possibility to solve this problem is in the prerogative of people or the representatives of people. The Constitution enshrines the opportunity for the members of Seimas to discuss people's concerns and the adoption of the laws limiting the interblending of powers, (whereas the Constitution provides for only the possibility of merger), or to initiate constitutional amendments immediately. If this possibility is not used by the members of Seimas, people can use it by themselves under manner established in the Constitution. The hypothesis (an appointment of the member of Seimas at the same time to do duties as a member of the executive branch contradicts the principle of division of powers estableshed in the Constitution) put forward in this study is denied based on the following considerations: 1. By the consensus of society in the State of Nature it has been decided to delegate own personal rights to the representatives of people. In this way legislature was founded, which meets interests of the people. Enforcement of judgments and accounting of resources have been transmitted for the executive. There was such a framework of governments and balance designed which could ensure the restriction of legislative powers to adopt decisions in excessive waste of the society goods and rapid and qualitative implementation of the rules of executive. Consequently, the merger of governments is not possible. 2. In Lithuania's history of constitutional law, the principle of division of powers in line with the historical principle of the division of powers was implemented in the Constutions of 1922 and 1990. These constitutions have been secured through the implementation of democracy. Constitutions of 1928 and 1938, were drawn in the interest of autocratic regimes. 3. The Constitutional Court decides the constitutionality of acts only according to the limits provided in the Constitution. Since the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is a single act, the constitutionality of legislation is addressed not only expletively, but also implicitly. Therefore, the Constitutional Court found an exception from the principle of division of powers, which allows the member of Seimas, being appointed to do duties as a member of the executive branch of goverment, to work two jobs at once. As a consequence, the activity of the member of Seimas in a given position in the Government do not contradict the principle of division of powers stated in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. It is important to notice that the Constitutional Court shall have the right to decide the constitutionality of legislation only upon the request, but not on its own initiative. The exemption established by the Constitutional Court was declared without initial request. However, under the Constitution, this decision is necessarily enforceable. It is important to mention that the nation or its representatives also has the power to initiate amendments to the Constitution. Therefore it can be assumed that such exception could be the primary expression of the will of nation. 4. On the grounds of the competence of legislative branch, the Seimas has a duty to combine the exeption established and the principle of division of powers. Therefore some issues must be solved concerning compulsory participation of the member of Seimas in plenary sittings, workload, quality of the duties performed, salary for the duties performed and parlamentary control. Under these circumstances, the member of Seimas at the same time in the position of a member of the executive branch has the right not to participate in plenary sittings, exceed the competence, get salary for the both positions despite the fact that some duties as being the member of Seimas is not carried out and act without adequate control. This clearly contradicts the priciple of division of powers. In summary this condition is legitimized by the Constitutional Court and the issue raised is whether the principle of division of powers as established in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania does not contradict to the historical concept of the principle of separation of powers? The answer can be provided only by the nation or its representatives – the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania.

