Suchergebnisse

According to the ratio of the powers provided to the President of Republic of Lithuania with other kinds of the state authorities, his powers may be classified to three groups: 1) the powers in the sphere of legislation; 2) the powers in the sphere of the executive; 3) the powers in the sphere of legal authorities. In the present Article, the powers of the President of Republic of Lithuania exercised by him in connection with organization and functioning of the executive and regulated by the Article 84 of the Constitution are discussed in details. They may be divided into: a) the powers bound with a formation of the Government; b) the powers bound with an appointment of certain state officials; c) the powers bound with an implementation of foreign policy; d) the powers bound with national defense; e) other powers related to the executive. After a completion of the analysis of the above–listed powers, it may be stated that the role, functions and powers of the President of the Republic (although he is not a head of the executive and does not institutionally belong to the system of executive institutions according to the Constitution) in this sphere are rather important, versatile and wide in comparison with other kinds of the state authorities. Although the President of the Republic is charged with important powers in the said sphere according to the Constitution, however, he does not directly guide the institutions engaged in an implementation of this kind of powers. He sets the general framework of the internal and foreign policy, however, the Government remains responsible for everyday implementation of the executive. By the way, he is not entitled to implement a considerable part of the most important powers in this sphere self–dependently, without and approval and support of the Seym, i.e. he informally shares some powers with the Seym. The most degree of freedom related to the executive is provided to the President of Lithuania in the sphere of foreign policy. Here, he is "the central figure", because other participants of policy. ; 1992 m. spalio 25 d. priimtoje Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijoje atskiras skirsnis skirtas ir Lietuvos Respublikos Prezidento institutui. Konstitucijos 84 straipsnyje reglamentuoti Prezidento įgaliojimai leidžia teigti, kad jam suteikti tam tikri įgaliojimai, susiję su vykdomosios valdžios organizavimu ir funkcionavimu. Todėl šiame straipsnyje išsamiau nagrinėjami Prezidento įgaliojimai vykdomosios valdžios srityje bei jų vykdymo ypatumai. Taip pat tiriama ir Prezidento instituciją aptarnaujančių padalinių organizacinė struktūra bei teisinis statusas.

After a restoration of the Independence on March 11, 1990, the Provisional General Law (the Provisional Constitution of Republic of Lithuania) has been passed. Although state authorities were organized according to the principles of power distribution used in democratic states, however, an insufficient attention was paid to this issue. The law provided the principles of the legal status of the only executive institution – the Government, but did not pay a considerable attention to the system of executive institutions. Only the logical analysis of the Law on Government passed on March 22, 1990 allows to suppose that it consisted of the Government, ministries and inspections. The National Referendum dated October 25, 1992, had approved the Constitution of Republic of Lithuania that consolidated the structure of the system of executive institutions: the President and the Government of Republic of Lithuania, ministries and governmental institutions, county administrations. Because of an adoption of the new Law on Government, the central level of the system of executive institutions shall be reorganized. Within eleven years of Independence, eight reforms were implemented on the level of ministries (13 ministries were established and 18 ministries were liquidated), not taking into account reforms, related to changes of heads of ministries and organizational transformations of their structure. From 1995, reforms are implemented once in two years and the trend of a reduction of number of ministries – from 19 to 13 – takes place. An absence of a stable policy in respect of the number and purpose of the ministries caused frequent reforms in this system that replaced one organizational–legal form of an executive institution was replaced by another form (for example, ministries were reorganized into governmental organizations and vice versa). Within last years (from 1998), growing of the number of quasi–governing structures (governmental committees and commissions) was particularly rapid. The number of institutions at ministries and governmental organizations gradually grew as well, and the number of institutions of county's heads remained the most stable from the moment of the establishment. The system of executive institutions from March 11, 1990 passes the period of permanent changes. Governing reforms present a continuous process in our state. The necessity of reforms is predetermined by the programme of the Government, i.e. all reforms are bound with the intuition and opinion of various political parties on state governing. Thus, in absence of a strategy (conception, programme) of an improvement of the system of executive institutions, based on an comprehensive analysis and independent on political processes, it is impossible to ensure a stability and harmony of the system of executive institutions. ; Jau pačią pirmą nepriklausomybės atkūrimo dieną buvo padėtas naujos valstybės valdžios sistemos pamatas. Naujoji sistema grindžiama demokratinėse pasaulio valstybėse plačiai taikoma valdžių padalijimo doktrina. Šis straipsnis ir skirtas vykdomosios valdžios institucijų sistemos – vienos iš svarbiausių valstybės valdžios instituto – genezei po nepriklausomybės atkūrimo analizuoti. Jame pateikiamas šios valdžios rūšies institucijų sistemos formavimasis, gana daug dėmesio skiriama atskirų vykdomosios valdžios institucijų struktūrų evoliucionavimui nagrinėti. Minėtos sistemos pokyčiai iliustruojami empiriniais tyrimais. Nurodomos vykdomosios valdžios institucijų sistemos tobulinimo gairės bei priežastys, turinčios įtakos jos raidai.

