Suchergebnisse

The article reveals the legislative fundamentals of the administrative-and-procedural status of parents and other legal representatives as participants in the administrative proceedings, the subject of which are the minor, as well as the institution of administrative responsibility of parents and other minors' legal representatives. It analyzes the problems of bringing them to justice, substantiates the necessity to improve the system of administrative penalties for the subjects, as well as to include different in nature and legal consequences sanctions into the list of administrative penalties ; В статье раскрываются законодательные основы административно-процессуального статуса родителей или иных законных представителей как участников производства по делам об административных правонарушениях, субъектом которых являются несовершеннолетние, а также института административной ответственности родителей или иных законных представителей несовершеннолетних, анализируются проблемы привлечения их к ответственности, обосновывается необходимость совершенствования системы административных наказаний в отношении рассматриваемых субъектов, включения в перечень административных наказаний разных по характеру и правовым последствиям санкций

The subject. The paper deals with the search for the place of judicial administrative procedural law in the system of Russian law.The purpose of the paper is to identify is the judicial administrative procedural law an independent branch of Russian law.Methodology. The author uses the methods of analysis and synthesis, as well as dialectic approach. The formal-legal interpretation of the Code of Administrative Proceedings, the Code of Administrative Offences, the Commercial Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and is also used.The main results and scope of their application. The adoption of the Code of Administrative Proceedings in Russia in 2015 revealed many problems in science and legislation. A legislative decision to adopt the Code of Administrative Proceedings is considered as a political decision taken without a proper scientific basis and contrary to established scientific doctrine. Definitions of such basic concepts as "administrative process", "administrative dispute", "administrative justice", and others have not been developed in the period up to 2015 and to date, There is a mention of "administrative legal proceedings" as one of the types, along with civil, criminal and constitutional types of legal proceedings, in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. But administrative procedural legislation is referred to the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in contrast to other procedural laws, in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Representatives of the science of civil procedural law, with reference to legal theorists, called judicial administrative procedural law (which is referred to the Code of Administrative Proceedings) the secondary formation, a sub - branch of the fundamental (profiling) branch of civil procedural law. The purpose of judicial administrative procedural law – enforcement of substantive law and conflict resolution in the field of administrative and other public relations. It is noted that the public-legal dispute is not limited to the interaction of the citizen with the executive power. Civil procedural regulation of judicial review of cases arising from public relations is a procedural mechanism of judicial protection of constitutional rights, freedoms and legitimate interests. The Code of Administrative Proceedings lowers the status of cases arising from public legal relations to the status of cases arising from administrative legal relations. Representatives of the science of administrative law and procedure, on the contrary, believe that the adoption of the Code of Administrative Proceedings becomes the final act in the formation of a new branch of law – administrative judicial law, although it is a political decision and it's rules are practically copied from the Civil Procedure Code. At the same time, it is recognized that the Code of Administrative Proceedings needs scientific support, which still needs to be created. An alarming factor is the fact that some scientists propose to include cases concerning imposition of administrative sanctions in the this forming branch of law, although it mixes in fact disputes between individuals and a public entity and imposition of administrative sanctions to the offender by the court.Conclusions. It is premature to say that judicial administrative procedural law has emerged as an independent branch of Russian law. Prospects for further development of administrative proceedings are very uncertain due to the high proportion of subjective, political factors in the legislative process. ; Рассматривается поэтапное движение законодательства и научной мысли от неупорядоченного выделения «административных» дел, рассматриваемых судом, к единым процессуальным правилам. Обосновывается авторская точка зрения, что полярные мнения в науке, в совокупности с противоречивыми и непоследовательными действиями законодателя, в настоящее время не позволяют утверждать о наличии новой отрасли права, предметом которой стало бы рассмотрение различных административных дел. Одного лишь законодательного шага – принятия Кодекса административного судопроизводства – при существующей терминологической путанице, неопределенности с предметом и методами регулирования, недостаточно для утверждения новой отрасли права.