In the present work the author reviews the two scientific monographs and twenty scientific articles in which the history of the Lithuanian legal system is investigated. The author aspires to elucidate how did the main subsystems of the Lithuanian legal system – legislation, jurisdiction and jurisprudence – appeared and developed up to the end of the 20th century in the context of evolution of the Western legal tradition. The basic methods of research used in the works are historical, comparative and teleological. The main theses of the reviewed scientific monographs and articles are these: The law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) was created by the Government on the basis of the national Lithuanian law and some elements of the custom Slav law. Substitution of the custom Slav law for the Lithuanian public and private law took place in those provinces in the 14th-16th centuries. The custom Slav law hampered forming of the system of law of the GDL. It was created finally in the middle of the 16th century. The law of the GDL was a medieval estate law. Estate is a legal phenomenon and law determines signs and features of any estate. Main sign of any estate is rights leaved to him by law and protected by state. Estate system, that is an organization of society into classes rigidly divided for political purposes and defined primarily by law, is based on a legal inequality of estates. Any estate is a stable order closed to outsiders. In order to belong to estate any person must correspond to certain conditions determined by law. At the same time any person can belong to a few different social groups but only to one estate. The estate system of the GDL was formed finally in the middle of the 16th century. It was defined by the Second Statute of Lithuania and consisted of four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and townspeople. The nobility and the clergy were privileged. They governed the state and exploited bondsmen. In the towns which obtained the Magdeburg Law the townsmen were free, but haven't political rights and privileges. The author believes that all persons were subjects of medieval law of Lithuania, but their legal capacity was not equal. This inequality was determined by law. Volume of legal capacity of these persons depended upon their age, sex, citizenship, religion and estate. It could be changed in accordance with law. Under certain conditions loss of legal capacity also was able. Collective subjects of law were the GDL itself (not its government bodies or officials), the people of Lithuania as a political unit (not estates or ethnographic nations), political confederations of noblemen (if they were sanctioned by the Grand Duke), self-governing territorial units (counties, towns, etc.), guilds organized by craftsmen and merchants and self-governing religions communities. The author believes that a land-ownership in the GDL was divided. Two persons held the same land. One of them was an immediate owner, the second was a superior owner of the land. An immediate owner's right to dispose the land was limited by a superior owner's rights to this land. In the 14th-first half of the 16th century an ancestral land was the main form of land-ownership in the GDL. At first an ancestral land was owned without obligation of vassalage. Since the beginning of the 16th century an owner of an ancestral land was obliged to military service from his land. Since the 14th century a benefice was the second form of feudal land-ownership in the GDL. Gradually a benefice turned into a feud. In 1566 the Second Statute of Lithuania gave the equal rights to all owners of ancestral lands and feuds. They got the freedom to dispose all their lands, but were obliged to military service from their real estate. In the middle of the 16th century the domain of the Grand Duke was divided into the State lands and Throne lands. The Grand Duke's freedom to dispose these lands was limited. Up to the middle of the 16th century there were no permanent circuit courts for land disputes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. All state courts heard land cases in their permanent quarters and moved in locality to survey borders only if it was very necessary. The Government of the GDL stimulated activity of arbitration and village courts and set them to resolve land disputes in locality. The first permanent circuit court (Sub-Chamber court) for boundary disputes was established in every county during the court reform in 1564-1566. Up to the middle of the 16th century jurisdiction of the Church determined by canons was very wide and came into collision with jurisdiction of the State. Besides clergymen and other subjects of the Church spiritual courts prosecuted noblemen, peasants and townsfolk. Competence of secular and spiritual courts was delimited clearly by the Third Statute of Lithuania. In accordance with this Statute spiritual courts could prosecute noblemen, peasants and townsfolk only if a certain case was bound up with religion or marriage. The medieval conception of formal evidences existed and dominated in the GDL from the 13th century up to the 18th century. The court was passive because all evidences were collected and produced by the plaintiff or by the defendant, and legal force of any evidence was determined by Lithuanian custom law and by the Lithuanian Statutes. The author believes that compurgators were not eye-witnesses of crime or event, there testified on oath only about good name of somebody. Compurgators swore together with plaintiff or defendant. Witnesses testified to or against somebody without oath. The legal status of witnesses and compurgators determined by the Lithuanian custom law and the First Lithuanian