Suchergebnisse

According to compensation for non-pecuniary damage regulation, the non-pecuniary damage is compensated just in cases if it's defined in statutory rate. In Lithuanian labor law non-pecuniary damage is validated, though more detailed regulation belongs to the civil law. The validation of the non-pecuniary damage compensation for the parties of the labour contract shows legislator's attitude towards the importance of legal labour relations and the necessity to defend properly not only the property interests but hurt non-pecuniary values as well. After validating the compensation for non-pecuniary damage in Lithuania, the principle of equality is being applied for both of the parties. In this way Lithuania becomes an exclusive country, where both employee's and employer's non-pecuniary rights are being defended by the labour law, this is totaly opposite to Russia's regulations as non-pecuniary damage is appliable only for the employee, or to France regulations as the compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the labour contract parties is possible just in case of overlooking the France Labour Code norms. In this work, a conception of non-pecuniary damage in the civil and labour law is discussed, as well as general conditions for the non-pecuniary damage to appear, and special conditions, necessary for the non-pecuniary damage to appear in the in the labour law are being seperately analysed. Other cases are mentioned in this work, like cases for compensating the non-pecuniary damage for the labour law subjects and other individuals, closely related with employees in the case of their death. In this work general and individual labour cases' criterions, due to which the value of the non-pecuniary damage is defined, are seperately discussed, and the main non-pecuniary compensation cases in the labour law are identified. This work as well presents particular changes of present regulation which main purpose is to secure regular and right system of the non-pecuniary damage in the labour law.

According to compensation for non-pecuniary damage regulation, the non-pecuniary damage is compensated just in cases if it's defined in statutory rate. In Lithuanian labor law non-pecuniary damage is validated, though more detailed regulation belongs to the civil law. The validation of the non-pecuniary damage compensation for the parties of the labour contract shows legislator's attitude towards the importance of legal labour relations and the necessity to defend properly not only the property interests but hurt non-pecuniary values as well. After validating the compensation for non-pecuniary damage in Lithuania, the principle of equality is being applied for both of the parties. In this way Lithuania becomes an exclusive country, where both employee's and employer's non-pecuniary rights are being defended by the labour law, this is totaly opposite to Russia's regulations as non-pecuniary damage is appliable only for the employee, or to France regulations as the compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the labour contract parties is possible just in case of overlooking the France Labour Code norms. In this work, a conception of non-pecuniary damage in the civil and labour law is discussed, as well as general conditions for the non-pecuniary damage to appear, and special conditions, necessary for the non-pecuniary damage to appear in the in the labour law are being seperately analysed. Other cases are mentioned in this work, like cases for compensating the non-pecuniary damage for the labour law subjects and other individuals, closely related with employees in the case of their death. In this work general and individual labour cases' criterions, due to which the value of the non-pecuniary damage is defined, are seperately discussed, and the main non-pecuniary compensation cases in the labour law are identified. This work as well presents particular changes of present regulation which main purpose is to secure regular and right system of the non-pecuniary damage in the labour law.

This article concerns with typical legal provisions, that identifies level, scope and forms of state's involvement in international tax competition, also general legal background, that empowers or, on the opposite – restricts the effects of those provisions or various administrative practices, showing that there are certain criteria, enabling to describe international tax competition not only economically – as harmful or useful, or politically – as fair or unfair, but also legally – i.e. as legal or illegal. It is clear that individual legal provisions, that makes the essence of international tax competition, rarely operates separately and functionality, effectiveness or harmfulness of every preferential tax regime have to be analyzed having in mind all relevant elements that form certain regime, however object of legitimacy test first of all is each separate legal norm. Every of those separately taken norms have to satisfy not only general but also special, i.e. applied only in certain fields of law (administrative, civil, financial, tax etc.), legal criteria for form and substance (for example, to be set and applied by competent authority, non-discriminate, be proportionate etc.), that are set by the national law. Nevertheless, if aforementioned formal requirements are quite clear, their content should be assessed not only from the perspectives of national law or general legal principles, but also in the light of state's international obligations of different origin and legal weight.