One of the most effective ways to ensure order in society is to apply legal liability measures to law violations. Administrative responsibility is one of the legal administration types implemented through suitable measures – administrative sanctions. Administrative sanctions are designated to punish and educate the person who made administrative violations so that he could respect the rules of collective living. Also, it is desirable that both the violator and other individuals do not make new violations, which means that administrative sanction is a very important measure to ensure legal order. Because of the large amount of administrative violations and the aspiration to prevent them as well as to prevent legal offence, the need of a more effective and faster reaction (by employing administrative sanctions) to administrative violations arose. This resulted in the alterations of the Code of Administrative Violations that came into force in January 1, 2011, on which the institute of administrative order was established. With the establishment of this institute the problem of the extremely large workload of courts was to be solved, the fund of designated administrative sanctions was to be raised into the budget more operatively, and most importantly –the process of the least dangerous administrative violation cases' solutions was to be quickened and simplified. The essence of an administrative order is that it is submitted to the violator within ten working days, starting from the date the protocol of administrative violation is presented (or sent), and the fine, equal to half of the minimum fine indicated in the article of the Code (wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen), has to be paid on voluntary basis. An administrative order cannot be designated if in a sanction of the Code of Administrative Violations' article, wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen, a larger than eight hundred sixty eight euro maximum fine is provided, or a different kind of administrative sanction, not a monetary one, is foreseen as the main or additional fine (except a warning). Moreover, it cannot be designated if the person has repeatedly committed an administrative violation within a year, (foreseen in the respective article), or the violation is made with property damages which are fully compensated. Although it might seem that the institute of administrative order is quite clearly regulated, problems arise now and then while applying it in practice. While examining the problems of application and interpretation of the institute of administrative order, the biggest difficulty appears to be valuing what effect does the factor that in his case the administrative order was already applied have on the violator. Dealing with the question of legal causes of the administrative order fulfilment in court practice, it may be noted that court valuing is different than conceived by the legislator. Analyzing the explanatory note of laws on which the institute of administrative order was established, it may be observed that with this institute administrative sanction aims were sought to be achieved in the fastest and thriftiest way. These aims are to punish the guilty one, to correct and educate the violator as well as to warn other people, so that they would not make violations. This means that in its own nature the institute of administrative law is a tool used to apply the states' constraint (in this case – sanction) for the people, who made an administrative violation. However, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shares a different view. While examining administrative order application's legal consequences question, the court formed a practice that is carried out in this manner: after the administrative order is voluntarily fulfilled, the person is not considered guilty by administrative procedure, which means that an administrative order is not considered as an administrative sanction. It is important to mark that this practice is applied by almost every court which deals with administrative violation cases. While analyzing this situation, the question of how to value the institute of administrative order arises. In order to answer this question, the attention was focused on both the theoretical and practical side of the problem. Through legal doctrine and courts jurisprudence this paper seeks to determine if applying the institute of administrative order in practice helps implement the aims conceived by the legislator, and also if subjects applying the institute of administrative order interpret it rightly. First of all, the theoretical foundation of administrative liability, the concept and its conditions of appearance are being issued. In another chapter, the institute of administrative sanction is being investigated – the traits that identify administrative sanctions, their matters, kinds and caused consequences. In the third chapter of this paper, the institute of administrative order is analysed – the aims of the legislator, the institute's explanatory problems which arise in practice, and, of course, the consequences caused by the administrative order fulfilment. At the end of this work the conclusions and suggestions on how to solve the problem issued in this paper are presented. Legal doctrines, courts' jurisprudence, and the analysis of national as well as international documents showed that administrative order both in its nature and content is a tool for applying administrative sanctions to the people who have made administrative violations. This means that an administrative order is considered to be an administrative sanction.