Statute was partly corrected by the Second and the Third Lithuanian Statutes in 1566 and 1588. Dietsky office appeared in the Ancient Slav State about the 11th century. From the 13th century onwards this office functioned in the GDL. Vizh office was instituted in the end of the 15th century or in the beginning of the 16th century in the GDL. Dietsky and Vizh were court officers executed judgements. Vizh was also official witness in criminal and civil cases. Vozny office was established in the GDL during the judicial reform in 1564-1566. Vozny was an important official of a court of law. He used to be elected by county noblemen. His duty was to inspect damages, wounds, and to witness at a trial. He was an executor of court's sentences. The number of lawyers who took scholastic degrees increased in the GDL in the 16th century. They developed legal terminology, introduced the written form of contracts and elaborated many legal acts. The Lithuanian Statutes should be regarded as the acme of progressive legal theoretical thought and practical activity. They surmounted the codification of the legislation of the GDL and brought the country to the leading position among other European countries. Yet the high standard, progressive spirit and intrinsic humanistic ideas by themselves did not mean that the Statutes were properly applied. In the 16th century, the lack of qualified lawyers complicated application of the Lithuanian Statutes. The legal sophistication of judges was often rather poor. Even members of the Lithuanian Tribunal of the GDL were not professional lawyers. The requirement constituted in the Lithuanian Statutes that only nobility were eligible to the position of judges was hardly observed because for a long time there had been not a single law school or college in the GDL. Why the Faculty of Law had not been founded in the Vilnius Jesuits' Academy before 1641? The author believes that the problem may be viewed in the context of international relations between the Kingdom of Poland and the GDL. In the year of the foundation of Vilnius University, one more event important for the legal development of GDL took place: creation of the highest appeal court – Lithuanian Tribunal. Polish landlords did not tolerate the steps strengthening the statehood of Lithuania. Creation of the Lithuanian Tribunal was a difficult victory of the GDL nobility. It is quite possible that concession to the University of Krakow and recognition of Polish monopoly in preparing lawyers were the cost paid for the mentioned victory. It seemed then more important to have their own appeal court than to prepare lawyers in the GDL. In the one article the author aspires to elucidate what was a medieval university – integral part of the town or feudal benefice, what were professors ant students – full fledged citizens of the town or aliens, and what were courts of the university – State or private, secular or ecclesiastical. The author established that any university in the Middle Ages was a self-governing professional corporation similar with guild or craft. Doctors and scholars (like merchants or craftsmen) elected rector and some others officials who governed and administered justice. Mostly university was an integral part of the town; professors ant students could exercise their rights on an equality with citizens of the town. Sometimes university was ruled by the Bishop or King as a feudal benefice independent from the town magistrates and courts (in this case the relations between town citizens and students were exceptionally strained). A very ample jurisdiction was allowed to the Rector's court, extending to all civil cases and all criminal cases except such as involved mutilation (in those criminal cases the jurisdiction of the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges was recognized). Rector was required to suppress quarrels between students and townsmen, or among the students themselves. If Rector failed to punish offenders, a scholar or doctor was amenable to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. The Bishop always reserved to himself spiritual jurisdiction over professors ant students. An appellate civil jurisdiction was reserved to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. It should be recognized that the legal system

In the present work the author reviews the two scientific monographs and twenty scientific articles in which the history of the Lithuanian legal system is investigated. The author aspires to elucidate how did the main subsystems of the Lithuanian legal system – legislation, jurisdiction and jurisprudence – appeared and developed up to the end of the 20th century in the context of evolution of the Western legal tradition. The basic methods of research used in the works are historical, comparative and teleological. The main theses of the reviewed scientific monographs and articles are these: The law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) was created by the Government on the basis of the national Lithuanian law and some elements of the custom Slav law. Substitution of the custom Slav law for the Lithuanian public and private law took place in those provinces in the 14th-16th centuries. The custom Slav law hampered forming of the system of law of the GDL. It was created finally in the middle of the 16th century. The law of the GDL was a medieval estate law. Estate is a legal phenomenon and law determines signs and features of any estate. Main sign of any estate is rights leaved to him by law and protected by state. Estate system, that is an organization of society into classes rigidly divided for political purposes and defined primarily by law, is based on a legal inequality of estates. Any estate is a