Administrative legal regulation of public management (administration) is provided in abundant legal norms of laws and bylaws. However, the number of the norms of administrative law may differ in various legal acts: a legal act may consist of the norms of administrative law only or a part of the provisions of a legal act (belonging to another branch of law) may be bound up with a group of such norms. On the basis of the abovementioned criterion, the following sources of administrative law can be singled out: the Constitution; international and some other (such as intergovernmental) treaties that include the norms of administrative law; legal norms of the European Union; decrees of the President of the Republic; decisions of the Seimas and the Government; normative acts of administrative law adopted by other subjects of central public management (administration) (such as ministries, governmental institutions, institutions under ministries, etc.) and local self-governing institutions; judgments of courts, including the national (administrative courts and the Constitutional Court) and the European ones; legal norms and administrative agreements adopted by the decisions of the heads or collegial structures of other subjects of public management (administration) (such as state-owned and municipal enterprises and public institutions or non-governmental organizations).

Administrative legal regulation of public management (administration) is provided in abundant legal norms of laws and bylaws. However, the number of the norms of administrative law may differ in various legal acts: a legal act may consist of the norms of administrative law only or a part of the provisions of a legal act (belonging to another branch of law) may be bound up with a group of such norms. On the basis of the abovementioned criterion, the following sources of administrative law can be singled out: the Constitution; international and some other (such as intergovernmental) treaties that include the norms of administrative law; legal norms of the European Union; decrees of the President of the Republic; decisions of the Seimas and the Government; normative acts of administrative law adopted by other subjects of central public management (administration) (such as ministries, governmental institutions, institutions under ministries, etc.) and local self-governing institutions; judgments of courts, including the national (administrative courts and the Constitutional Court) and the European ones; legal norms and administrative agreements adopted by the decisions of the heads or collegial structures of other subjects of public management (administration) (such as state-owned and municipal enterprises and public institutions or non-governmental organizations).

Over the past twenty years regulation has gained an unprecedented place in European countries. In effect, the rise of regulation has been accompanied by the rise of a new type of institutions, namely independent regulatory agencies. Western scholars use a lot of terms in defining this type of institutions, i. e. QUANGO (quasi-autonomous non governmental organization), NDPB (non-departmental public body), EGO (extra-governmental organization), NGO (non-governmental organization), QAO (quasi-autonomous organizations), SAO (semi-autonomous organization). But the most frequent term is IRA (independent regulatory agency). They define this type of institutions as public organization with regulatory powers that are neither elected by the people, nor directly managed by elected officials. M. Thatcher reveals certain requirements for inclusion as an IRA. First, the agency has its own powers and responsibilities given under public law; second, it is organizationally separated from the institutions of executive power; and finally, it is neither directly elected nor managed by elected officials. Additionally, they implement quasi-legislative and quasijudicial functions. There are such institutions in Lithuania, too. For example, the Competition Council, the Communications Regulatory Authority, the Securities Commission of the Republic of Lithuania, the National Health Board, etc. Scientists, politicians, and public servants entitle them as institutions accountable to the Parliament or President. The authors of this article try to answer to some questions. First, what is regulation and what is an independent regulatory agency? Second, why regulatory agencies must be insulated from political influence? Third, how is it possible to define the organizational form of such institutions in Lithuania? Fourth, what is the exact place of such institutions in the system of public administration bodies of Lithuania?

