Search results

The issue of international cooperation in criminal matters has interested legal theorists and practitioners for decades. In this area of law there are certain challenges that can only be tackled by using the joint efforts of the States, which is different from the national law of the States. For this reason, certain principles of law are specific for international cooperation, and on the basis of these principles States provide legal assistance requests to each other or else create preconditions to ensure the efficient and unimpeded criminal proceedings. It is true that the principles of mutual legal assistance and recognition, and the influence of their alternation are not identical to all segments of international cooperation, including the development of the evidence law in the European Union. With regard to the evidence and their admissibility in Member States of the European Union, it should be noted that this issue is still relevant, because the biggest concern of some Member States is the admissibility of evidence, when evidence is collected in one State and the admissibility of them is assessed in the other State. It would seem like a more formalized "concern", but basically it is a quite significant impulse for searching of new legal instruments in the European Union, which would be able not only ensure the acceptability (admissibility) of evidence that was collected in the foreign State in accordance with the relevant procedural form, and in the court of the State which obtained this evidence, but also the sovereignty of the State, the authenticity of the national law, and the respect for the legal culture and traditions of this State. The authors discuss the development of the law of evidence, the separate legal segments of this law, and their strengths and weaknesses in the article. Despite the fact that the effective mechanisms of evidence movement among Member States appear in modern European Union criminal justice, the latest legal instruments lack the clarity and certainty of certain procedural legal guarantees in the context of human rights protection.

Employing systematic document analysis and other methods, this article analyses a long-standing and still relevant issue related to the interpretation and application of the law regulating relationships in the field of European Union criminal justice within the framework of the national criminal proceedings that are taking place in EU member states. The article places special emphasis on the explanation and application of the principle of mutual recognition within the framework of one of the newest instruments of international cooperation in the European Union criminal proceedings meant to prevent conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction and to solve issues arising between two or more member states. The analysis of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction provided in this paper is not limited to a mere explanation of the concept as such, but includes an essential analysis of other related issues, such as the principle of mutual recognition, its influence on the recognition of criminal proceedings as parallel proceedings, and including other aspects related to the matching of the form of national criminal proceedings with the criminal proceedings taking place in another member state. Finally, significant attention is given to one of the objectives in terms of prevention and solution of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction, namely, the ne bis in idem principle and its application in case of parallel criminal proceedings taking place in two or more member states. One of the key conclusions offered here is that in order to eliminate conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction, positive law in the process of conflicts of jurisdiction must become an effective measure in criminal justice; however, only on the condition that at least a minimum likelihood in the form of criminal proceedings adopted by different EU members states is ensured as a precondition necessary to enable a smooth application of the principle of mutual recognition.

Despite the applicable general principles and essential standards provided for in the law, the right of vulnerable persons (i.e. children under 18 years of age and vulnerable adults, for example, adults with mental disabilities) to a fair hearing at different stages of criminal proceedings in the EU is not yet ensured to the full extent. Based on both EU and Lithuanian legal regulation, this article will review only the principal provisions concerning the allocation of victims, suspects, and accused persons to the category of "vulnerable persons". Due to the scope of the article, the vulnerability identification procedure falls outside this research. EU and national legislation suggest that early identification of vulnerability allows for the provision of specific protection measures during criminal proceedings. Analysis of EU and Lithuanian normative acts suggests that minor victims are a priori considered vulnerable and specific protection measures must apply in their case. Meanwhile, the vulnerability of adult victims and their specific protection needs are not assessed at any stage of the proceedings in Lithuania, although the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for certain specific protection measures for victims who, due to a public hearing or questioning, may be subject to "psychological trauma or other serious consequences". Given future EU requirements concerning suspected or accused children and current recommendations concerning the consideration of suspected or accused adults as vulnerable participants of the proceedings, Lithuanian legal regulations in this area must be improved.