stable order closed to outsiders. In order to belong to estate any person must correspond to certain conditions determined by law. At the same time any person can belong to a few different social groups but only to one estate. The estate system of the GDL was formed finally in the middle of the 16th century. It was defined by the Second Statute of Lithuania and consisted of four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and townspeople. The nobility and the clergy were privileged. They governed the state and exploited bondsmen. In the towns which obtained the Magdeburg Law the townsmen were free, but haven't political rights and privileges. The author believes that all persons were subjects of medieval law of Lithuania, but their legal capacity was not equal. This inequality was determined by law. Volume of legal capacity of these persons depended upon their age, sex, citizenship, religion and estate. It could be changed in accordance with law. Under certain conditions loss of legal capacity also was able. Collective subjects of law were the GDL itself (not its government bodies or officials), the people of Lithuania as a political unit (not estates or ethnographic nations), political confederations of noblemen (if they were sanctioned by the Grand Duke), self-governing territorial units (counties, towns, etc.), guilds organized by craftsmen and merchants and self-governing religions communities. The author believes that a land-ownership in the GDL was divided. Two persons held the same land. One of them was an immediate owner, the second was a superior owner of the land. An immediate owner's right to dispose the land was limited by a superior owner's rights to this land. In the 14th-first half of the 16th century an ancestral land was the main form of land-ownership in the GDL. At first an ancestral land was owned without obligation of vassalage. Since the beginning of the 16th century an owner of an ancestral land was obliged to military service from his land. Since the 14th century a benefice was the second form of feudal land-ownership in the GDL. Gradually a benefice turned into a feud. In 1566 the Second Statute of Lithuania gave the equal rights to all owners of ancestral lands and feuds. They got the freedom to dispose all their lands, but were obliged to military service from their real estate. In the middle of the 16th century the domain of the Grand Duke was divided into the State lands and Throne lands. The Grand Duke's freedom to dispose these lands was limited. Up to the middle of the 16th century there were no permanent circuit courts for land disputes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. All state courts heard land cases in their permanent quarters and moved in locality to survey borders only if it was very necessary. The Government of the GDL stimulated activity of arbitration and village courts and set them to resolve land disputes in locality. The first permanent circuit court (Sub-Chamber court) for boundary disputes was established in every county during the court reform in 1564-1566. Up to the middle of the 16th century jurisdiction of the Church determined by canons was very wide and came into collision with jurisdiction of the State. Besides clergymen and other subjects of the Church spiritual courts prosecuted noblemen, peasants and townsfolk. Competence of secular and spiritual courts was delimited clearly by the Third Statute of Lithuania. In accordance with this Statute spiritual courts could prosecute noblemen, peasants and townsfolk only if a certain case was bound up with religion or marriage. The medieval conception of formal evidences existed and dominated in the GDL from the 13th century up to the 18th century. The court was passive because all evidences were collected and produced by the plaintiff or by the defendant, and legal force of any evidence was determined by Lithuanian custom law and by the Lithuanian Statutes. The author believes that compurgators were not eye-witnesses of crime or event, there testified on oath only about good name of somebody. Compurgators swore together with plaintiff or defendant. Witnesses testified to or against somebody without oath. The legal status of witnesses and compurgators determined by the Lithuanian custom law and the First Lithuanian Statute was partly corrected by the Second and the Third Lithuanian Statutes in 1566 and 1588. Dietsky office appeared in the Ancient Slav State about the 11th century. From the 13th century onwards this office functioned in the GDL. Vizh office was instituted in the end of the 15th century or in the beginning of the 16th century in the GDL. Dietsky and Vizh were court officers executed judgements. Vizh was also official witness in criminal and civil cases. Vozny office was established in the GDL during the judicial reform in 1564-1566. Vozny was an important official of a court of law. He used to be elected by county noblemen. His duty was to inspect damages, wounds, and to witness at a trial. He was an executor of court's sentences. The number of lawyers who took scholastic degrees increased in the GDL in the 16th century. They developed legal terminology, introduced the written form of contracts and elaborated many legal acts. The Lithuanian Statutes should be regarded as the acme of progressive legal theoretical thought and practical activity. They surmounted the codification of the legislation of the GDL and brought the country to the leading position among other European countries. Yet the high standard, progressive spirit and intrinsic humanistic ideas by themselves did not mean that the Statutes were properly applied. In the 16th century, the lack of qualified lawyers complicated application of the Lithuanian