This article concerns with typical legal provisions, that identifies level, scope and forms of state's involvement in international tax competition, also general legal background, that empowers or, on the opposite – restricts the effects of those provisions or various administrative practices, showing that there are certain criteria, enabling to describe international tax competition not only economically – as harmful or useful, or politically – as fair or unfair, but also legally – i.e. as legal or illegal. It is clear that individual legal provisions, that makes the essence of international tax competition, rarely operates separately and functionality, effectiveness or harmfulness of every preferential tax regime have to be analyzed having in mind all relevant elements that form certain regime, however object of legitimacy test first of all is each separate legal norm. Every of those separately taken norms have to satisfy not only general but also special, i.e. applied only in certain fields of law (administrative, civil, financial, tax etc.), legal criteria for form and substance (for example, to be set and applied by competent authority, non-discriminate, be proportionate etc.), that are set by the national law. Nevertheless, if aforementioned formal requirements are quite clear, their content should be assessed not only from the perspectives of national law or general legal principles, but also in the light of state's international obligations of different origin and legal weight.

This article concerns with typical legal provisions, that identifies level, scope and forms of state's involvement in international tax competition, also general legal background, that empowers or, on the opposite – restricts the effects of those provisions or various administrative practices, showing that there are certain criteria, enabling to describe international tax competition not only economically – as harmful or useful, or politically – as fair or unfair, but also legally – i.e. as legal or illegal. It is clear that individual legal provisions, that makes the essence of international tax competition, rarely operates separately and functionality, effectiveness or harmfulness of every preferential tax regime have to be analyzed having in mind all relevant elements that form certain regime, however object of legitimacy test first of all is each separate legal norm. Every of those separately taken norms have to satisfy not only general but also special, i.e. applied only in certain fields of law (administrative, civil, financial, tax etc.), legal criteria for form and substance (for example, to be set and applied by competent authority, non-discriminate, be proportionate etc.), that are set by the national law. Nevertheless, if aforementioned formal requirements are quite clear, their content should be assessed not only from the perspectives of national law or general legal principles, but also in the light of state's international obligations of different origin and legal weight.

This article concerns with typical legal provisions, that identifies level, scope and forms of state's involvement in international tax competition, also general legal background, that empowers or, on the opposite – restricts the effects of those provisions or various administrative practices, showing that there are certain criteria, enabling to describe international tax competition not only economically – as harmful or useful, or politically – as fair or unfair, but also legally – i.e. as legal or illegal. It is clear that individual legal provisions, that makes the essence of international tax competition, rarely operates separately and functionality, effectiveness or harmfulness of every preferential tax regime have to be analyzed having in mind all relevant elements that form certain regime, however object of legitimacy test first of all is each separate legal norm. Every of those separately taken norms have to satisfy not only general but also special, i.e. applied only in certain fields of law (administrative, civil, financial, tax etc.), legal criteria for form and substance (for example, to be set and applied by competent authority, non-discriminate, be proportionate etc.), that are set by the national law. Nevertheless, if aforementioned formal requirements are quite clear, their content should be assessed not only from the perspectives of national law or general legal principles, but also in the light of state's international obligations of different origin and legal weight.

In Lithuanian legal system, administrative out-of-court dispute resolution is vastly regulated by the provisions of special legislation in separate fields of administrative law. Commonly here the administrative dispute resolution is legally assigned to the administrative bodies performing public administration. In previous article having examined that, in the provisions of general laws, the legal category of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution is described especially concisely, providing it should be established by the law, but lacks further qualitative criteria to the whole system and relies on the lawmaking in those specific public administration spheres, now the author continuously seeks to investigate special legal provisions regulating the legal administrative out-of-court dispute resolution. This research is focused on estimating the legal clarity of these provisions and the level of their harmonization with general legal provisions of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution, and the ascription of the specific dispute resolution type to the latter resolution process, or administrative procedures. Therefore, the author analyzes the character of the specific regulation particularly in the matter of their position in the hierarchy of law and different regulative models of the dispute resolution, according to the clarity of the reference to common provisions, the dispute resolving subjects and the binding or facultative stages of dispute resolution. The analysis is based on quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the special regulation. The author comes to conclusions that, in various fields of administrative regulation, the specific legal provisions of the administrative dispute resolution are established in sub-statutory legal regulation, which under the principle of legality in all cases should not contradict the statute provisions, inter alia, the statutory provisions, which require that the pre-trial dispute resolution should be established by the law. The vast delegation of legislation in this sphere can potentially and really impose problems of the clarity and certainty of the legal regulation of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution. The reduction of the delegated legislation, and instead, increasing and expanding the regulation of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution by general laws would be eligible in order to achieve overall legal clarity and consolidate the legal regulation of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution. Also, it is concluded that the less part of the researched special legal regulation refers to the general regulation, directly pointing to the category of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution as described in the Law on Administrative Proceedings or redirecting to the provisions of the latter, or the Laws on Administrative Dispute Commissions and on Public Administration. In most cases, the special provisions are self-contained in assigning the administrative dispute regulation to particular administrative authorities. Hence, the regulative approach in this dominating part of special legislation can be described as the dissociation from the general categories of the pre-trial dispute resolution or administrative procedures. The modeling of the dispute resolution types described by the special legislation showed different combinations of dispute resolution levels by the internal administrative control, general pre-trial in administrative dispute commissions and in court. Most of this special regulation in practice requires systemic legal interpretation because it does not give clear provisions about the nature of the proceedings of the dispute resolution. As the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution is not sufficiently regulated in positive law, the main role in clarifying its general and special provisions lies in court jurisprudence.