Abstract
The issue of international cooperation in criminal matters has interested legal theorists and practitioners for decades. In this area of law there are certain challenges that can only be tackled by using the joint efforts of the States, which is different from the national law of the States. For this reason, certain principles of law are specific for international cooperation, and on the basis of these principles States provide legal assistance requests to each other or else create preconditions to ensure the efficient and unimpeded criminal proceedings. It is true that the principles of mutual legal assistance and recognition, and the influence of their alternation are not identical to all segments of international cooperation, including the development of the evidence law in the European Union.
With regard to the evidence and their admissibility in Member States of the European Union, it should be noted that this issue is still relevant, because the biggest concern of some Member States is the admissibility of evidence, when evidence is collected in one State and the admissibility of them is assessed in the other State. It would seem like a more formalized "concern", but basically it is a quite significant impulse for searching of new legal instruments in the European Union, which would be able not only ensure the acceptability (admissibility) of evidence that was collected in the foreign State in accordance with the relevant procedural form, and in the court of the State which obtained this evidence, but also the sovereignty of the State, the authenticity of the national law, and the respect for the legal culture and traditions of this State.
The authors discuss the development of the law of evidence, the separate legal segments of this law, and their strengths and weaknesses in the article. Despite the fact that the effective mechanisms of evidence movement among Member States appear in modern European Union criminal justice, the latest legal instruments lack the clarity and certainty of certain procedural legal guarantees in the context of human rights protection.

The authors discuss the development of the law of evidence, the separate legal segments of this law, and their strengths and weaknesses in the article. Despite the fact that the effective mechanisms of evidence movement among Member States appear in modern European Union criminal justice, the latest legal instruments lack the clarity and certainty of certain procedural legal guarantees in the context of human rights protection.

The authors discuss the development of the law of evidence, the separate legal segments of this law, and their strengths and weaknesses in the article. Despite the fact that the effective mechanisms of evidence movement among Member States appear in modern European Union criminal justice, the latest legal instruments lack the clarity and certainty of certain procedural legal guarantees in the context of human rights protection.

Employing systematic document analysis and other methods, this article analyses a long-standing and still relevant issue related to the interpretation and application of the law regulating relationships in the field of European Union criminal justice within the framework of the national criminal proceedings that are taking place in EU member states. The article places special emphasis on the explanation and application of the principle of mutual recognition within the framework of one of the newest instruments of international cooperation in the European Union criminal proceedings meant to prevent conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction and to solve issues arising between two or more member states. The analysis of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction provided in this paper is not limited to a mere explanation of the concept as such, but includes an essential analysis of other related issues, such as the principle of mutual recognition, its influence on the recognition of criminal proceedings as parallel proceedings, and including other aspects related to the matching of the form of national criminal proceedings with the criminal proceedings taking place in another member state. Finally, significant attention is given to one of the objectives in terms of prevention and solution of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction, namely, the ne bis in idem principle and its application in case of parallel criminal proceedings taking place in two or more member states. One of the key conclusions offered here is that in order to eliminate conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction, positive law in the process of conflicts of jurisdiction must become an effective measure in criminal justice; however, only on the condition that at least a minimum likelihood in the form of criminal proceedings adopted by different EU members states is ensured as a precondition necessary to enable a smooth application of the principle of mutual recognition.

ABSTRACT
Despite the applicable general principles and essential standards provided for in the law, the right of vulnerable persons (i.e. children under 18 years of age and vulnerable adults, for example, adults with mental disabilities) to a fair hearing at different stages of criminal proceedings in the EU is not yet ensured to the full extent. Based on both EU and Lithuanian legal regulation, this article will review only the principal provisions concerning the allocation of victims, suspects, and accused persons to the category of "vulnerable persons". Due to the scope of the article, the vulnerability identification procedure falls outside this research.
EU and national legislation suggest that early identification of vulnerability allows for the provision of specific protection measures during criminal proceedings. Analysis of EU and Lithuanian normative acts suggests that minor victims are a priori considered vulnerable and specific protection measures must apply in their case. Meanwhile, the vulnerability of adult victims and their specific protection needs are not assessed at any stage of the proceedings in Lithuania, although the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for certain specific protection measures for victims who, due to a public hearing or questioning, may be subject to "psychological trauma or other serious consequences". Given future EU requirements concerning suspected or accused children and current recommendations concerning the consideration of suspected or accused adults as vulnerable participants of the proceedings, Lithuanian legal regulations in this area must be improved.