Statutes. The legal sophistication of judges was often rather poor. Even members of the Lithuanian Tribunal of the GDL were not professional lawyers. The requirement constituted in the Lithuanian Statutes that only nobility were eligible to the position of judges was hardly observed because for a long time there had been not a single law school or college in the GDL. Why the Faculty of Law had not been founded in the Vilnius Jesuits' Academy before 1641? The author believes that the problem may be viewed in the context of international relations between the Kingdom of Poland and the GDL. In the year of the foundation of Vilnius University, one more event important for the legal development of GDL took place: creation of the highest appeal court – Lithuanian Tribunal. Polish landlords did not tolerate the steps strengthening the statehood of Lithuania. Creation of the Lithuanian Tribunal was a difficult victory of the GDL nobility. It is quite possible that concession to the University of Krakow and recognition of Polish monopoly in preparing lawyers were the cost paid for the mentioned victory. It seemed then more important to have their own appeal court than to prepare lawyers in the GDL. In the one article the author aspires to elucidate what was a medieval university – integral part of the town or feudal benefice, what were professors ant students – full fledged citizens of the town or aliens, and what were courts of the university – State or private, secular or ecclesiastical. The author established that any university in the Middle Ages was a self-governing professional corporation similar with guild or craft. Doctors and scholars (like merchants or craftsmen) elected rector and some others officials who governed and administered justice. Mostly university was an integral part of the town; professors ant students could exercise their rights on an equality with citizens of the town. Sometimes university was ruled by the Bishop or King as a feudal benefice independent from the town magistrates and courts (in this case the relations between town citizens and students were exceptionally strained). A very ample jurisdiction was allowed to the Rector's court, extending to all civil cases and all criminal cases except such as involved mutilation (in those criminal cases the jurisdiction of the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges was recognized). Rector was required to suppress quarrels between students and townsmen, or among the students themselves. If Rector failed to punish offenders, a scholar or doctor was amenable to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. The Bishop always reserved to himself spiritual jurisdiction over professors ant students. An appellate civil jurisdiction was reserved to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. It should be recognized that the legal system

In the present work the author reviews the two scientific monographs and twenty scientific articles in which the history of the Lithuanian legal system is investigated. The author aspires to elucidate how did the main subsystems of the Lithuanian legal system – legislation, jurisdiction and jurisprudence – appeared and developed up to the end of the 20th century in the context of evolution of the Western legal tradition. The basic methods of research used in the works are historical, comparative and teleological. The main theses of the reviewed scientific monographs and articles are these: The law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) was created by the Government on the basis of the national Lithuanian law and some elements of the custom Slav law. Substitution of the custom Slav law for the Lithuanian public and private law took place in those provinces in the 14th-16th centuries. The custom Slav law hampered forming of the system of law of the GDL. It was created finally in the middle of the 16th century. The law of the GDL was a medieval estate law. Estate is a legal phenomenon and law determines signs and features of any estate. Main sign of any estate is rights leaved to him by law and protected by state. Estate system, that is an organization of society into classes rigidly divided for political purposes and defined primarily by law, is based on a legal inequality of estates. Any estate is a stable order closed to outsiders. In order to belong to estate any person must correspond to certain conditions determined by law. At the same time any person can belong to a few different social groups but only to one estate. The estate system of the GDL was formed finally in the middle of the 16th century. It was defined by the Second Statute of Lithuania and consisted of four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and townspeople. The nobility and the clergy were privileged. They governed the state and exploited bondsmen. In the towns which obtained the Magdeburg Law the townsmen were free, but haven't political rights and privileges. The author believes that all persons were subjects of medieval law of Lithuania, but their legal capacity was not equal. This inequality was determined by law. Volume of legal capacity of these persons depended upon their age, sex, citizenship, religion and estate. It could be changed in accordance with law. Under certain conditions loss of legal capacity also was able. Collective subjects of law were the GDL itself (not its government bodies or officials), the people of Lithuania as a political unit (not estates or ethnographic nations), political confederations of noblemen (if they were sanctioned by the Grand Duke), self-governing territorial units (counties, towns, etc.), guilds organized by craftsmen and merchants and self-governing religions communities. The author