Over the past twenty years regulation has gained an unprecedented place in European countries. In effect, the rise of regulation has been accompanied by the rise of a new type of institutions, namely independent regulatory agencies. Western scholars use a lot of terms in defining this type of institutions, i. e. QUANGO (quasi-autonomous non governmental organization), NDPB (non-departmental public body), EGO (extra-governmental organization), NGO (non-governmental organization), QAO (quasi-autonomous organizations), SAO (semi-autonomous organization). But the most frequent term is IRA (independent regulatory agency). They define this type of institutions as public organization with regulatory powers that are neither elected by the people, nor directly managed by elected officials. M. Thatcher reveals certain requirements for inclusion as an IRA. First, the agency has its own powers and responsibilities given under public law; second, it is organizationally separated from the institutions of executive power; and finally, it is neither directly elected nor managed by elected officials. Additionally, they implement quasi-legislative and quasijudicial functions. There are such institutions in Lithuania, too. For example, the Competition Council, the Communications Regulatory Authority, the Securities Commission of the Republic of Lithuania, the National Health Board, etc. Scientists, politicians, and public servants entitle them as institutions accountable to the Parliament or President. The authors of this article try to answer to some questions. First, what is regulation and what is an independent regulatory agency? Second, why regulatory agencies must be insulated from political influence? Third, how is it possible to define the organizational form of such institutions in Lithuania? Fourth, what is the exact place of such institutions in the system of public administration bodies of Lithuania?