The very concepts of violence, studies of its forms from the criminal law viewpoint may be instrumental in dissociating criminalised violent actions from non-criminalised though having a legal significance or the actions falling outside the area of criminal regulation; furthermore, such studies can help identify the actions that in criminal law should be viewed as socially useful (for instance, the circumstances excluding criminal responsibility). It should be noted that the concept of violence and identification of its expression forms have not only a theoretical value, but also, as has been by this study proven, is applicable in legislation (for instance, for the purpose of criminalising different types of violence), as well as in case law (for instance, when identifying possible violence manifestation options). In the light of the above the present paper focuses on the definition of violence, the possible forms of its manifestation; the authors also looked into the specific forms the coercive criminal acts can acquire in the legislation.

Attention is drawn towards problematic aspects of implementation of international legislation in national criminal law. The idea of international organised crime as of criminality without borders, and of the global problem is raised here. The study analyses the possibilities of confiscation of property; the reader's attention is drawn to extended confiscation of property; it evaluates the topicalities of consolidation of unjust enrichment, as a both radical and efficient measure in the criminal law, also other important issues pertaining to criminal justice. Simultaneously, institutional issues on international cooperation in criminal cases are considered. It is stated that in contemporary world, international legal cooperation in criminal cases is inevitable. Individual states and the European Union create and improve the newly emerging tools of legal cooperation, implement new principles of cooperation, and expand central powers of EU institutions in the cooperation process. Practical application of some new tools (for example, the European arrest warrant) proved their efficiency; it allows thinking that the created new tools, substantiated by application of the same principle of mutual acknowledgement (the European investigation order), will bring tangible results. [.]

Attention is drawn towards problematic aspects of implementation of international legislation in national criminal law. The idea of international organised crime as of criminality without borders, and of the global problem is raised here. The study analyses the possibilities of confiscation of property; the reader's attention is drawn to extended confiscation of property; it evaluates the topicalities of consolidation of unjust enrichment, as a both radical and efficient measure in the criminal law, also other important issues pertaining to criminal justice. Simultaneously, institutional issues on international cooperation in criminal cases are considered. It is stated that in contemporary world, international legal cooperation in criminal cases is inevitable. Individual states and the European Union create and improve the newly emerging tools of legal cooperation, implement new principles of cooperation, and expand central powers of EU institutions in the cooperation process. Practical application of some new tools (for example, the European arrest warrant) proved their efficiency; it allows thinking that the created new tools, substantiated by application of the same principle of mutual acknowledgement (the European investigation order), will bring tangible results. [.]