In Lithuanian legal system, administrative out-of-court dispute resolution is vastly regulated by the provisions of special legislation in separate fields of administrative law. Commonly here the administrative dispute resolution is legally assigned to the administrative bodies performing public administration. In previous article having examined that, in the provisions of general laws, the legal category of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution is described especially concisely, providing it should be established by the law, but lacks further qualitative criteria to the whole system and relies on the lawmaking in those specific public administration spheres, now the author continuously seeks to investigate special legal provisions regulating the legal administrative out-of-court dispute resolution. This research is focused on estimating the legal clarity of these provisions and the level of their harmonization with general legal provisions of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution, and the ascription of the specific dispute resolution type to the latter resolution process, or administrative procedures. Therefore, the author analyzes the character of the specific regulation particularly in the matter of their position in the hierarchy of law and different regulative models of the dispute resolution, according to the clarity of the reference to common provisions, the dispute resolving subjects and the binding or facultative stages of dispute resolution. The analysis is based on quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the special regulation. The author comes to conclusions that, in various fields of administrative regulation, the specific legal provisions of the administrative dispute resolution are established in sub-statutory legal regulation, which under the principle of legality in all cases should not contradict the statute provisions, inter alia, the statutory provisions, which require that the pre-trial dispute resolution should be established by the law. The vast delegation of legislation in this sphere can potentially and really impose problems of the clarity and certainty of the legal regulation of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution. The reduction of the delegated legislation, and instead, increasing and expanding the regulation of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution by general laws would be eligible in order to achieve overall legal clarity and consolidate the legal regulation of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution. Also, it is concluded that the less part of the researched special legal regulation refers to the general regulation, directly pointing to the category of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution as described in the Law on Administrative Proceedings or redirecting to the provisions of the latter, or the Laws on Administrative Dispute Commissions and on Public Administration. In most cases, the special provisions are self-contained in assigning the administrative dispute regulation to particular administrative authorities. Hence, the regulative approach in this dominating part of special legislation can be described as the dissociation from the general categories of the pre-trial dispute resolution or administrative procedures. The modeling of the dispute resolution types described by the special legislation showed different combinations of dispute resolution levels by the internal administrative control, general pre-trial in administrative dispute commissions and in court. Most of this special regulation in practice requires systemic legal interpretation because it does not give clear provisions about the nature of the proceedings of the dispute resolution. As the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution is not sufficiently regulated in positive law, the main role in clarifying its general and special provisions lies in court jurisprudence.