One of the most effective ways to ensure order in society is to apply legal liability measures to law violations. Administrative responsibility is one of the legal administration types implemented through suitable measures – administrative sanctions. Administrative sanctions are designated to punish and educate the person who made administrative violations so that he could respect the rules of collective living. Also, it is desirable that both the violator and other individuals do not make new violations, which means that administrative sanction is a very important measure to ensure legal order. Because of the large amount of administrative violations and the aspiration to prevent them as well as to prevent legal offence, the need of a more effective and faster reaction (by employing administrative sanctions) to administrative violations arose. This resulted in the alterations of the Code of Administrative Violations that came into force in January 1, 2011, on which the institute of administrative order was established. With the establishment of this institute the problem of the extremely large workload of courts was to be solved, the fund of designated administrative sanctions was to be raised into the budget more operatively, and most importantly –the process of the least dangerous administrative violation cases' solutions was to be quickened and simplified. The essence of an administrative order is that it is submitted to the violator within ten working days, starting from the date the protocol of administrative violation is presented (or sent), and the fine, equal to half of the minimum fine indicated in the article of the Code (wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen), has to be paid on voluntary basis. An administrative order cannot be designated if in a sanction of the Code of Administrative Violations' article, wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen, a larger than eight hundred sixty eight euro maximum fine is provided, or a different kind of administrative sanction, not a monetary one, is foreseen as the main or additional fine (except a warning). Moreover, it cannot be designated if the person has repeatedly committed an administrative violation within a year, (foreseen in the respective article), or the violation is made with property damages which are fully compensated. Although it might seem that the institute of administrative order is quite clearly regulated, problems arise now and then while applying it in practice. While examining the problems of application and interpretation of the institute of administrative order, the biggest difficulty appears to be valuing what effect does the factor that in his case the administrative order was already applied have on the violator. Dealing with the question of legal causes of the administrative order fulfilment in court practice, it may be noted that court valuing is different than conceived by the legislator. Analyzing the explanatory note of laws on which the institute of administrative order was established, it may be observed that with this institute administrative sanction aims were sought to be achieved in the fastest and thriftiest way. These aims are to punish the guilty one, to correct and educate the violator as well as to warn other people, so that they would not make violations. This means that in its own nature the institute of administrative law is a tool used to apply the states' constraint (in this case – sanction) for the people, who made an administrative violation. However, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shares a different view. While examining administrative order application's legal consequences question, the court formed a practice that is carried out in this manner: after the administrative order is voluntarily fulfilled, the person is not considered guilty by administrative procedure, which means that an administrative order is not considered as an administrative sanction. It is important to mark that this practice is applied by almost every court which deals with administrative violation cases. While analyzing this situation, the question of how to value the institute of administrative order arises. In order to answer this question, the attention was focused on both the theoretical and practical side of the problem. Through legal doctrine and courts jurisprudence this paper seeks to determine if applying the institute of administrative order in practice helps implement the aims conceived by the legislator, and also if subjects applying the institute of administrative order interpret it rightly. First of all, the theoretical foundation of administrative liability, the concept and its conditions of appearance are being issued. In another chapter, the institute of administrative sanction is being investigated – the traits that identify administrative sanctions, their matters, kinds and caused consequences. In the third chapter of this paper, the institute of administrative order is analysed – the aims of the legislator, the institute's explanatory problems which arise in practice, and, of course, the consequences caused by the administrative order fulfilment. At the end of this work the conclusions and suggestions on how to solve the problem issued in this paper are presented. Legal doctrines, courts' jurisprudence, and the analysis of national as well as international documents showed that administrative order both in its nature and content is a tool for applying administrative sanctions to the people who have made administrative violations. This means that an administrative order is considered to be an administrative sanction.

