Suchergebnisse

During the time when Lithuania was incorporated into Soviet Union there was no opening for objective development of law history science. At the time when academical freedom was abolished, open scientific discussion possibility was dissolved and the system of restricted areas in social sciences was created, the main obstacle of this development arose which was the total claims of the state monopoly of mindset. The additional opportunities for reaching the goals of idiological nature were created by presenting law and state history in complex. The history of law was effected by explicit demand for "party membership" as were all the other sciences and it led to estimating all public and legal occurences and processes from perspective of revolutional working class that was considered to be the most consistent with the comunist party with its marxistic theory in the front lines. From the class party positions people representing law science were directed to unconditionally argue in favour of high standards of Soviet law, Soviet state and Soviet Lithuanian statehood as well as its sovereignty, democracy and other superficial advantages. It took great effort and time to assimilate and adjust to the new ideology and methodology of the Soviet legislation, at least to the extent that it allowed to see it as an object of scientific research study. Under these circumstances many of the scientific community preferred to research historical aspects of law as a specialised area which allowed better prospects of achieving at least some measure of outcome from scientific research. The superiority of historical data over the challenges of the Soviet law that had not been fully mastered yet resulted in increased attention to the history of law. The scientific undertakings in the area of the Soviet law was a waste of energy and potential in the eyes of researchers, especially since socialistic law was considered as doomed with no future prospects. However, this was not meant to completely discard the importance of such research. It produced a volume of historical and factual data, whereas the researchers involved acquired skills and experience which contributed to their future scientific undertakings.

During the time when Lithuania was incorporated into Soviet Union there was no opening for objective development of law history science. At the time when academical freedom was abolished, open scientific discussion possibility was dissolved and the system of restricted areas in social sciences was created, the main obstacle of this development arose which was the total claims of the state monopoly of mindset. The additional opportunities for reaching the goals of idiological nature were created by presenting law and state history in complex. The history of law was effected by explicit demand for "party membership" as were all the other sciences and it led to estimating all public and legal occurences and processes from perspective of revolutional working class that was considered to be the most consistent with the comunist party with its marxistic theory in the front lines. From the class party positions people representing law science were directed to unconditionally argue in favour of high standards of Soviet law, Soviet state and Soviet Lithuanian statehood as well as its sovereignty, democracy and other superficial advantages. It took great effort and time to assimilate and adjust to the new ideology and methodology of the Soviet legislation, at least to the extent that it allowed to see it as an object of scientific research study. Under these circumstances many of the scientific community preferred to research historical aspects of law as a specialised area which allowed better prospects of achieving at least some measure of outcome from scientific research. The superiority of historical data over the challenges of the Soviet law that had not been fully mastered yet resulted in increased attention to the history of law. The scientific undertakings in the area of the Soviet law was a waste of energy and potential in the eyes of researchers, especially since socialistic law was considered as doomed with no future prospects. However, this was not meant to completely discard the importance of such research. It produced a volume of historical and factual data, whereas the researchers involved acquired skills and experience which contributed to their future scientific undertakings.

This article is a response to the article named "Lithuanian Constitutional Acts of November 2nd, 1918, and April 4th, 1919: Two Separate Constitutions Or Two Editions Of The Same Constitutional Act?" written by professor J. Machovenko published in the Scientific works journal "Teisė", volume No. 104 (2017), where the author declares his opinion stating that judging by the formal features and content analysis the following act should be considered as the new Lithuanian Temporary Constitution rather than the new edition of the firstn one. This article describes the preparation for the reform of Fundamental Laws of Lithuanian Temporary Constitution in 1919 and portrays its course showing that it was iniciated and implemented without any purpose to replace the constitutional act with the new one. Only according to circumstances the temporary constitutional base for the temporary institution of the State President was established, however, not giving it the prominence till the final decision on the government form was to be made by Constituent Seimas. Therefore the approach of prof. J. Machovenko to consider this act as an independent act based on a formal legal argumentation is criticized.

This article is a response to the article named "Lithuanian Constitutional Acts of November 2nd, 1918, and April 4th, 1919: Two Separate Constitutions Or Two Editions Of The Same Constitutional Act?" written by professor J. Machovenko published in the Scientific works journal "Teisė", volume No. 104 (2017), where the author declares his opinion stating that judging by the formal features and content analysis the following act should be considered as the new Lithuanian Temporary Constitution rather than the new edition of the firstn one. This article describes the preparation for the reform of Fundamental Laws of Lithuanian Temporary Constitution in 1919 and portrays its course showing that it was iniciated and implemented without any purpose to replace the constitutional act with the new one. Only according to circumstances the temporary constitutional base for the temporary institution of the State President was established, however, not giving it the prominence till the final decision on the government form was to be made by Constituent Seimas. Therefore the approach of prof. J. Machovenko to consider this act as an independent act based on a formal legal argumentation is criticized.

Based on archival documentary materials and current information sources as supplemented by various opinions of scientists and practitioniers, this article investigates the efforts of the government to implement the 1933 judiciary reform. The Temporary Law on Lithuanian Courts and the Order of their Work of 1918 had been criticised even at the moment it was enacted by its creators. However, in real life it had proven sufficiently robust and acceptable to the masses. There was no rush to revise it, while attempts were made to soften the emerging deficiencies of court system procedures by making separate amendments to existing legislation. The judiciary system was marginally improved based on needs and circumstances as they arose. Only certain isolated areas relating to organisational procedures were affected by those changes. However, this proved insufficient in the long run. The coming reform meant a great deal of work involving legislative creation that required a decade of efforts from many specialists and people in the government. The first solid draft of the Law on Order of the Courts was completed in 1924. The creators of the draft identified the supplementation of the existing three-tier generalpurpose court system with two new tiers as the most important change in a bid to balance workloads between courts. The draft reached the Seimas, but was subsequently retracted by the government for further improvements. Several successive governments with different political views, representing different political parties that existed at the time, demonstrated various levels of care for the reform. Alongside those changes in power, several different versions were proposed for the coming legislation. Upon establishment of the State Council in 1928, preparation of the relevant legislation was handed over to it. With the approval of the Cabinet of Ministers, the president of the Republic enacted the draft as a law on 11 July 1933. The courts of Lithuania managed to become a reliable, qualified and moral constitutional establishment during the time of independence.