In Lithuanian legal system, administrative out-of-court dispute resolution is vastly regulated by the provisions of special legislation in separate fields of administrative law. Commonly here the administrative dispute resolution is legally assigned to the administrative bodies performing public administration. In previous article having examined that, in the provisions of general laws, the legal category of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution is described especially concisely, providing it should be established by the law, but lacks further qualitative criteria to the whole system and relies on the lawmaking in those specific public administration spheres, now the author continuously seeks to investigate special legal provisions regulating the legal administrative out-of-court dispute resolution. This research is focused on estimating the legal clarity of these provisions and the level of their harmonization with general legal provisions of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution, and the ascription of the specific dispute resolution type to the latter resolution process, or administrative procedures. Therefore, the author analyzes the character of the specific regulation particularly in the matter of their position in the hierarchy of law and different regulative models of the dispute resolution, according to the clarity of the reference to common provisions, the dispute resolving subjects and the binding or facultative stages of dispute resolution. The analysis is based on quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the special regulation. The author comes to conclusions that, in various fields of administrative regulation, the specific legal provisions of the administrative dispute resolution are established in sub-statutory legal regulation, which under the principle of legality in all cases should not contradict the statute provisions, inter alia, the statutory provisions, which require that the pre-trial dispute resolution should be established by the law. The vast delegation of legislation in this sphere can potentially and really impose problems of the clarity and certainty of the legal regulation of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution. The reduction of the delegated legislation, and instead, increasing and expanding the regulation of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution by general laws would be eligible in order to achieve overall legal clarity and consolidate the legal regulation of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution. Also, it is concluded that the less part of the researched special legal regulation refers to the general regulation, directly pointing to the category of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution as described in the Law on Administrative Proceedings or redirecting to the provisions of the latter, or the Laws on Administrative Dispute Commissions and on Public Administration. In most cases, the special provisions are self-contained in assigning the administrative dispute regulation to particular administrative authorities. Hence, the regulative approach in this dominating part of special legislation can be described as the dissociation from the general categories of the pre-trial dispute resolution or administrative procedures. The modeling of the dispute resolution types described by the special legislation showed different combinations of dispute resolution levels by the internal administrative control, general pre-trial in administrative dispute commissions and in court. Most of this special regulation in practice requires systemic legal interpretation because it does not give clear provisions about the nature of the proceedings of the dispute resolution. As the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution is not sufficiently regulated in positive law, the main role in clarifying its general and special provisions lies in court jurisprudence.

In Lithuanian legal system, administrative out-of-court dispute resolution is vastly regulated by the provisions of special legislation in separate fields of administrative law. Commonly here the administrative dispute resolution is legally assigned to the administrative bodies performing public administration. In previous article having examined that, in the provisions of general laws, the legal category of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution is described especially concisely, providing it should be established by the law, but lacks further qualitative criteria to the whole system and relies on the lawmaking in those specific public administration spheres, now the author continuously seeks to investigate special legal provisions regulating the legal administrative out-of-court dispute resolution. This research is focused on estimating the legal clarity of these provisions and the level of their harmonization with general legal provisions of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution, and the ascription of the specific dispute resolution type to the latter resolution process, or administrative procedures. Therefore, the author analyzes the character of the specific regulation particularly in the matter of their position in the hierarchy of law and different regulative models of the dispute resolution, according to the clarity of the reference to common provisions, the dispute resolving subjects and the binding or facultative stages of dispute resolution. The analysis is based on quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the special regulation. The author comes to conclusions that, in various fields of administrative regulation, the specific legal provisions of the administrative dispute resolution are established in sub-statutory legal regulation, which under the principle of legality in all cases should not contradict the statute provisions, inter alia, the statutory provisions, which require that the pre-trial dispute resolution should be established by the law. The vast delegation of legislation in this sphere can potentially and really impose problems of the clarity and certainty of the legal regulation of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution. The reduction of the delegated legislation, and instead, increasing and expanding the regulation of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution by general laws would be eligible in order to achieve overall legal clarity and consolidate the legal regulation of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution. Also, it is concluded that the less part of the researched special legal regulation refers to the general regulation, directly pointing to the category of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution as described in the Law on Administrative Proceedings or redirecting to the provisions of the latter, or the Laws on Administrative Dispute Commissions and on Public Administration. In most cases, the special provisions are self-contained in assigning the administrative dispute regulation to particular administrative authorities. Hence, the regulative approach in this dominating part of special legislation can be described as the dissociation from the general categories of the pre-trial dispute resolution or administrative procedures. The modeling of the dispute resolution types described by the special legislation showed different combinations of dispute resolution levels by the internal administrative control, general pre-trial in administrative dispute commissions and in court. Most of this special regulation in practice requires systemic legal interpretation because it does not give clear provisions about the nature of the proceedings of the dispute resolution. As the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution is not sufficiently regulated in positive law, the main role in clarifying its general and special provisions lies in court jurisprudence.

