Suchergebnisse

The issue is analyzed in the master's thesis whether the court can obligate the parties to conclude the contract. It is a kind of issue which has been hardly analyzed in the juridical doctrine of Lithuania; it is mostly restricted to stating such a right of the courts and it is not gone into further details; there is a lack of certainly defined systemized analysis of this issue; therefore the purpose of this thesis would be to analyze a possibility of the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract. The work consists of three main parts. In the first part, the concept of the contract freedom principle and possibilities of its limitation are presented. One of the strictest limitations of this principle is a right given to the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract. This limitation on a basis of the laws is only possible in case of imperative regulations of the law which consolidate this right and in case the party itself obligates to conclude the contract. The juridical doctrine distinguishes one more circumstance of limiting the contract freedom principle – infringement of the honesty principle without concluding the contract. In case the court obligates the parties to conclude the contract, it is both important to follow the balance principle of the parties' interests and reasonably intervene in the contractual relations, as otherwise the state can have tortuous responsibility because of harm done to the people by illegal actions of the courts in civil cases. In the second and main part of the thesis, a possibility of the court of obligating the parties to conclude the contract in the context of these three circumstances is analyzed. Such a circumstance as the obligation by the party itself to conclude the contract (conclusion of the preliminary contract) is consolidated in the law as the factor which limits the contract freedom principle, but the court cannot obligate the parties to conclude the preliminary contract (including a specific form of the preliminary contract – the preliminary contract of buying-selling the future dwelling-house or flat). As the consequence of non-executing the preliminary contract is the compensation of a negative interest (interest of concluding the main contract) its purpose would be lost if it was executed by force. In case there is a law which foresees a possibility for the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract, the court really has this right, but it is not an unconditional right; each type of the discussed contracts has their obligatory provisions under which the court can obligate the countries to conclude the contract. The following types of contracts are discussed in the thesis: public contracts, obligatory sale of stocks (shares, divvies) (chapter IX of book 2 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania), obligatory purchase and sale of stocks consolidated in article 37 of the Law of Securities (the commented article does not give the court a right to obligate the parties to conclude the stock purchase-sale contract, but it foresees a simpler obligatory procedure of transferring the property right to the stocks) and labor contracts in case part 1 of article 96 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Lithuania is infringed which provision consolidated in the regulation enables the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract. The last factor which limits the contract freedom principle is the infringement of the honesty principle without concluding the contract; it is not an independent factor in the practice of the courts of Lithuania on which base it would be possible to obligate the parties to conclude the contract. Meanwhile, the European Court of Justice holds an absolutely opposite position about this issue and the refusal of concluding the contract is considered illegal in case the honesty principle is infringed without concluding the contract. The work recommendation is presented here: the position of the both contract parties is not always equal; therefore it is necessary to develop a system which enables the state intervening the contractual relations of the parties in case the interests of a weaker party are infringed; and it is not only done in case the laws allow it but also in case of infringing the general honesty principle. In Lithuania one more circumstance should be consolidated by the regulations of the law: infringement of the honesty principle without concluding the contract as it limits the contract freedom principle in a permissible way. This is the only way to expand the competence of the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract which can reach the most efficient results when defending the rights of the weak contract party. After presenting the analysis of the right given to the courts to obligate the parties to conclude the contract, it is also important to mention responsibility of the state because of illegal use of the right to obligate the parties to conclude the contract by the courts. So, in the third and last part of the thesis, the concept of tortuous responsibility of the state because of harm done to the people by illegal actions of the judges or courts in civil cases at the national level and the juridical level of the European Union is presented. Tortuous responsibility of the state because of harm done to the person by illegal actions of the judges in civil cases at the juridical level of Lithuania can be hardly found, as it is difficult to prove the obligatory condition for responsibility – the judge's fault (intentionally), especially in case the courts and legislation holds the position the annulment of the judgment at a higher instance court does not mean the judge performed guilty actions. After Lithuania became a member of the European Union, there is a possibility of arraigning the state-member because of harm done to private people by actions of the national courts. When the European Court of Justice checks the validity of the last-instance judgments made by the national courts of the states-members and acknowledges the decision invalid and the obligatory conditions are met, the state is arraigned and the decision made on its basis is executed in the state-member according to the national law.