Over the past twenty years regulation has gained an unprecedented place in European countries. In effect, the rise of regulation has been accompanied by the rise of a new type of institutions, namely independent regulatory agencies. Western scholars use a lot of terms in defining this type of institutions, i. e. QUANGO (quasi-autonomous non governmental organization), NDPB (non-departmental public body), EGO (extra-governmental organization), NGO (non-governmental organization), QAO (quasi-autonomous organizations), SAO (semi-autonomous organization). But the most frequent term is IRA (independent regulatory agency). They define this type of institutions as public organization with regulatory powers that are neither elected by the people, nor directly managed by elected officials. M. Thatcher reveals certain requirements for inclusion as an IRA. First, the agency has its own powers and responsibilities given under public law; second, it is organizationally separated from the institutions of executive power; and finally, it is neither directly elected nor managed by elected officials. Additionally, they implement quasi-legislative and quasijudicial functions. There are such institutions in Lithuania, too. For example, the Competition Council, the Communications Regulatory Authority, the Securities Commission of the Republic of Lithuania, the National Health Board, etc. Scientists, politicians, and public servants entitle them as institutions accountable to the Parliament or President. The authors of this article try to answer to some questions. First, what is regulation and what is an independent regulatory agency? Second, why regulatory agencies must be insulated from political influence? Third, how is it possible to define the organizational form of such institutions in Lithuania? Fourth, what is the exact place of such institutions in the system of public administration bodies of Lithuania? ; Kelis dešimtmečius iš eilės vyksta reguliavimo institucijų plėtra visame pasaulyje. Lietuvoje taip pat egzistuoja tokios institucijos, pvz., Lietuvos Bankas, Ryšių reguliavimo tarnyba, Konkurencijos taryba ir kt. Tačiau mūsų šalyje šioms institucijoms nėra taikomas joks jas apibrėžiantis terminas. Lietuvos mokslininkų straipsniuose šios įstaigos įvardijamos kitos Seimo formuojamos institucijos arba kontrolės funkcijas vykdančios institucijos, arba Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo sudarytos bei jam tiesiogiai atskaitingos institucijos, arba institucijos, atskaitingos ir atsakingos Seimui arba Respublikos Prezidentui, arba kiti centriniai subjektai. Oficialiame Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo tinklalapyje šios institucijos yra įvardytos Seimui atskaitingomis institucijomis. Vakaruose šie terminai yra dar įvairesni, pavyzdžiui, quango, NDPB, EGO, SAO. Tačiau Vakarų mokslinėje literatūroje dažniausiai vartojamas nepriklausomos reguliavimo agentūros terminas (IRA – independent regulatory agency). Nepaisant organizacinės nepriklausomų reguliavimo institucijų įvairovės, Vakarų mokslininkai skiria bendrus bruožus, būdingus minėtoms institucijoms. Pirma, šioms institucijoms kompetencija suteikiama įstatymais, taip pat jos vykdo įstatymus. Antra, organizaciškai jos yra atskirtos nuo vykdomosios valdžios institucijų. Trečia, jų nariai neturi būti renkami ir jų vadovai negali būti renkami pareigūnai. Minėta, Lietuvoje įprasta jas vadinti Seimui atskaitingomis institucijomis, nors tokių institucijų sistema apima ir subjektus, kurie nėra laikytini viešojo administravimo subjektais (pvz., teisėsaugos, ikiteisminio tyrimo institucijos), taip pat ir reguliavimo subjektais (pvz., patariamosios institucijos arba kontrolės institucijos). Įdomu ir tai, jog reguliavimo funkcijas vykdo ir vykdomosios valdžios institucijų sistemai priklausantys subjektai. Tai apsunkina galimybes apibrėžti Lietuvos reguliavimo institucijų sistemą bei suvokti šių institucijų veiklos ypatumus. Nors Vakarų mokslininkai kartais abejoja, ar reguliavimo institucijos priklauso viešajam sektoriui, vadinamajam "pilkosios zonos" sektoriui ar privačių interesų vyriausybės sektoriui, dauguma minėtų Lietuvos institucijų veikia viešojo administravimo sričių ribose, nes atlieka administracinį reglamentavimą, teikia administracines paslaugas, administruoja viešųjų paslaugų teikimą. Kokia pagrindinė priežastis atsirasti nepriklausomoms reguliavimo institucijoms ir kodėl politikai turėtų būti suinteresuoti jų steigimu? Pirmiausia, perduodami reguliavimo funkciją atskiroms institucijoms ir juose dirbantiems atitinkamos srities profesionalams, politikai padidina reguliavimo patikimumą. Antra, tokių institucijų nepriklausomumas neleidžia keistis reguliavimo politikai taip dažnai, kaip keičiasi politinė dauguma. Trečia, nepriklausomos reguliavimo institucijos, kaip teigia F. Gilardi, paplito tarptautiniu mastu, nes vienų institucijų steigimas vienoje šalyje skatina tokio paties statuso institucijų steigimą kitoje šalyje.

The European Union (EU) is implementing the concept of the circular economy (hereafter –CE) system, the main idea of which is to maintain the added value in products for as long as possible both to improve the quality of the environment and eliminate waste. These provisions presuppose the improvement of EU waste management systems and legal regulation. The European Commission proposed a legislative package for amending the main Directives related to waste management. The European Parliament and the Council adopted this document in 2018. The legislative package amends six Directives, which are the main components of the legal framework for waste management in the EU. These are systematic changes in EU waste law regulation and include: the modification of the waste management system; the alignment of definitions; and the formulation of new legal definitions (for example municipal waste, backfilling) or establishment of qualitative and quantitative indicators which cover the meaning of waste hierarchy. The aim of this article is to divulge the main legal changes, and to evaluate their content in the context of the concept of the CE.