Analysis of this Master's Paper is developed in three directions: firstly, the author summarized the issues of the international and national criminal law. Attention is drawn to the place of the international treaties in the Lithuanian law, focusing on the national criminal law implications of such treaties; attempting to determine the possibility of direct application of the treaties in the criminal law. The author concludes that international treaties regulating the matters that are relevant to criminal justice should be transferred to national laws. The second part of the Paper analyses the significance of the treaties on the protection of universal human rights and freedoms, such as the Universal Charter on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECPHRFF) and of the conventions adopted by the United Nations Organization in general, to the criminal law of Lithuania. The author does not aim at defining the importance of the particular rules of law to the national criminal law, and distinguishes instead the trends of the national criminal law implications. Analyzing the ECPHRFF, the author emphasizes the special character of this international treaty also drawing attention to the problem of interaction between the blanket dispositions constructed in the Lithuanian criminal law and the principle of nullum crimen sine lege guaranteed by the Convention. The Master's Paper concludes that implementation of the international legal acts guaranteeing the protection of personal rights in terms of criminal law of Lithuania is being implemented with sufficient accuracy. In the final part of the Master's Paper the relevance of the European Union (EU) law with regard to the national criminal law is summarized. In the first instance the author draws attention to the issue of relevance of the primary EU law to the national criminal law, which practically has not been analyzed by the Lithuanian scientists. Analyzing separate types of the secondary legislation passed by the EU authorities, in the first instance the features of each legal act – regulation, directive, decision, framework decision, general actions, recommendations, opinions, guidelines and conventions – are distinguished. The author aims at disclosing the manner in which the features of each secondary legal act of the EU influence the national criminal law. Also, the possibilities of the direct application of regulations, directives and decisions in the national law are elaborate. The author concludes that it is the secondary legislation by means of which the criminal law of the Member States is being approximated, whereas appropriate implementation of the secondary legislation of the EU, as a rule, requires corrections of the criminal law.

Analysis of this Master's Paper is developed in three directions: firstly, the author summarized the issues of the international and national criminal law. Attention is drawn to the place of the international treaties in the Lithuanian law, focusing on the national criminal law implications of such treaties; attempting to determine the possibility of direct application of the treaties in the criminal law. The author concludes that international treaties regulating the matters that are relevant to criminal justice should be transferred to national laws. The second part of the Paper analyses the significance of the treaties on the protection of universal human rights and freedoms, such as the Universal Charter on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECPHRFF) and of the conventions adopted by the United Nations Organization in general, to the criminal law of Lithuania. The author does not aim at defining the importance of the particular rules of law to the national criminal law, and distinguishes instead the trends of the national criminal law implications. Analyzing the ECPHRFF, the author emphasizes the special character of this international treaty also drawing attention to the problem of interaction between the blanket dispositions constructed in the Lithuanian criminal law and the principle of nullum crimen sine lege guaranteed by the Convention. The Master's Paper concludes that implementation of the international legal acts guaranteeing the protection of personal rights in terms of criminal law of Lithuania is being implemented with sufficient accuracy. In the final part of the Master's Paper the relevance of the European Union (EU) law with regard to the national criminal law is summarized. In the first instance the author draws attention to the issue of relevance of the primary EU law to the national criminal law, which practically has not been analyzed by the Lithuanian scientists. Analyzing separate types of the secondary legislation passed by the EU authorities, in the first instance the features of each legal act – regulation, directive, decision, framework decision, general actions, recommendations, opinions, guidelines and conventions – are distinguished. The author aims at disclosing the manner in which the features of each secondary legal act of the EU influence the national criminal law. Also, the possibilities of the direct application of regulations, directives and decisions in the national law are elaborate. The author concludes that it is the secondary legislation by means of which the criminal law of the Member States is being approximated, whereas appropriate implementation of the secondary legislation of the EU, as a rule, requires corrections of the criminal law.

Analysis of this Master's Paper is developed in three directions: firstly, the author summarized the issues of the international and national criminal law. Attention is drawn to the place of the international treaties in the Lithuanian law, focusing on the national criminal law implications of such treaties; attempting to determine the possibility of direct application of the treaties in the criminal law. The author concludes that international treaties regulating the matters that are relevant to criminal justice should be transferred to national laws. The second part of the Paper analyses the significance of the treaties on the protection of universal human rights and freedoms, such as the Universal Charter on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECPHRFF) and of the conventions adopted by the United Nations Organization in general, to the criminal law of Lithuania. The author does not aim at defining the importance of the particular rules of law to the national criminal law, and distinguishes instead the trends of the national criminal law implications. Analyzing the ECPHRFF, the author emphasizes the special character of this international treaty also drawing attention to the problem of interaction between the blanket dispositions constructed in the Lithuanian criminal law and the principle of nullum crimen sine lege guaranteed by the Convention. The Master's Paper concludes that implementation of the international legal acts guaranteeing the protection of personal rights in terms of criminal law of Lithuania is being implemented with sufficient accuracy. In the final part of the Master's Paper the relevance of the European Union (EU) law with regard to the national criminal law is summarized. In the first instance the author draws attention to the issue of relevance of the primary EU law to the national criminal law, which practically has not been analyzed by the Lithuanian scientists. Analyzing separate types of the secondary legislation passed by the EU authorities, in the first instance the features of each legal act – regulation, directive, decision, framework decision, general actions, recommendations, opinions, guidelines and conventions – are distinguished. The author aims at disclosing the manner in which the features of each secondary legal act of the EU influence the national criminal law. Also, the possibilities of the direct application of regulations, directives and decisions in the national law are elaborate. The author concludes that it is the secondary legislation by means of which the criminal law of the Member States is being approximated, whereas appropriate implementation of the secondary legislation of the EU, as a rule, requires corrections of the criminal law.