One of the most effective ways to ensure order in society is to apply legal liability measures to law violations. Administrative responsibility is one of the legal administration types implemented through suitable measures – administrative sanctions. Administrative sanctions are designated to punish and educate the person who made administrative violations so that he could respect the rules of collective living. Also, it is desirable that both the violator and other individuals do not make new violations, which means that administrative sanction is a very important measure to ensure legal order. Because of the large amount of administrative violations and the aspiration to prevent them as well as to prevent legal offence, the need of a more effective and faster reaction (by employing administrative sanctions) to administrative violations arose. This resulted in the alterations of the Code of Administrative Violations that came into force in January 1, 2011, on which the institute of administrative order was established. With the establishment of this institute the problem of the extremely large workload of courts was to be solved, the fund of designated administrative sanctions was to be raised into the budget more operatively, and most importantly –the process of the least dangerous administrative violation cases' solutions was to be quickened and simplified. The essence of an administrative order is that it is submitted to the violator within ten working days, starting from the date the protocol of administrative violation is presented (or sent), and the fine, equal to half of the minimum fine indicated in the article of the Code (wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen), has to be paid on voluntary basis. An administrative order cannot be designated if in a sanction of the Code of Administrative Violations' article, wherein the liability for administrative violations is foreseen, a larger than eight hundred sixty eight euro maximum fine is provided, or a different kind of administrative sanction, not a monetary one, is foreseen as the main or additional fine (except a warning). Moreover, it cannot be designated if the person has repeatedly committed an administrative violation within a year, (foreseen in the respective article), or the violation is made with property damages which are fully compensated. Although it might seem that the institute of administrative order is quite clearly regulated, problems arise now and then while applying it in practice. While examining the problems of application and interpretation of the institute of administrative order, the biggest difficulty appears to be valuing what effect does the factor that in his case the administrative order was already applied have on the violator. Dealing with the question of legal causes of the administrative order fulfilment in court practice, it may be noted that court valuing is different than conceived by the legislator. Analyzing the explanatory note of laws on which the institute of administrative order was established, it may be observed that with this institute administrative sanction aims were sought to be achieved in the fastest and thriftiest way. These aims are to punish the guilty one, to correct and educate the violator as well as to warn other people, so that they would not make violations. This means that in its own nature the institute of administrative law is a tool used to apply the states' constraint (in this case – sanction) for the people, who made an administrative violation. However, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shares a different view. While examining administrative order application's legal consequences question, the court formed a practice that is carried out in this manner: after the administrative order is voluntarily fulfilled, the person is not considered guilty by administrative procedure, which means that an administrative order is not considered as an administrative sanction. It is important to mark that this practice is applied by almost every court which deals with administrative violation cases. While analyzing this situation, the question of how to value the institute of administrative order arises. In order to answer this question, the attention was focused on both the theoretical and practical side of the problem. Through legal doctrine and courts jurisprudence this paper seeks to determine if applying the institute of administrative order in practice helps implement the aims conceived by the legislator, and also if subjects applying the institute of administrative order interpret it rightly. First of all, the theoretical foundation of administrative liability, the concept and its conditions of appearance are being issued. In another chapter, the institute of administrative sanction is being investigated – the traits that identify administrative sanctions, their matters, kinds and caused consequences. In the third chapter of this paper, the institute of administrative order is analysed – the aims of the legislator, the institute's explanatory problems which arise in practice, and, of course, the consequences caused by the administrative order fulfilment. At the end of this work the conclusions and suggestions on how to solve the problem issued in this paper are presented. Legal doctrines, courts' jurisprudence, and the analysis of national as well as international documents showed that administrative order both in its nature and content is a tool for applying administrative sanctions to the people who have made administrative violations. This means that an administrative order is considered to be an administrative sanction.

Summary Lithuania elects the President of the Republic, the parliament of the Republic of Lithuania (Seimas), the Parliament of Europe and the municipal councils. All those elections are organising and conducting by the Central Electoral Committee, which is a permanent supreme state institution for elections and referendums, provided for in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Some of the tasks of Central Electoral Committee are to resolve all the disputes and to investigate complaints concerning election campaigning; supervise the implementation of election laws, declare results of elections invalid. Decisions of the Central Electoral Commission or its other acts, except decisions of the Central Electoral Commission which have been adopted after closing of the polls during parliamnt`s election, may be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shall become effective from its pronouncement. Decisions of the Central Electoral Commission or its other acts which have been adopted after closing of the polls during parliamnt`s election may be appealed to the Seimas or the President of the Republic. In such cases, the Seimas or the President of the Republic shall, not later than within 48 hours, appeal to the Constitutional Court with the inquiry concerning the violation of the elections. The Constitutional Court shall investigate and evaluate the decision of the Central Electoral Committee. Basing itself on the findings of the Constitutional Court, the Seimas shall adopt the final decision concerning the violation of the elections. If the Constitutional Court makes a conclusion that the Law on Elections to the Seimas has been severely violated or election documents have been falsified and this has had an essential influence on the establishment of the election results, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania may to declare the elections invalid; or to establish real essential election results according to the vote counting records or other election documents submitted by electoral committees. Also, the Seimas shall pass a resolution on legally and illegally elected Seimas members. Criminal violations which election laws or Criminal Code defined to be criminal in nature and providing penalty of imprisonment and/or fine are judged by regular courts. It should be noted that regular courts can not declare the results of the elections invalid.