believes that a land-ownership in the GDL was divided. Two persons held the same land. One of them was an immediate owner, the second was a superior owner of the land. An immediate owner's right to dispose the land was limited by a superior owner's rights to this land. In the 14th-first half of the 16th century an ancestral land was the main form of land-ownership in the GDL. At first an ancestral land was owned without obligation of vassalage. Since the beginning of the 16th century an owner of an ancestral land was obliged to military service from his land. Since the 14th century a benefice was the second form of feudal land-ownership in the GDL. Gradually a benefice turned into a feud. In 1566 the Second Statute of Lithuania gave the equal rights to all owners of ancestral lands and feuds. They got the freedom to dispose all their lands, but were obliged to military service from their real estate. In the middle of the 16th century the domain of the Grand Duke was divided into the State lands and Throne lands. The Grand Duke's freedom to dispose these lands was limited. Up to the middle of the 16th century there were no permanent circuit courts for land disputes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. All state courts heard land cases in their permanent quarters and moved in locality to survey borders only if it was very necessary. The Government of the GDL stimulated activity of arbitration and village courts and set them to resolve land disputes in locality. The first permanent circuit court (Sub-Chamber court) for boundary disputes was established in every county during the court reform in 1564-1566. Up to the middle of the 16th century jurisdiction of the Church determined by canons was very wide and came into collision with jurisdiction of the State. Besides clergymen and other subjects of the Church spiritual courts prosecuted noblemen, peasants and townsfolk. Competence of secular and spiritual courts was delimited clearly by the Third Statute of Lithuania. In accordance with this Statute spiritual courts could prosecute noblemen, peasants and townsfolk only if a certain case was bound up with religion or marriage. The medieval conception of formal evidences existed and dominated in the GDL from the 13th century up to the 18th century. The court was passive because all evidences were collected and produced by the plaintiff or by the defendant, and legal force of any evidence was determined by Lithuanian custom law and by the Lithuanian Statutes. The author believes that compurgators were not eye-witnesses of crime or event, there testified on oath only about good name of somebody. Compurgators swore together with plaintiff or defendant. Witnesses testified to or against somebody without oath. The legal status of witnesses and compurgators determined by the Lithuanian custom law and the First Lithuanian Statute was partly corrected by the Second and the Third Lithuanian Statutes in 1566 and 1588. Dietsky office appeared in the Ancient Slav State about the 11th century. From the 13th century onwards this office functioned in the GDL. Vizh office was instituted in the end of the 15th century or in the beginning of the 16th century in the GDL. Dietsky and Vizh were court officers executed judgements. Vizh was also official witness in criminal and civil cases. Vozny office was established in the GDL during the judicial reform in 1564-1566. Vozny was an important official of a court of law. He used to be elected by county noblemen. His duty was to inspect damages, wounds, and to witness at a trial. He was an executor of court's sentences. The number of lawyers who took scholastic degrees increased in the GDL in the 16th century. They developed legal terminology, introduced the written form of contracts and elaborated many legal acts. The Lithuanian Statutes should be regarded as the acme of progressive legal theoretical thought and practical activity. They surmounted the codification of the legislation of the GDL and brought the country to the leading position among other European countries. Yet the high standard, progressive spirit and intrinsic humanistic ideas by themselves did not mean that the Statutes were properly applied. In the 16th century, the lack of qualified lawyers complicated application of the Lithuanian Statutes. The legal sophistication of judges was often rather poor. Even members of the Lithuanian Tribunal of the GDL were not professional lawyers. The requirement constituted in the Lithuanian Statutes that only nobility were eligible to the position of judges was hardly observed because for a long time there had been not a single law school or college in the GDL. Why the Faculty of Law had not been founded in the Vilnius Jesuits' Academy before 1641? The author believes that the problem may be viewed in the context of international relations between the Kingdom of Poland and the GDL. In the year of the foundation of Vilnius University, one more event important for the legal development of GDL took place: creation of the highest appeal court – Lithuanian Tribunal. Polish landlords did not tolerate the steps strengthening the statehood of Lithuania. Creation of the Lithuanian Tribunal was a difficult victory of the GDL nobility. It is quite possible that concession to the University of Krakow and recognition of Polish monopoly in preparing lawyers were the cost paid for the mentioned victory. It seemed then more important to have their own appeal court than to prepare lawyers in the GDL. In the one article the author aspires to elucidate what was a medieval university – integral part of the town or feudal benefice, what were professors ant students – full fledged citizens of the town or aliens, and what were courts