Analysis of this Master's Paper is developed in three directions: firstly, the author summarized the issues of the international and national criminal law. Attention is drawn to the place of the international treaties in the Lithuanian law, focusing on the national criminal law implications of such treaties; attempting to determine the possibility of direct application of the treaties in the criminal law. The author concludes that international treaties regulating the matters that are relevant to criminal justice should be transferred to national laws. The second part of the Paper analyses the significance of the treaties on the protection of universal human rights and freedoms, such as the Universal Charter on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECPHRFF) and of the conventions adopted by the United Nations Organization in general, to the criminal law of Lithuania. The author does not aim at defining the importance of the particular rules of law to the national criminal law, and distinguishes instead the trends of the national criminal law implications. Analyzing the ECPHRFF, the author emphasizes the special character of this international treaty also drawing attention to the problem of interaction between the blanket dispositions constructed in the Lithuanian criminal law and the principle of nullum crimen sine lege guaranteed by the Convention. The Master's Paper concludes that implementation of the international legal acts guaranteeing the protection of personal rights in terms of criminal law of Lithuania is being implemented with sufficient accuracy. In the final part of the Master's Paper the relevance of the European Union (EU) law with regard to the national criminal law is summarized. In the first instance the author draws attention to the issue of relevance of the primary EU law to the national criminal law, which practically has not been analyzed by the Lithuanian scientists. Analyzing separate types of the secondary legislation passed by the EU authorities, in the first instance the features of each legal act – regulation, directive, decision, framework decision, general actions, recommendations, opinions, guidelines and conventions – are distinguished. The author aims at disclosing the manner in which the features of each secondary legal act of the EU influence the national criminal law. Also, the possibilities of the direct application of regulations, directives and decisions in the national law are elaborate. The author concludes that it is the secondary legislation by means of which the criminal law of the Member States is being approximated, whereas appropriate implementation of the secondary legislation of the EU, as a rule, requires corrections of the criminal law.

Public-private partnership has been widely used in many countries for many years already. Due to changes in politics and increasing demand from the side of society for qualified public services, this model of cooperation is becoming increasingly important in Lithuania. One of the main prerequisites for success of this type of projects is a legal certainty. Seeking to assure that, Lithuania has established a concept of "partnership", a new legal form thereof and special rules for implementation of projects. The broad definition of the partnership, established in the Law on Investments, includes contracts of public procurement and privatization, however, the narrow definition is reflected by the special legal regulation, which provides that the rules for preparation and implementation of the partnership projects are applicable to concession and the general partnership between the government and private entities only. Apart from the concept of the "public-private partnership", the Law on Investments also provides for a new legal form, i.e. general partnership between government and private entities, implementation of which is based on the Law on Public Procurement. A contract of general partnership between government and private entities meets the characteristics of the public procurement contracts which, in general, are wider. A contract of general partnership between government and private entities may be distinguished from a concession contract by two criteria, i.e. nature of remuneration and a part of an operating risk undertaken by a private subject. When evaluating the part of the operating risk, all relevant criteria should be taken into account, the amount of remuneration to the private subject being only one of them. The third form of public-private partnership specified by the European Commission – the institutionalised partnership – can be implemented on the basis of general provisions of the Law on Management, Use and Disposal of State and Municipal Property. Since a contract with mixed capital entity cannot be regarded as in-house relationship and the laws of the Republic of Lithuania do not regulate the procedure for selecting a member of a legal person, the institutionalized partnership can be set up by applying public procurement or concession awarding procedure. By way of summarizing it can be said that establishment of the new partnership form in Lithuania enables implementation of public-private partnership models, where remuneration to the private subject is paid by the public subject while the operating risk is not necessarily undertaken by the private subject. Models, where ownership of public property has to be transferred to the private subject, can be implemented as the institutionalized partnership.