Summary Lithuania elects the President of the Republic, the parliament of the Republic of Lithuania (Seimas), the Parliament of Europe and the municipal councils. All those elections are organising and conducting by the Central Electoral Committee, which is a permanent supreme state institution for elections and referendums, provided for in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Some of the tasks of Central Electoral Committee are to resolve all the disputes and to investigate complaints concerning election campaigning; supervise the implementation of election laws, declare results of elections invalid. Decisions of the Central Electoral Commission or its other acts, except decisions of the Central Electoral Commission which have been adopted after closing of the polls during parliamnt`s election, may be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shall become effective from its pronouncement. Decisions of the Central Electoral Commission or its other acts which have been adopted after closing of the polls during parliamnt`s election may be appealed to the Seimas or the President of the Republic. In such cases, the Seimas or the President of the Republic shall, not later than within 48 hours, appeal to the Constitutional Court with the inquiry concerning the violation of the elections. The Constitutional Court shall investigate and evaluate the decision of the Central Electoral Committee. Basing itself on the findings of the Constitutional Court, the Seimas shall adopt the final decision concerning the violation of the elections. If the Constitutional Court makes a conclusion that the Law on Elections to the Seimas has been severely violated or election documents have been falsified and this has had an essential influence on the establishment of the election results, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania may to declare the elections invalid; or to establish real essential election results according to the vote counting records or other election documents submitted by electoral committees. Also, the Seimas shall pass a resolution on legally and illegally elected Seimas members. Criminal violations which election laws or Criminal Code defined to be criminal in nature and providing penalty of imprisonment and/or fine are judged by regular courts. It should be noted that regular courts can not declare the results of the elections invalid.

Summary Lithuania elects the President of the Republic, the parliament of the Republic of Lithuania (Seimas), the Parliament of Europe and the municipal councils. All those elections are organising and conducting by the Central Electoral Committee, which is a permanent supreme state institution for elections and referendums, provided for in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Some of the tasks of Central Electoral Committee are to resolve all the disputes and to investigate complaints concerning election campaigning; supervise the implementation of election laws, declare results of elections invalid. Decisions of the Central Electoral Commission or its other acts, except decisions of the Central Electoral Commission which have been adopted after closing of the polls during parliamnt`s election, may be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shall become effective from its pronouncement. Decisions of the Central Electoral Commission or its other acts which have been adopted after closing of the polls during parliamnt`s election may be appealed to the Seimas or the President of the Republic. In such cases, the Seimas or the President of the Republic shall, not later than within 48 hours, appeal to the Constitutional Court with the inquiry concerning the violation of the elections. The Constitutional Court shall investigate and evaluate the decision of the Central Electoral Committee. Basing itself on the findings of the Constitutional Court, the Seimas shall adopt the final decision concerning the violation of the elections. If the Constitutional Court makes a conclusion that the Law on Elections to the Seimas has been severely violated or election documents have been falsified and this has had an essential influence on the establishment of the election results, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania may to declare the elections invalid; or to establish real essential election results according to the vote counting records or other election documents submitted by electoral committees. Also, the Seimas shall pass a resolution on legally and illegally elected Seimas members. Criminal violations which election laws or Criminal Code defined to be criminal in nature and providing penalty of imprisonment and/or fine are judged by regular courts. It should be noted that regular courts can not declare the results of the elections invalid.

Summary Lithuania elects the President of the Republic, the parliament of the Republic of Lithuania (Seimas), the Parliament of Europe and the municipal councils. All those elections are organising and conducting by the Central Electoral Committee, which is a permanent supreme state institution for elections and referendums, provided for in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Some of the tasks of Central Electoral Committee are to resolve all the disputes and to investigate complaints concerning election campaigning; supervise the implementation of election laws, declare results of elections invalid. Decisions of the Central Electoral Commission or its other acts, except decisions of the Central Electoral Commission which have been adopted after closing of the polls during parliamnt`s election, may be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shall become effective from its pronouncement. Decisions of the Central Electoral Commission or its other acts which have been adopted after closing of the polls during parliamnt`s election may be appealed to the Seimas or the President of the Republic. In such cases, the Seimas or the President of the Republic shall, not later than within 48 hours, appeal to the Constitutional Court with the inquiry concerning the violation of the elections. The Constitutional Court shall investigate and evaluate the decision of the Central Electoral Committee. Basing itself on the findings of the Constitutional Court, the Seimas shall adopt the final decision concerning the violation of the elections. If the Constitutional Court makes a conclusion that the Law on Elections to the Seimas has been severely violated or election documents have been falsified and this has had an essential influence on the establishment of the election results, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania may to declare the elections invalid; or to establish real essential election results according to the vote counting records or other election documents submitted by electoral committees. Also, the Seimas shall pass a resolution on legally and illegally elected Seimas members. Criminal violations which election laws or Criminal Code defined to be criminal in nature and providing penalty of imprisonment and/or fine are judged by regular courts. It should be noted that regular courts can not declare the results of the elections invalid.