The issue is analyzed in the master's thesis whether the court can obligate the parties to conclude the contract. It is a kind of issue which has been hardly analyzed in the juridical doctrine of Lithuania; it is mostly restricted to stating such a right of the courts and it is not gone into further details; there is a lack of certainly defined systemized analysis of this issue; therefore the purpose of this thesis would be to analyze a possibility of the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract. The work consists of three main parts. In the first part, the concept of the contract freedom principle and possibilities of its limitation are presented. One of the strictest limitations of this principle is a right given to the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract. This limitation on a basis of the laws is only possible in case of imperative regulations of the law which consolidate this right and in case the party itself obligates to conclude the contract. The juridical doctrine distinguishes one more circumstance of limiting the contract freedom principle – infringement of the honesty principle without concluding the contract. In case the court obligates the parties to conclude the contract, it is both important to follow the balance principle of the parties' interests and reasonably intervene in the contractual relations, as otherwise the state can have tortuous responsibility because of harm done to the people by illegal actions of the courts in civil cases. In the second and main part of the thesis, a possibility of the court of obligating the parties to conclude the contract in the context of these three circumstances is analyzed. Such a circumstance as the obligation by the party itself to conclude the contract (conclusion of the preliminary contract) is consolidated in the law as the factor which limits the contract freedom principle, but the court cannot obligate the parties to conclude the preliminary contract (including a specific form of the preliminary contract – the preliminary contract of buying-selling the future dwelling-house or flat). As the consequence of non-executing the preliminary contract is the compensation of a negative interest (interest of concluding the main contract) its purpose would be lost if it was executed by force. In case there is a law which foresees a possibility for the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract, the court really has this right, but it is not an unconditional right; each type of the discussed contracts has their obligatory provisions under which the court can obligate the countries to conclude the contract. The following types of contracts are discussed in the thesis: public contracts, obligatory sale of stocks (shares, divvies) (chapter IX of book 2 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania), obligatory purchase and sale of stocks consolidated in article 37 of the Law of Securities (the commented article does not give the court a right to obligate the parties to conclude the stock purchase-sale contract, but it foresees a simpler obligatory procedure of transferring the property right to the stocks) and labor contracts in case part 1 of article 96 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Lithuania is infringed which provision consolidated in the regulation enables the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract. The last factor which limits the contract freedom principle is the infringement of the honesty principle without concluding the contract; it is not an independent factor in the practice of the courts of Lithuania on which base it would be possible to obligate the parties to conclude the contract. Meanwhile, the European Court of Justice holds an absolutely opposite position about this issue and the refusal of concluding the contract is considered illegal in case the honesty principle is infringed without concluding the contract. The work recommendation is presented here: the position of the both contract parties is not always equal; therefore it is necessary to develop a system which enables the state intervening the contractual relations of the parties in case the interests of a weaker party are infringed; and it is not only done in case the laws allow it but also in case of infringing the general honesty principle. In Lithuania one more circumstance should be consolidated by the regulations of the law: infringement of the honesty principle without concluding the contract as it limits the contract freedom principle in a permissible way. This is the only way to expand the competence of the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract which can reach the most efficient results when defending the rights of the weak contract party. After presenting the analysis of the right given to the courts to obligate the parties to conclude the contract, it is also important to mention responsibility of the state because of illegal use of the right to obligate the parties to conclude the contract by the courts. So, in the third and last part of the thesis, the concept of tortuous responsibility of the state because of harm done to the people by illegal actions of the judges or courts in civil cases at the national level and the juridical level of the European Union is presented. Tortuous responsibility of the state because of harm done to the person by illegal actions of the judges in civil cases at the juridical level of Lithuania can be hardly found, as it is difficult to prove the obligatory condition for responsibility – the judge's fault (intentionally), especially in case the courts and legislation holds the position the annulment of the judgment at a higher instance court does not mean the judge performed guilty actions. After Lithuania became a member of the European Union, there is a possibility of arraigning the state-member because of harm done to private people by actions of the national courts. When the European Court of Justice checks the validity of the last-instance judgments made by the national courts of the states-members and acknowledges the decision invalid and the obligatory conditions are met, the state is arraigned and the decision made on its basis is executed in the state-member according to the national law.