of the university – State or private, secular or ecclesiastical. The author established that any university in the Middle Ages was a self-governing professional corporation similar with guild or craft. Doctors and scholars (like merchants or craftsmen) elected rector and some others officials who governed and administered justice. Mostly university was an integral part of the town; professors ant students could exercise their rights on an equality with citizens of the town. Sometimes university was ruled by the Bishop or King as a feudal benefice independent from the town magistrates and courts (in this case the relations between town citizens and students were exceptionally strained). A very ample jurisdiction was allowed to the Rector's court, extending to all civil cases and all criminal cases except such as involved mutilation (in those criminal cases the jurisdiction of the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges was recognized). Rector was required to suppress quarrels between students and townsmen, or among the students themselves. If Rector failed to punish offenders, a scholar or doctor was amenable to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. The Bishop always reserved to himself spiritual jurisdiction over professors ant students. An appellate civil jurisdiction was reserved to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. It should be recognized that the legal system

In the present work the author reviews the two scientific monographs and twenty scientific articles in which the history of the Lithuanian legal system is investigated. The author aspires to elucidate how did the main subsystems of the Lithuanian legal system – legislation, jurisdiction and jurisprudence – appeared and developed up to the end of the 20th century in the context of evolution of the Western legal tradition. The basic methods of research used in the works are historical, comparative and teleological. The main theses of the reviewed scientific monographs and articles are these: The law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) was created by the Government on the basis of the national Lithuanian law and some elements of the custom Slav law. Substitution of the custom Slav law for the Lithuanian public and private law took place in those provinces in the 14th-16th centuries. The custom Slav law hampered forming of the system of law of the GDL. It was created finally in the middle of the 16th century. The law of the GDL was a medieval estate law. Estate is a legal phenomenon and law determines signs and features of any estate. Main sign of any estate is rights leaved to him by law and protected by state. Estate system, that is an organization of society into classes rigidly divided for political purposes and defined primarily by law, is based on a legal inequality of estates. Any estate is a stable order closed to outsiders. In order to belong to estate any person must correspond to certain conditions determined by law. At the same time any person can belong to a few different social groups but only to one estate. The estate system of the GDL was formed finally in the middle of the 16th century. It was defined by the Second Statute of Lithuania and consisted of four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and townspeople. The nobility and the clergy were privileged. They governed the state and exploited bondsmen. In the towns which obtained the Magdeburg Law the townsmen were free, but haven't political rights and privileges. The author believes that all persons were subjects of medieval law of Lithuania, but their legal capacity was not equal. This inequality was determined by law. Volume of legal capacity of these persons depended upon their age, sex, citizenship, religion and estate. It could be changed in accordance with law. Under certain conditions loss of legal capacity also was able. Collective subjects of law were the GDL itself (not its government bodies or officials), the people of Lithuania as a political unit (not estates or ethnographic nations), political confederations of noblemen (if they were sanctioned by the Grand Duke), self-governing territorial units (counties, towns, etc.), guilds organized by craftsmen and merchants and self-governing religions communities. The author believes that a land-ownership in the GDL was divided. Two persons held the same land. One of them was an immediate owner, the second was a superior owner of the land. An immediate owner's right to dispose the land was limited by a superior owner's rights to this land. In the 14th-first half of the 16th century an ancestral land was the main form of land-ownership in the GDL. At first an ancestral land was owned without obligation of vassalage. Since the beginning of the 16th century an owner of an ancestral land was obliged to military service from his land. Since the 14th century a benefice was the second form of feudal land-ownership in the GDL. Gradually a benefice turned into a feud. In 1566 the Second Statute of Lithuania gave the equal rights to all owners of ancestral lands and feuds. They got the freedom to dispose all their lands, but were obliged to military service from their real estate. In the middle of the 16th century the domain of the Grand Duke was divided into the State lands and Throne lands. The Grand Duke's freedom to dispose these lands was limited. Up to the middle of the 16th century there were no permanent circuit courts for land disputes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. All state courts heard land cases in their permanent quarters and moved in locality to survey borders only if it was very necessary. The Government of the GDL stimulated activity of arbitration and