В настоящее время вопрос об одном из основных институтов судопроизводства – административном – стоит весьма остро. Это объясняется множеством различных объективных и субъективных причин, но, в первую очередь, тем, что значительно расширились возможности судебного контроля над действиями публичной администрации и ее должностных лиц. Они не имеют каких-либо ограничений, поэтому практически любой вопрос, находящийся в ведении органов публичной администрации, может быть передан на рассмотрение соответствующего суда в соответствии с установленными законодательством правилами подведомственности и подсудности. Объективное существования института административной юстиции, необходимость исследования его составных положений и потребность дальнейшего законодательного регулирования явились основной целью настоящей работы, чья научная новизна, таким образом, заключается в раскрытии сущности функции судебного контроля в рамках уже вступившего в законную силу Кодекса административного судопроизводства РФ, которая заключается в проверке законности и обоснованности действий органов, должностных лиц, наделенных властными полномочиями, в ходе рассмотрения судами дел, отнесенных к компетенции последних. В статье выявляются особенности правового регулирования административного судопроизводства. Автор исследует проблемные аспекты административного судопроизводства, к которым можно отнести следующее: универсальный перечень категорий административных дел, определение подведомственности административных дел, отсутствие законодательного определения понятия «административное судопроизводство» и др. ; Nowadays the question about one of the basic institutes of justice – administrative – is very acute. This is due to various objective and subjective reasons, but primarily for those that have greatly expanded the possibilities of judicial control over the actions of the public administration and its officials. They do not have any restrictions, so almost any issue under the jurisdiction of the public administration organs may be transferred to the appropriate court in accordance with the established law rules of jurisdiction and cognizance. Objective existence of the Institute of administrative justice, the need to study its constituent provisions, and the need for further legislative regulation were the main objectives of the present work. So the scientific novelty of the work lies in the discovery of the essence of judicial control in the framework of an enforceable code of administrative procedure of the Russian Federation, which is to verify the legality and validity of actions of institutions, authority officials, in the course of consideration by courts of causes related to the competence of the latter. The article reveals the peculiarities of legal regulation of administrative procedure. The author explores the problematic aspects of administrative proceedings, which include a universal list of categories of administrative cases, determination of jurisdiction of administrative cases and the lack of a legal definition of «administrative court proceedings».

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania is said that the right to apply is fundamental, absolute and universal. But there are different systems of institution courts (general, constitutional and administrative) and their different functions. So there are different institution conception of the right to apply in each justice, too. The model of the right to apply in the administrative courts safeguards regular balance between person and polity interests. This balance is important in every law democracy civil society. In this doing postgraduate there is analysed the procedurals of the person's liberties and rights into the right to apply in the administrative court of the Respublic of Lithuania. In these procedurals there is tackled the conflicts between private people and public state interests and several public administrative subject litigations, too. There is subjected a course for creation of the independent administrative court and their stages of specialize court systems reform. The main idea of this doing is to implement the problems of subjects' right to the rights to apply in the administrative courts. The main point of this doing postgraduate is to measure the tendencies of necessity administrative court and to analyze the subjects which have the right to appeal to administrative court and to propose clearer regulation of the person interest for the requisition which is one of the special presumption for the right to apply to administrative court. Lawmaker is demarcated the cases in which are defended the person's subject right or the laws protected interests from the cases in which are defended public interests. In this doing postgraduate there were put to use the practice of the courts and nonfiction. There were tried to separate and to analyze singularities of the subjects' rights to safeguard interests which are kept the laws and public interests. Liberality of the judicial applies in the administrative process supposes when the court safeguards the public interests it safeguards implicitly interests for other people, state, self-government institutions of their rights and interests. The safeguard of the public interest can be for special subjects in some cases which are project in the laws. It is exception for the concernment to appeal the right to apply to the administrative court. If we want to escape actio populiaris we wouldn't have to rank the right to appeal the right to apply for the other people, republic/self government institutions rights protection.

