Suchergebnisse

Mediation procedures started to be applied in Lithuania more than a decade ago. They made premises for discussions about mediators' duties and their volume in mediation. Although mediation in Lithuania is not widely applied, discussions about the quality of mediation procedures and the suitability of mediators' qualification arise. In the USA and Canada, where these procedures are widely applied, it is acknowledged that it is purposeful to analyse the civil liability of a mediator. However, in Lithuania the question of civil liability of a mediator has not been comprehensively discussed in the doctrine of law or judicial practice. Civil liability of mediator might arise while breaking the main duties in the process: confidence, impartiality, neutrality, mediator competence, legal actions, proper mediation documents. The list of duties is not complete since the question of civil liability might arise while breaking other duties. Civil liability has to be considered individually in each situation. Immunity of mediator in different countries is different (absolute, partial, contractual). Absolute immunity of mediator is mostly acknowledged in the states of common law. For example, in some states of the USA. Usually, court mediators have absolute immunity, but in some states (Florida) private mediators have such immunity as well. Absolute immunity should be applied in spite of the fact that mediators do not have a decisive power in mediation procedure. In application of partial immunity, parties in mediation procedure have the right to demand civil liability of mediator because of illegal, deliberate actions. At the same time a mediator is protected from civil liability as he cannot be sued for making accidental or unpremeditated mistakes in mediation process. Immunity of mediator might be provided in mediation agreement, too. [.]

Mediation procedures started to be applied in Lithuania more than a decade ago. They made premises for discussions about mediators' duties and their volume in mediation. Although mediation in Lithuania is not widely applied, discussions about the quality of mediation procedures and the suitability of mediators' qualification arise. In the USA and Canada, where these procedures are widely applied, it is acknowledged that it is purposeful to analyse the civil liability of a mediator. However, in Lithuania the question of civil liability of a mediator has not been comprehensively discussed in the doctrine of law or judicial practice. Civil liability of mediator might arise while breaking the main duties in the process: confidence, impartiality, neutrality, mediator competence, legal actions, proper mediation documents. The list of duties is not complete since the question of civil liability might arise while breaking other duties. Civil liability has to be considered individually in each situation. Immunity of mediator in different countries is different (absolute, partial, contractual). Absolute immunity of mediator is mostly acknowledged in the states of common law. For example, in some states of the USA. Usually, court mediators have absolute immunity, but in some states (Florida) private mediators have such immunity as well. Absolute immunity should be applied in spite of the fact that mediators do not have a decisive power in mediation procedure. In application of partial immunity, parties in mediation procedure have the right to demand civil liability of mediator because of illegal, deliberate actions. At the same time a mediator is protected from civil liability as he cannot be sued for making accidental or unpremeditated mistakes in mediation process. Immunity of mediator might be provided in mediation agreement, too. [.]

The institute of the rude work duty violation just recently has appeared in the Labor Law - when the new Labor Code came into effect. The concept of this violation and the consolidation of the non-finite list of the rude work duty violation cause many problems in applying those rules of law in the practice. The definition of the rude work duty violation given in the Labor Code is not clear and comprehensive; the given list of violations is just an example; the position of legislator to consolidate other violations breaking the working order in a rude way causes various evaluation and interpretation problems. In the Labor Law doctrine and practice emerge the disagreements regarding those other cases mentioned in the Article 235 Section 2 Clause 11 of the Labor Code. Therefore in this work the concept of the rude work duty violation is being analyzed at first and later, regarding the systemic Labor Code explanations and the directions given by the Supreme Court of Lithuania, there are attempts to reveal the features and criterions according which other violations which are not listed in the Labor Code are attributed to the rude work duty violation. In this work it was important to highlight the most actual questions regarding the application of the clause 11 of this article and to explain how the conclusions of the Supreme Court of Lithuania are coherent with legal regulations and to reveal the relevance of it. The institute of the rude work duty violation is very important in the Labor law because it allows to the employer to apply the most rigorous disciplinary punishment for the single rude work duty violation – to stand off. This work is useful and relevant not only because of given comprehensive analysis of violations breaking the working order, but and because of the clear and precise presentation of the disciplinary punishments in order to apply suitably the disciplinary responsibility rising because of the rude work duty violation.