village courts and set them to resolve land disputes in locality. The first permanent circuit court (Sub-Chamber court) for boundary disputes was established in every county during the court reform in 1564-1566. Up to the middle of the 16th century jurisdiction of the Church determined by canons was very wide and came into collision with jurisdiction of the State. Besides clergymen and other subjects of the Church spiritual courts prosecuted noblemen, peasants and townsfolk. Competence of secular and spiritual courts was delimited clearly by the Third Statute of Lithuania. In accordance with this Statute spiritual courts could prosecute noblemen, peasants and townsfolk only if a certain case was bound up with religion or marriage. The medieval conception of formal evidences existed and dominated in the GDL from the 13th century up to the 18th century. The court was passive because all evidences were collected and produced by the plaintiff or by the defendant, and legal force of any evidence was determined by Lithuanian custom law and by the Lithuanian Statutes. The author believes that compurgators were not eye-witnesses of crime or event, there testified on oath only about good name of somebody. Compurgators swore together with plaintiff or defendant. Witnesses testified to or against somebody without oath. The legal status of witnesses and compurgators determined by the Lithuanian custom law and the First Lithuanian Statute was partly corrected by the Second and the Third Lithuanian Statutes in 1566 and 1588. Dietsky office appeared in the Ancient Slav State about the 11th century. From the 13th century onwards this office functioned in the GDL. Vizh office was instituted in the end of the 15th century or in the beginning of the 16th century in the GDL. Dietsky and Vizh were court officers executed judgements. Vizh was also official witness in criminal and civil cases. Vozny office was established in the GDL during the judicial reform in 1564-1566. Vozny was an important official of a court of law. He used to be elected by county noblemen. His duty was to inspect damages, wounds, and to witness at a trial. He was an executor of court's sentences. The number of lawyers who took scholastic degrees increased in the GDL in the 16th century. They developed legal terminology, introduced the written form of contracts and elaborated many legal acts. The Lithuanian Statutes should be regarded as the acme of progressive legal theoretical thought and practical activity. They surmounted the codification of the legislation of the GDL and brought the country to the leading position among other European countries. Yet the high standard, progressive spirit and intrinsic humanistic ideas by themselves did not mean that the Statutes were properly applied. In the 16th century, the lack of qualified lawyers complicated application of the Lithuanian Statutes. The legal sophistication of judges was often rather poor. Even members of the Lithuanian Tribunal of the GDL were not professional lawyers. The requirement constituted in the Lithuanian Statutes that only nobility were eligible to the position of judges was hardly observed because for a long time there had been not a single law school or college in the GDL. Why the Faculty of Law had not been founded in the Vilnius Jesuits' Academy before 1641? The author believes that the problem may be viewed in the context of international relations between the Kingdom of Poland and the GDL. In the year of the foundation of Vilnius University, one more event important for the legal development of GDL took place: creation of the highest appeal court – Lithuanian Tribunal. Polish landlords did not tolerate the steps strengthening the statehood of Lithuania. Creation of the Lithuanian Tribunal was a difficult victory of the GDL nobility. It is quite possible that concession to the University of Krakow and recognition of Polish monopoly in preparing lawyers were the cost paid for the mentioned victory. It seemed then more important to have their own appeal court than to prepare lawyers in the GDL. In the one article the author aspires to elucidate what was a medieval university – integral part of the town or feudal benefice, what were professors ant students – full fledged citizens of the town or aliens, and what were courts of the university – State or private, secular or ecclesiastical. The author established that any university in the Middle Ages was a self-governing professional corporation similar with guild or craft. Doctors and scholars (like merchants or craftsmen) elected rector and some others officials who governed and administered justice. Mostly university was an integral part of the town; professors ant students could exercise their rights on an equality with citizens of the town. Sometimes university was ruled by the Bishop or King as a feudal benefice independent from the town magistrates and courts (in this case the relations between town citizens and students were exceptionally strained). A very ample jurisdiction was allowed to the Rector's court, extending to all civil cases and all criminal cases except such as involved mutilation (in those criminal cases the jurisdiction of the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges was recognized). Rector was required to suppress quarrels between students and townsmen, or among the students themselves. If Rector failed to punish offenders, a scholar or doctor was amenable to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. The Bishop always reserved to himself spiritual jurisdiction over professors ant students. An appellate civil jurisdiction was reserved to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. It should be recognized that the legal system