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania is said that the right to apply is fundamental, absolute and universal. But there are different systems of institution courts (general, constitutional and administrative) and their different functions. So there are different institution conception of the right to apply in each justice, too. The model of the right to apply in the administrative courts safeguards regular balance between person and polity interests. This balance is important in every law democracy civil society. In this doing postgraduate there is analysed the procedurals of the person's liberties and rights into the right to apply in the administrative court of the Respublic of Lithuania. In these procedurals there is tackled the conflicts between private people and public state interests and several public administrative subject litigations, too. There is subjected a course for creation of the independent administrative court and their stages of specialize court systems reform. The main idea of this doing is to implement the problems of subjects' right to the rights to apply in the administrative courts. The main point of this doing postgraduate is to measure the tendencies of necessity administrative court and to analyze the subjects which have the right to appeal to administrative court and to propose clearer regulation of the person interest for the requisition which is one of the special presumption for the right to apply to administrative court. Lawmaker is demarcated the cases in which are defended the person's subject right or the laws protected interests from the cases in which are defended public interests. In this doing postgraduate there were put to use the practice of the courts and nonfiction. There were tried to separate and to analyze singularities of the subjects' rights to safeguard interests which are kept the laws and public interests. Liberality of the judicial applies in the administrative process supposes when the court safeguards the public interests it safeguards implicitly interests for other people, state, self-government institutions of their rights and interests. The safeguard of the public interest can be for special subjects in some cases which are project in the laws. It is exception for the concernment to appeal the right to apply to the administrative court. If we want to escape actio populiaris we wouldn't have to rank the right to appeal the right to apply for the other people, republic/self government institutions rights protection.

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania is said that the right to apply is fundamental, absolute and universal. But there are different systems of institution courts (general, constitutional and administrative) and their different functions. So there are different institution conception of the right to apply in each justice, too. The model of the right to apply in the administrative courts safeguards regular balance between person and polity interests. This balance is important in every law democracy civil society. In this doing postgraduate there is analysed the procedurals of the person's liberties and rights into the right to apply in the administrative court of the Respublic of Lithuania. In these procedurals there is tackled the conflicts between private people and public state interests and several public administrative subject litigations, too. There is subjected a course for creation of the independent administrative court and their stages of specialize court systems reform. The main idea of this doing is to implement the problems of subjects' right to the rights to apply in the administrative courts. The main point of this doing postgraduate is to measure the tendencies of necessity administrative court and to analyze the subjects which have the right to appeal to administrative court and to propose clearer regulation of the person interest for the requisition which is one of the special presumption for the right to apply to administrative court. Lawmaker is demarcated the cases in which are defended the person's subject right or the laws protected interests from the cases in which are defended public interests. In this doing postgraduate there were put to use the practice of the courts and nonfiction. There were tried to separate and to analyze singularities of the subjects' rights to safeguard interests which are kept the laws and public interests. Liberality of the judicial applies in the administrative process supposes when the court safeguards the public interests it safeguards implicitly interests for other people, state, self-government institutions of their rights and interests. The safeguard of the public interest can be for special subjects in some cases which are project in the laws. It is exception for the concernment to appeal the right to apply to the administrative court. If we want to escape actio populiaris we wouldn't have to rank the right to appeal the right to apply for the other people, republic/self government institutions rights protection.

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania is said that the right to apply is fundamental, absolute and universal. But there are different systems of institution courts (general, constitutional and administrative) and their different functions. So there are different institution conception of the right to apply in each justice, too. The model of the right to apply in the administrative courts safeguards regular balance between person and polity interests. This balance is important in every law democracy civil society. In this doing postgraduate there is analysed the procedurals of the person's liberties and rights into the right to apply in the administrative court of the Respublic of Lithuania. In these procedurals there is tackled the conflicts between private people and public state interests and several public administrative subject litigations, too. There is subjected a course for creation of the independent administrative court and their stages of specialize court systems reform. The main idea of this doing is to implement the problems of subjects' right to the rights to apply in the administrative courts. The main point of this doing postgraduate is to measure the tendencies of necessity administrative court and to analyze the subjects which have the right to appeal to administrative court and to propose clearer regulation of the person interest for the requisition which is one of the special presumption for the right to apply to administrative court. Lawmaker is demarcated the cases in which are defended the person's subject right or the laws protected interests from the cases in which are defended public interests. In this doing postgraduate there were put to use the practice of the courts and nonfiction. There were tried to separate and to analyze singularities of the subjects' rights to safeguard interests which are kept the laws and public interests. Liberality of the judicial applies in the administrative process supposes when the court safeguards the public interests it safeguards implicitly interests for other people, state, self-government institutions of their rights and interests. The safeguard of the public interest can be for special subjects in some cases which are project in the laws. It is exception for the concernment to appeal the right to apply to the administrative court. If we want to escape actio populiaris we wouldn't have to rank the right to appeal the right to apply for the other people, republic/self government institutions rights protection.