Just as we never get a second chance to make a good first impression, we may equally be deprived of a unique chance to act both as witnesses and evaluators of the centennial after regaining the independence of the Republic of Lithuania if we fail to review and assess this period. Therefore, we have to seize the opportunity and reflect upon the twisting path of our history since regaining the independence of the state until the current situation. The centennial development of law cannot be disembodied from the story of state's development. One can treat law both as a pathfinder and as a legal guide of the state; however it can likewise be applied as an instrument to solely ensure proper functioning of the state. Creating an effective system of law is not a one-day project; it is the process requiring deliberation, constant effort and deep awareness, otherwise the system will be doomed to failure or malfunctioning. Every state or nation is believed to deserve such a legal system as the efforts that the state puts to ascertain and develop it. The centennial period since the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania can unmistakably be described as a unique one: on the one hand the state was faced with the challenges of restoration and creation in various areas of the state and the society; it later experienced the loss of independence and survived 50 years of occupation; it eventually restored an independent state and was repeatedly faced with fresh challenges of re-establishing a historically-literate, well-structured and well-functioning state-governance system in both national and international levels. On the other hand, the technological and communications progress intensified the recent hundred years to such an extent that it clearly outdistances any previous centennials. Advancement of information technologies intensifies our time, our law, while huge amounts of information and its immense spread accelerate the pace of our life and our history. New forms of social relations and new branches of law emerge all in need of proper legal regulation. The study "The Development of the Lithuanian Law within the Period of 1918-2018: the Centennial Experience and Prospects" is a result of joint research efforts of more than 50 outstanding lawyers representing different areas of law from Mykolas Romeris University, Vytautas Magnus University, and Vilnius University. The study, dedicated to the Centennial of Lithuanian statehood due in 2018, presents the results of scientific research on legal science and major branches of law, covering the period of 1918-beginning of 2018 (information presented in the study covers a period until end-2017); it reflects upon the centennial development of Lithuanian law, discusses its major characteristics, tendencies and preconditions of their formation; it examines its influence on the state and state authorities and envisages possible impact on the development of law in the future. The Lithuanian law of 1918-2018 is analysed from the perspective of three statehood periods. 1918-1940 is the period when the independence of the Republic of Lithuania was declared, the groundwork for the statehood was laid and an independent legal system was being established. 1940- 1990 denotes the period of occupation, when the authentic legal system of Lithuania was destroyed and the Soviet legal system was forcibly entrenched. The latter was based on socialist ideology and the superiority of governmental authority over the civil society. It is not easy to evaluate the span of 1990- 2018 as the impartial assessment of it is seriously hindered by the authors' partial attitude towards the existing surrounding phenomena. [.]

Just as we never get a second chance to make a good first impression, we may equally be deprived of a unique chance to act both as witnesses and evaluators of the centennial after regaining the independence of the Republic of Lithuania if we fail to review and assess this period. Therefore, we have to seize the opportunity and reflect upon the twisting path of our history since regaining the independence of the state until the current situation. The centennial development of law cannot be disembodied from the story of state's development. One can treat law both as a pathfinder and as a legal guide of the state; however it can likewise be applied as an instrument to solely ensure proper functioning of the state. Creating an effective system of law is not a one-day project; it is the process requiring deliberation, constant effort and deep awareness, otherwise the system will be doomed to failure or malfunctioning. Every state or nation is believed to deserve such a legal system as the efforts that the state puts to ascertain and develop it. The centennial period since the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania can unmistakably be described as a unique one: on the one hand the state was faced with the challenges of restoration and creation in various areas of the state and the society; it later experienced the loss of independence and survived 50 years of occupation; it eventually restored an independent state and was repeatedly faced with fresh challenges of re-establishing a historically-literate, well-structured and well-functioning state-governance system in both national and international levels. On the other hand, the technological and communications progress intensified the recent hundred years to such an extent that it clearly outdistances any previous centennials. Advancement of information technologies intensifies our time, our law, while huge amounts of information and its immense spread accelerate the pace of our life and our history. New forms of social relations and new branches of law emerge all in need of proper legal regulation. The study "The Development of the Lithuanian Law within the Period of 1918-2018: the Centennial Experience and Prospects" is a result of joint research efforts of more than 50 outstanding lawyers representing different areas of law from Mykolas Romeris University, Vytautas Magnus University, and Vilnius University. The study, dedicated to the Centennial of Lithuanian statehood due in 2018, presents the results of scientific research on legal science and major branches of law, covering the period of 1918-beginning of 2018 (information presented in the study covers a period until end-2017); it reflects upon the centennial development of Lithuanian law, discusses its major characteristics, tendencies and preconditions of their formation; it examines its influence on the state and state authorities and envisages possible impact on the development of law in the future. The Lithuanian law of 1918-2018 is analysed from the perspective of three statehood periods. 1918-1940 is the period when the independence of the Republic of Lithuania was declared, the groundwork for the statehood was laid and an independent legal system was being established. 1940- 1990 denotes the period of occupation, when the authentic legal system of Lithuania was destroyed and the Soviet legal system was forcibly entrenched. The latter was based on socialist ideology and the superiority of governmental authority over the civil society. It is not easy to evaluate the span of 1990- 2018 as the impartial assessment of it is seriously hindered by the authors' partial attitude towards the existing surrounding phenomena. [.]