The object of this research is the Zaberezinskis family among the political elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: the association of the family's history (its genealogy, economic, political, foundational activity) with the rest of the environment of the GDL rulers of the Jagiellonian Dynasty. The general backdrop of the political life of the GDL makes it possible to see and evaluate the weight of the Zaberezininkis family among the country's ruling elite. From the late 15th to the middle of the 16th century, the aristocratic authority with its ages-old roots acquired institutional form. Foreseeing the possibility of rulers residing outside the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (as during Kazimierz Jagiellonian's rule), Alexander Jagiellonian's privilege of 6 August 1492 authorized broader prerogatives for the Council of Lords. At the same time, on the eve of the proclamation of the Grand Duke, the summoned parliament initiated the tradition of representation of the nobility. Institutional changes were accompanied by the reception of humanistic ideas, legal culture and political theory, linked to the custom, increasing at the time, of nobility sending their offspring to universities to pursue higher education. The story of the Zaberezinskis family, descendants of Rimvydas, is presented In the context of the formation of the GDL Republic (Respublica Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae), a political nation of descendants of the Romans (as the Lithuanian nobility portrayed themselves). The earliest data on the kin are associated with the times of Sigismund Kęstutaitis, and the latest with those of Sigismund Augustus. Members of the family played a particularly significant role in the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the times of Kazimierz Jagiellonian and his two sons Alexander and Sigismund the Old, from the 1480s until 1544. Responding to the postulates of the modern science of genealogy, the story of the family is presented according to its different branches. Against the background of key events in Lithuanian history, beginning from Jurgis Rimvydaitis and Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis, the careers of the latter's children and their descendants, their interrelationships, and factors influencing their careers are analysed. Due to the different status of different members of the family and the different amounts of data available in the sources, the questionnaire applied to different members of the family differs. Jonas Jurgaitis and his son Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis, who reached the highest posts, are the most significant, and the most extensive treatment is given to their biographies. The composition of the landholding and the development of the network of towns are discussed in a separate part of the study. The available data (including property holdings) do not directly confirm a family relationship between the Zaberezinskis and the Manvydas families. No sources have been found in which the Zaberezinskis in any way mention Manvydas or his brother, or a family relationship with them. In the view of the author of this work, the success of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinsky's career can be attributed to his holding the strategic post of Vicar of Polotsk at a key moment, the favour of Lithuanian Grand Duke Alexander and strong personal abilities. In consequence, Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinsky proved one of the most prominent personalities on the Council of Lords, achieving the particularly high offices of Voivode of Trakai and Grand Marshall, and personally taking part in the most important events in the interstate relations of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. For a variety of reasons (often due to early death), the only descendent of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis who achieved a significant political career was his son Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis (~1473-1538), who ultimately, like his father, assumed the posts of Voivode of Trakai and Grand Marshall of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. His relations with the other most influential high-ranking noblemen of the period are considered, especially the meaning of marriages contracted by him and arranged by him for his descendants and relatives. The gathered data regarding the formation and distribution of the family's latifundium show that the most important stage in the formation of the estate was the time of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis, although later the family also acquired significant properties through marriage and purchases. A major step in this process was the marriage of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis to the daughter, Ona, of Jonas Nasuta, who held large properties in Palenkė (Podlasie). Other ways land was acquired were purchases and gifts of the rulers (Casimir and Alexander). One such event that stands out is Alexander's gift in 1506 of the regions of Alytus and Simnas. Many of the surviving papers written by Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis in the final period of his life, when he resided in Alytus as Keeper of the City and the Region, testify to intense internal colonization of the area of Alytus and Simnas by the Nemunas River. Alytus and Simnas also include the most noteworthy church foundations made by Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis and his family, a clear witness to the founders' piety. As he gave the decisive impulse for Alytus and Simnas to become city-like settlements, he can properly be considered the founder of those cities. The political self-awareness of the Lithuanian aristocracy is best captured by the term from that period "the Republic of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" (Respublica Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae), as D. Kuolis has accurately