Contracting authorities and courts have a duty not to disclose confidential information of suppliers. The main focus of this article is the duty of confidentiality in contrast with requirements of effective competition and the rights of defense. European Union directives and the law of Lithuania of Republic do not regulate the exact limits of duty of confidentiality in public procurement. However, Court of Justice of the European Union holds that the principle of the protection of confidential information and of business secrets must be observed in such a way as to reconcile it with the requirements of effective legal protection and the rights of defense of the parties to the dispute in such a way as to ensure that the proceedings as a whole accord with the right to a fair trial. The conclusions are that the principle of effective competition demands that the confidential information should not be disclosed, because the protection of confidential information allows to ensure the competition in public procurement. On the other hand, the principle of effectiveness demands that the court should thoroughly analyze the factual circumstances of the case and to be assured that the public procurement procedures were carried out properly and without any breach of public procurement principles and legal acts
Contracting authorities and courts have a duty not to disclose confidential information of suppliers. The main focus of this article is the duty of confidentiality in contrast with requirements of effective competition and the rights of defense. European Union directives and the law of Lithuania of Republic do not regulate the exact limits of duty of confidentiality in public procurement. However, Court of Justice of the European Union holds that the principle of the protection of confidential information and of business secrets must be observed in such a way as to reconcile it with the requirements of effective legal protection and the rights of defense of the parties to the dispute in such a way as to ensure that the proceedings as a whole accord with the right to a fair trial. The conclusions are that the principle of effective competition demands that the confidential information should not be disclosed, because the protection of confidential information allows to ensure the competition in public procurement. On the other hand, the principle of effectiveness demands that the court should thoroughly analyze the factual circumstances of the case and to be assured that the public procurement procedures were carried out properly and without any breach of public procurement principles and legal acts
The article examines the main aspects of restrictions of freedom of speech. The spread of ideas and opinions could be limited if the purpose of such limitation is information as such. Also, freedom of speech could be limited by prohibiting other acts, when the limitation of freedom of speech comes as a result of such legal regulation. Also, the object of restriction may be speech as well as actions, but the First Amendment protects only the pure speech. The main purpose in solving the issues concerning the restrictions of freedom of speech is to identify whether these restrictions fulfill the requirements of the First Amendment. The leading standard in solving these problems is the doctrine of the clear and present danger test. The First Amendment does not permit to restrict the freedom of speech except where such use of speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. The other principle to restrict the use of freedom of speech is damage, which could not be avoided in the case when even more discussions about certain question could not reduce the amount of such damage. Also, if the use of freedom of speech has no social value and does not contribute to the meaningful and free spread of ideas in the society, such use of freedom of speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Such provision for freedom of speech shows that this freedom plays one of the exceptional roles in the system of human rights in the Unites States of America. The significance of freedom of speech to the democracy and the Supreme Court jurisprudence provides freedom of speech with certain supremacy in comparison to other human rights. At first glance the legal regulation of the First Amendment appears to be quite clear and unambiguous. But, in reality, the application of this legal rule is very complicated. The United States has been solving the issues of freedom of speech for one hundred years already, while Europe has been dealing with these issues for just about fifty years. This justifies the importance of the United States experience in solving the problems of freedom of speech. The legal protections of the First Amendment are among the broadest as is known in the world because of the importance of the First Amendment to the democratic society and to the marketplace of ideas. The article examines the main aspects of restrictions of freedom of speech. The spread of ideas and opinions could be limited if the purpose of such limitation is information as such. Also, freedom of speech could be limited by prohibiting other acts, when the limitation of freedom of speech comes as a result of such legal regulation. Also, the object of restriction may be speech as well as actions, but the First Amendment protects only the pure speech. The main purpose in solving the issues concerning the restrictions of freedom of speech is to identify whether these restrictions fulfill the requirements of the First Amendment. The leading standard in solving these problems is the doctrine of the clear and present danger test. The First Amendment does not permit to restrict the freedom of speech except where such use of speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. The other principle to restrict the use of freedom of speech is damage, which could not be avoided in the case when even more discussions about certain question could not reduce the amount of such damage. Also, if the use of freedom of speech has no social value and does not contribute to the meaningful and free spread of ideas in the society, such use of freedom of speech is not protected by the First Amendment. ; Europoje, analizuojant žodžio laisvės įtvirtinimo būdus, ribojimo pagrindus bei taisykles, kuriomis remdamiesi teismai sprendžia, ar žodžio laisvės apribojimai yra teisėti, dažniausiai yra taikomas Europos žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos 10 straipsnis bei vadinamasis balansavimo principas. Sprendžiant ginčus žodžio laisvė kaskart yra sugretinama su toje situacijoje žodžio laisvei prieštaraujančia vertybe ar kito asmens teise (pvz., asmens teise į privatumą) ir, atsižvelgiant į visas bylos faktines aplinkybes, analizuojama, kuriai asmens teisei būtent toje situacijoje reikėtų suteikti pirmenybę. Tuo tarpu Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų žodžio laisvės įtvirtinimo pobūdis, ribojimo pagrindai bei teismų taikomos taisyklės gerokai skiriasi nuo europietiškosios tradicijos. Atsižvelgiant į tai, kad Jungtinės Amerikos Valstijos žodžio laisvės bei jos ribojimo pagrindų teisinius klausimus sprendžia jau apie šimtą metų, o Europa tokio pobūdžio ginčus sprendžia tik apie penkiasdešimt metų, būtų vertinga išanalizuoti esmines žodžio laisvės sampratos Jungtinėse Amerikos Valstijose ypatybes.
This scientific study is the sequel of works from the Department of Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law at Mykolas Romeris University, aimed at widening the knowledge about constitutions and democratic constitutionalism in the context of comparative constitutional law. It should be noted that after 11 March 1990 the independent Lithuanian state was restored, and no studies about constitutions of other countries or constitutional development experience in Europe and other regions of the world were published. The educational publication "Constitutions of Foreign Countries" was released in order to fill this gap, at least partially. The texts of the constitutions of the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (non-consolidated constitutions), the Finnish Republic, the Estonian Republic, the Latvian Republic, the Polish Republic, the United States of America and the Russian Federation were published within. The texts were translated from the respective foreign languages. Compilers of the publication wrote afterwards that it was sought to present the constitutions in the Lithuanian language which was very important in the awakening of constitutionalism, as well as the constitutions that expressed specific political and legal features in Europe. [.]
This scientific study is the sequel of works from the Department of Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law at Mykolas Romeris University, aimed at widening the knowledge about constitutions and democratic constitutionalism in the context of comparative constitutional law. It should be noted that after 11 March 1990 the independent Lithuanian state was restored, and no studies about constitutions of other countries or constitutional development experience in Europe and other regions of the world were published. The educational publication "Constitutions of Foreign Countries" was released in order to fill this gap, at least partially. The texts of the constitutions of the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (non-consolidated constitutions), the Finnish Republic, the Estonian Republic, the Latvian Republic, the Polish Republic, the United States of America and the Russian Federation were published within. The texts were translated from the respective foreign languages. Compilers of the publication wrote afterwards that it was sought to present the constitutions in the Lithuanian language which was very important in the awakening of constitutionalism, as well as the constitutions that expressed specific political and legal features in Europe. [.]