Based on archival documentary materials and current information sources as supplemented by various opinions of scientists and practitioniers, this article investigates the efforts of the government to implement the 1933 judiciary reform. The Temporary Law on Lithuanian Courts and the Order of their Work of 1918 had been criticised even at the moment it was enacted by its creators. However, in real life it had proven sufficiently robust and acceptable to the masses. There was no rush to revise it, while attempts were made to soften the emerging deficiencies of court system procedures by making separate amendments to existing legislation. The judiciary system was marginally improved based on needs and circumstances as they arose. Only certain isolated areas relating to organisational procedures were affected by those changes. However, this proved insufficient in the long run. The coming reform meant a great deal of work involving legislative creation that required a decade of efforts from many specialists and people in the government. The first solid draft of the Law on Order of the Courts was completed in 1924. The creators of the draft identified the supplementation of the existing three-tier generalpurpose court system with two new tiers as the most important change in a bid to balance workloads between courts. The draft reached the Seimas, but was subsequently retracted by the government for further improvements. Several successive governments with different political views, representing different political parties that existed at the time, demonstrated various levels of care for the reform. Alongside those changes in power, several different versions were proposed for the coming legislation. Upon establishment of the State Council in 1928, preparation of the relevant legislation was handed over to it. With the approval of the Cabinet of Ministers, the president of the Republic enacted the draft as a law on 11 July 1933. The courts of Lithuania managed to become a reliable, qualified and moral constitutional establishment during the time of independence.

The article describes the factors which determined that Lithuania (State) Council under extremely complicated political circumstances in 1918 managed to declare independence and consolidate the grounds of statehood in temporary constitutional act and soon after the further actions of statehood restoration were transfered to the government. One of the most important factors is considered to be the representation problem of the Council. Under the efforts of Vilnius Conference of Lithuanians in 1917 the Council was constituted of people representing all the political spectrum of Lithuanian society. Although right after the legal grounds for becoming the temporary consitutional parlamentary institution were layed while acting under extremely complicated conditions, the Council did not fend for maintaining its own political structure not only by becoming reconciled with defection of the Left element and not putting effort into political balance restoration but also by further expanding and strengthening representation of the Right. Only at the turn of 1918–1919 complicated political situation of regenerative Lithuanian state forced the Lithuanian political figures to involve the missing representatives of the Left-winged society into active participation of the political power. This was achieved not by supplementing the existent composition of the Council but by forming a goverment under a broadly based political coalition with the superiority of the Left alongside. Preponderant positions in the state were transfered to the government including the newly accepted constitutional provisions consolidating the main contitutional parlamentary powers, first of all including the legislative power. The attempt to restore the dominant position in the apex of the state did not manage to counteract the increased potential of the executive whilst in the autumn of 1919 the political situation was stabilized. After losing its authority and confidence in society the Council evolved into auxiliary public institution, the appendage to the authority, and became an odd sign under which the restoration of the state was held by the government till the summoning of the Constituent Seimas.

The article describes the factors which determined that Lithuania (State) Council under extremely complicated political circumstances in 1918 managed to declare independence and consolidate the grounds of statehood in temporary constitutional act and soon after the further actions of statehood restoration were transfered to the government. One of the most important factors is considered to be the representation problem of the Council. Under the efforts of Vilnius Conference of Lithuanians in 1917 the Council was constituted of people representing all the political spectrum of Lithuanian society. Although right after the legal grounds for becoming the temporary consitutional parlamentary institution were layed while acting under extremely complicated conditions, the Council did not fend for maintaining its own political structure not only by becoming reconciled with defection of the Left element and not putting effort into political balance restoration but also by further expanding and strengthening representation of the Right. Only at the turn of 1918–1919 complicated political situation of regenerative Lithuanian state forced the Lithuanian political figures to involve the missing representatives of the Left-winged society into active participation of the political power. This was achieved not by supplementing the existent composition of the Council but by forming a goverment under a broadly based political coalition with the superiority of the Left alongside. Preponderant positions in the state were transfered to the government including the newly accepted constitutional provisions consolidating the main contitutional parlamentary powers, first of all including the legislative power. The attempt to restore the dominant position in the apex of the state did not manage to counteract the increased potential of the executive whilst in the autumn of 1919 the political situation was stabilized. After losing its authority and confidence in society the Council evolved into auxiliary public institution, the appendage to the authority, and became an odd sign under which the restoration of the state was held by the government till the summoning of the Constituent Seimas.

the High Tribunal turned into the court of appeal for the cases tried by the general competence courts, military competence courts and the courts of Klaipeda region. There were developed and regulated the possibilities of law interpretation and application equalization as well as setting the distribution of cases and some functions of administrative court. It remained the trial of cases brought against the President of the Republic and the members of government for high treason and malfeasance as the first instance. The article describes the structure, practice organization and statistical data on practice load analyzing the complaints against the decisions of the lower courts as well as the practice on law interpretation of the Tribunal, which was regarded as one of the most important functions of the Tribunal.