observed. The theory of the Roman origins of the Lithuanian nobility, with all its consequences (such as e.g. the rule of law), can be considered the highest peak of the political culture of the ruling elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In 1525 (well before the Union of Lublin, which is often associated with Lithuanian republican traditions) Albertas Goštautas's memorial to the Grand Duchess Bona associated the notion of nobility with loyalty to the ruler and responsibility for the commonwealth (the republic). Although it can be said that certain Republican ideals drawn from antiquity thrived among the Lithuanian aristocracy, their dominant trait was conservatism (unwillingness to admit lesser nobility to the structures of power). The high-rank nobility clearly recognized the ruler as the head of the political body of the Grand Duchy, and sought for him a crown. The programme for a Kingdom of Lithuania should be linked to the need, fostered by aristocracy, for the GDL to have its own distinct identity, though having a separate ruler was important also for practical reasons: the unquestioned centralized government accelerated the defence mechanisms of the state. A contemporary observer testifies that, when the ruler was absent, the Lithuanian lords "did not know what to do, remained undecided and did nothing." The ruling elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, both in their actions and in what they wrote (in the Lithuanian chronicles and elsewhere), unequivocally showed that no agreements with the Polish Crown bound them. The role of the aristocracy in the political emancipation of the lesser nobility and the importance of the latter for the maturing of the Lithuanian-Polish Union are issues that still require further research. Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis gave some of his nobles personal freedom and economic autonomy, which can be regarded as a precondition for political emancipation.

The object of this research is the Zaberezinskis family among the political elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: the association of the family's history (its genealogy, economic, political, foundational activity) with the rest of the environment of the GDL rulers of the Jagiellonian Dynasty. The general backdrop of the political life of the GDL makes it possible to see and evaluate the weight of the Zaberezininkis family among the country's ruling elite. From the late 15th to the middle of the 16th century, the aristocratic authority with its ages-old roots acquired institutional form. Foreseeing the possibility of rulers residing outside the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (as during Kazimierz Jagiellonian's rule), Alexander Jagiellonian's privilege of 6 August 1492 authorized broader prerogatives for the Council of Lords. At the same time, on the eve of the proclamation of the Grand Duke, the summoned parliament initiated the tradition of representation of the nobility. Institutional changes were accompanied by the reception of humanistic ideas, legal culture and political theory, linked to the custom, increasing at the time, of nobility sending their offspring to universities to pursue higher education. The story of the Zaberezinskis family, descendants of Rimvydas, is presented In the context of the formation of the GDL Republic (Respublica Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae), a political nation of descendants of the Romans (as the Lithuanian nobility portrayed themselves). The earliest data on the kin are associated with the times of Sigismund Kęstutaitis, and the latest with those of Sigismund Augustus. Members of the family played a particularly significant role in the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the times of Kazimierz Jagiellonian and his two sons Alexander and Sigismund the Old, from the 1480s until 1544. Responding to the postulates of the modern science of genealogy, the story of the family is presented according to its different branches. Against the background of key events in Lithuanian history, beginning from Jurgis Rimvydaitis and Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis, the careers of the latter's children and their descendants, their interrelationships, and factors influencing their careers are analysed. Due to the different status of different members of the family and the different amounts of data available in the sources, the questionnaire applied to different members of the family differs. Jonas Jurgaitis and his son Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis, who reached the highest posts, are the most significant, and the most extensive treatment is given to their biographies. The composition of the landholding and the development of the network of towns are discussed in a separate part of the study. The available data (including property holdings) do not directly confirm a family relationship between the Zaberezinskis and the Manvydas families. No sources have been found in which the Zaberezinskis in any way mention Manvydas or his brother, or a family relationship with them. In the view of the author of this work, the success of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinsky's career can be attributed to his holding the strategic post of Vicar of Polotsk at a key moment, the favour of Lithuanian Grand Duke Alexander and strong personal abilities. In consequence, Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinsky proved one of the most prominent personalities on the Council of Lords, achieving the particularly high offices of Voivode of Trakai and Grand Marshall, and personally taking part in the most important events in the interstate relations of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. For a variety of reasons (often due to early death), the only descendent of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis who achieved a significant political career was his son Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis (~1473-1538), who ultimately, like his father, assumed the posts of Voivode of Trakai and Grand Marshall of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. His relations with the other most influential high-ranking noblemen of the period are considered, especially the meaning of marriages contracted by him and arranged by him for his descendants and relatives. The gathered data regarding the formation and distribution of the family's latifundium show that the most important stage in the formation of the estate was the time of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis, although later the family also acquired significant properties through marriage and purchases. A major step in this process was the marriage of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis to the daughter, Ona, of Jonas Nasuta, who held large properties in Palenkė (Podlasie). Other ways land was acquired were purchases and gifts of the rulers (Casimir and Alexander). One such event that stands out is Alexander's gift in 1506 of the regions of Alytus and Simnas. Many of the surviving papers written by Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis in the final period of his life, when he resided in Alytus as Keeper of the City and the Region, testify to intense internal colonization of the area of Alytus and Simnas by the Nemunas River. Alytus and Simnas also include the most noteworthy church foundations made by Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis and his family, a clear witness to the founders' piety. As he gave the decisive impulse for Alytus and Simnas to become city-like settlements, he can properly be considered the founder of those cities. The political self-awareness of the Lithuanian aristocracy is best captured by the term from that period "the Republic of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" (Respublica Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae), as D. Kuolis has accurately observed. The theory of the Roman origins of the Lithuanian nobility, with all its consequences (such as e.g. the rule of law), can be considered the highest peak of the political culture of the ruling elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In 1525 (well before the Union of Lublin, which is often associated with Lithuanian republican traditions) Albertas Goštautas's memorial to the Grand Duchess Bona associated the notion of nobility with loyalty to the ruler and responsibility for the commonwealth (the republic). Although it can be said that certain Republican ideals drawn from antiquity thrived among the Lithuanian aristocracy, their dominant trait was conservatism (unwillingness to admit lesser nobility to the structures of power). The high-rank nobility clearly recognized the ruler as the head of the political body of the Grand Duchy, and sought for him a crown. The programme for a Kingdom of Lithuania should be linked to the need, fostered by aristocracy, for the GDL to have its own distinct identity, though having a separate ruler was important also for practical reasons: the unquestioned centralized government accelerated the defence mechanisms of the state. A contemporary observer testifies that, when the ruler was absent, the Lithuanian lords "did not know what to do, remained undecided and did nothing." The ruling elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, both in their actions and in what they wrote (in the Lithuanian chronicles and elsewhere), unequivocally showed that no agreements with the Polish Crown bound them. The role of the aristocracy in the political emancipation of the lesser nobility and the importance of the latter for the maturing of the Lithuanian-Polish Union are issues that still require further research. Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis gave some of his nobles personal freedom and economic autonomy, which can be regarded as a precondition for political emancipation.

The object of this research is the Zaberezinskis family among the political elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: the association of the family's history (its genealogy, economic, political, foundational activity) with the rest of the environment of the GDL rulers of the Jagiellonian Dynasty. The general backdrop of the political life of the GDL makes it possible to see and evaluate the weight of the Zaberezininkis family among the country's ruling elite. From the late 15th to the middle of the 16th century, the aristocratic authority with its ages-old roots acquired institutional form. Foreseeing the possibility of rulers residing outside the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (as during Kazimierz Jagiellonian's rule), Alexander Jagiellonian's privilege of 6 August 1492 authorized broader prerogatives for the Council of Lords. At the same time, on the eve of the proclamation of the Grand Duke, the summoned parliament initiated the tradition of representation of the nobility. Institutional changes were accompanied by the reception of humanistic ideas, legal culture and political theory, linked to the custom, increasing at the time, of nobility sending their offspring to universities to pursue higher education. The story of the Zaberezinskis family, descendants of Rimvydas, is presented In the context of the formation of the GDL Republic (Respublica Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae), a political nation of descendants of the Romans (as the Lithuanian nobility portrayed themselves). The earliest data on the kin are associated with the times of Sigismund Kęstutaitis, and the latest with those of Sigismund Augustus. Members of the family played a particularly significant role in the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the times of Kazimierz Jagiellonian and his two sons Alexander and Sigismund the Old, from the 1480s until 1544. Responding to the postulates of the modern science of genealogy, the story of the family is presented according to its different branches. Against