Suchergebnisse

An origin, an history of an institute of the court's penal order (hereinafter – penal order) (a form of a simplified criminal process'es model), an influence of the European criminal procedure laws on the criminal code of procedure (hereinafter – the CCP) of the Republic of Lithuania is briefly presented within an introduction of the Master's thesis (hereinafter – Thesis). In addition, some principles of legal regulation and the requirements of legal technique (hereinafter – Requirements) are represented. An hypothesis is then formed that legal regulations of the penal order's issuing process (regulated in the CCP of Lithuania) that violate the principles, Requirements raise problems of applying the institute of the penal order. In order to test the hypothesis, a concept of the penal order's issuing process is represented and the most possibly problematic legal regulations identified in the research. Furthermore, there are ascertained which identified legal regulations conflict with the principles, Requirements; proper legal regulations is then proposed to alter or supplement some provisions of the CCP of Lithuania. The structure of the Thesis includes 2 chapters, 4 paragraphs, conclusions and recommendations for the legislator. In the first chapter (the analysis of the concept of the penal order's issuing process), the penal order issuing process, which is similar in whole jurisdictions, is briefly presented highlighting it's essential features. The second chapter consists of 4 paragraphs that provide the identification of the most possibly problematic legal regulations and statements if and why the legislator violated the principles and Requirements. In the first paragraph, a first problem of the applying of the institute of the penal order is analysed, identifying, that an opportunity to misinterpret the Art. 418 (4), 420 (1) of the CCP exists. Considering the fact that an implied, supplementing and extending the explicit legal regulation, legal regulation is not clear to a law applier (in this case – a prosecutor), because it needs to clarify a legislator's will so that he / she would not send investigating materials and a statement of the completion of the process by the penal order's issuing process to a court before this court examins a victim's complaint to that, there are ascertained violations of the principle of clarity and the Requirement that legal regulation shall prevent misinterpreting legal norms. There has been resumed that, in order to ensure a purpose of this legal regulation (a victim's title to appeal a prosecutor's decision on completing the process by the way of the penal order in a court. Consequently, in case of this appeal's outcomes' appearing in favor of the victim, the decision would be announced as ineffective and the prosecutor would lose the right to send investigating materials and the statement of the completion of the process by the penal order's issuing process to the court), the legislator shall clearly (expressis verbis) supplement into the Art. 418 (3) of the CCP a prosecutor's title to apply to a court for issuing a penal order exclusively after a deadline of possibility to implement a victim's right to appeal a prosecutor's decision of completing process by a penal order and a date of receipt of data about not-receiving the appeal from the court, or, in case of receiving it, upon receipt of a copy of the court's decision on the victim's appeal. In the second paragraph, an issue of possibility of misinterpreting the Art. 423 (1), 420 (1), 234 (2) that enables malpractise of removing substantial violations of the CCP in the same manner as unclear case's circumstances, although they are different in nature, is solved. A conclusion was drawn that the problematic legal regulation violates the clarity principle, Requirements that legal norms shall be understandable to the adressees, formulated clearly, simply, there shall be prevented possibility of interpreting them illegaly, because, in case of substantial violations of the CCP, the law applier sees alternative, but not-fulfilling legislator's will, a not-justified way of applying it. It usually applies the Art of 420 (1(2)) (transferring the process from the simplified into the common criminal procedure's model when a judge detects substantial violations of the CCP within case's materials, although the transferring is executed exclusively in case of unclear case's circumstances (the Art. 423 (1), 420 (1(2))), not substantial violations of the CCP, because unclear case's circumstances might be removed in a court, but substantial violations of the CCP might not), 234 (2) of the CCP (returning case's materials then to a prosecutor so that he / she would remove the substantial violations of the CCP), instead of the implicit Art. 234 (2) of the CCP (directly returning case's materials to the prosecutor, without applying the Art of 420 (1(2)) prior (indirectly)). The third paragraph deals with a problem when it is impossible to serve a penal order on the accused in case of his / her hiding and he / she not-having other actors mentioned in the Art. 422 (1) of the CCP. In such a case, the penal order does not acquire legal force, the risk of reaching limitation period becomes large. It is researched whether: 1) in case of participating of a defense attorney in the process, is it possible to serve the penal order on him / her; 2) in case of his / her not-participation, might legal norms, regulating persons' search, be held as implicit, and the term of a defendant's submitting a demand of trying a case in a court be started to count after he / she has been found and with the penal order served; 3) shall a state's institutions' duty to ensure a defendant's title to pick up the penal order on his / her own initiative be held as a better alternative; 4) is a proposal of the Supreme Court of Lithuania to start the counting from the receipt of data about defendant's hiding justified. The findings show the breach of principles of systematic (the legal norms are inconsistent), effectiveness (the most efficient alternative has not been chosen. As the most efficient one shall be held a state's institutions' duty to ensure a defendant's title to pick up the penal order on his / her own initiative. The court could send it him / her per e-mail, mail or leave in the court)), Requirements that legal regulation shall be easily implemented, unsophisticated. In the fourth paragraph, a problem of prohibiting a prosecutor to submit a demand of trying a case in a court according to the common rules of the criminal procedure is tackled. There was concluded that the legislator violated the principles of effectiveness, systematic, the Requirement that legal norms shall be consistent, because the legal regulation is not constitutionally justified, in accordance with it, a prevention of human (a prosecutor's, a judge's) errors is not carried, there are no other opportunities for these subjects to correct those errors, the principle of equality is violated. As a better alternative shall be held allowing a prosecutor to submit a demand of trying a case in a court. As a result, a content of conclusions drawn in the paragraphs are presented. Furthermore, it is resumed that the hypothesis confirmed fully itself. In the recommendations for the legislator, there is suggested to revise the problematic legal regulations, submitted concrete alterations of the CCP.