the background of key events in Lithuanian history, beginning from Jurgis Rimvydaitis and Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis, the careers of the latter's children and their descendants, their interrelationships, and factors influencing their careers are analysed. Due to the different status of different members of the family and the different amounts of data available in the sources, the questionnaire applied to different members of the family differs. Jonas Jurgaitis and his son Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis, who reached the highest posts, are the most significant, and the most extensive treatment is given to their biographies. The composition of the landholding and the development of the network of towns are discussed in a separate part of the study. The available data (including property holdings) do not directly confirm a family relationship between the Zaberezinskis and the Manvydas families. No sources have been found in which the Zaberezinskis in any way mention Manvydas or his brother, or a family relationship with them. In the view of the author of this work, the success of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinsky's career can be attributed to his holding the strategic post of Vicar of Polotsk at a key moment, the favour of Lithuanian Grand Duke Alexander and strong personal abilities. In consequence, Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinsky proved one of the most prominent personalities on the Council of Lords, achieving the particularly high offices of Voivode of Trakai and Grand Marshall, and personally taking part in the most important events in the interstate relations of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. For a variety of reasons (often due to early death), the only descendent of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis who achieved a significant political career was his son Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis (~1473-1538), who ultimately, like his father, assumed the posts of Voivode of Trakai and Grand Marshall of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. His relations with the other most influential high-ranking noblemen of the period are considered, especially the meaning of marriages contracted by him and arranged by him for his descendants and relatives. The gathered data regarding the formation and distribution of the family's latifundium show that the most important stage in the formation of the estate was the time of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis, although later the family also acquired significant properties through marriage and purchases. A major step in this process was the marriage of Jonas Jurgaitis Zaberezinskis to the daughter, Ona, of Jonas Nasuta, who held large properties in Palenkė (Podlasie). Other ways land was acquired were purchases and gifts of the rulers (Casimir and Alexander). One such event that stands out is Alexander's gift in 1506 of the regions of Alytus and Simnas. Many of the surviving papers written by Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis in the final period of his life, when he resided in Alytus as Keeper of the City and the Region, testify to intense internal colonization of the area of Alytus and Simnas by the Nemunas River. Alytus and Simnas also include the most noteworthy church foundations made by Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis and his family, a clear witness to the founders' piety. As he gave the decisive impulse for Alytus and Simnas to become city-like settlements, he can properly be considered the founder of those cities. The political self-awareness of the Lithuanian aristocracy is best captured by the term from that period "the Republic of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" (Respublica Magni Ducatus Lithuaniae), as D. Kuolis has accurately observed. The theory of the Roman origins of the Lithuanian nobility, with all its consequences (such as e.g. the rule of law), can be considered the highest peak of the political culture of the ruling elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In 1525 (well before the Union of Lublin, which is often associated with Lithuanian republican traditions) Albertas Goštautas's memorial to the Grand Duchess Bona associated the notion of nobility with loyalty to the ruler and responsibility for the commonwealth (the republic). Although it can be said that certain Republican ideals drawn from antiquity thrived among the Lithuanian aristocracy, their dominant trait was conservatism (unwillingness to admit lesser nobility to the structures of power). The high-rank nobility clearly recognized the ruler as the head of the political body of the Grand Duchy, and sought for him a crown. The programme for a Kingdom of Lithuania should be linked to the need, fostered by aristocracy, for the GDL to have its own distinct identity, though having a separate ruler was important also for practical reasons: the unquestioned centralized government accelerated the defence mechanisms of the state. A contemporary observer testifies that, when the ruler was absent, the Lithuanian lords "did not know what to do, remained undecided and did nothing." The ruling elite of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, both in their actions and in what they wrote (in the Lithuanian chronicles and elsewhere), unequivocally showed that no agreements with the Polish Crown bound them. The role of the aristocracy in the political emancipation of the lesser nobility and the importance of the latter for the maturing of the Lithuanian-Polish Union are issues that still require further research. Jonas Jonaitis Zaberezinskis gave some of his nobles personal freedom and economic autonomy, which can be regarded as a precondition for political emancipation.

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.

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.

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.