The institute of the rude work duty violation just recently has appeared in the Labor Law - when the new Labor Code came into effect. The concept of this violation and the consolidation of the non-finite list of the rude work duty violation cause many problems in applying those rules of law in the practice. The definition of the rude work duty violation given in the Labor Code is not clear and comprehensive; the given list of violations is just an example; the position of legislator to consolidate other violations breaking the working order in a rude way causes various evaluation and interpretation problems. In the Labor Law doctrine and practice emerge the disagreements regarding those other cases mentioned in the Article 235 Section 2 Clause 11 of the Labor Code. Therefore in this work the concept of the rude work duty violation is being analyzed at first and later, regarding the systemic Labor Code explanations and the directions given by the Supreme Court of Lithuania, there are attempts to reveal the features and criterions according which other violations which are not listed in the Labor Code are attributed to the rude work duty violation. In this work it was important to highlight the most actual questions regarding the application of the clause 11 of this article and to explain how the conclusions of the Supreme Court of Lithuania are coherent with legal regulations and to reveal the relevance of it. The institute of the rude work duty violation is very important in the Labor law because it allows to the employer to apply the most rigorous disciplinary punishment for the single rude work duty violation – to stand off. This work is useful and relevant not only because of given comprehensive analysis of violations breaking the working order, but and because of the clear and precise presentation of the disciplinary punishments in order to apply suitably the disciplinary responsibility rising because of the rude work duty violation.

Science and politics are part and parcel of law regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and products (GMP) made from them. This work analyses development of law regulation of GMO (GMP) in ES and Lithuanian Republic. Such problems as ethical attitude towards usage of human genes in food production, distinction of ES isntitutions and member states according to their position, in purpose to forbid deliberate release of GMO into environment, problems of society involvment in taking decisions about GMO (GMP) in ES and Lithuanian Republic, inefficiency of public institute of "motivated opinion" (public comments) are disscussed in this work. Such topics as realisation of ES rules for definition of sanctions for breaking laws of GMO (GMP) usage in Lithuania Republic and rules of international contracts, such as Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity and Orhus convention, and their influence upon law regulation in ES and Lithuanian Republic are also disscussed here.

Science and politics are part and parcel of law regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and products (GMP) made from them. This work analyses development of law regulation of GMO (GMP) in ES and Lithuanian Republic. Such problems as ethical attitude towards usage of human genes in food production, distinction of ES isntitutions and member states according to their position, in purpose to forbid deliberate release of GMO into environment, problems of society involvment in taking decisions about GMO (GMP) in ES and Lithuanian Republic, inefficiency of public institute of "motivated opinion" (public comments) are disscussed in this work. Such topics as realisation of ES rules for definition of sanctions for breaking laws of GMO (GMP) usage in Lithuania Republic and rules of international contracts, such as Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity and Orhus convention, and their influence upon law regulation in ES and Lithuanian Republic are also disscussed here.

Science and politics are part and parcel of law regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and products (GMP) made from them. This work analyses development of law regulation of GMO (GMP) in ES and Lithuanian Republic. Such problems as ethical attitude towards usage of human genes in food production, distinction of ES isntitutions and member states according to their position, in purpose to forbid deliberate release of GMO into environment, problems of society involvment in taking decisions about GMO (GMP) in ES and Lithuanian Republic, inefficiency of public institute of "motivated opinion" (public comments) are disscussed in this work. Such topics as realisation of ES rules for definition of sanctions for breaking laws of GMO (GMP) usage in Lithuania Republic and rules of international contracts, such as Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity and Orhus convention, and their influence upon law regulation in ES and Lithuanian Republic are also disscussed here.

Science and politics are part and parcel of law regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and products (GMP) made from them. This work analyses development of law regulation of GMO (GMP) in ES and Lithuanian Republic. Such problems as ethical attitude towards usage of human genes in food production, distinction of ES isntitutions and member states according to their position, in purpose to forbid deliberate release of GMO into environment, problems of society involvment in taking decisions about GMO (GMP) in ES and Lithuanian Republic, inefficiency of public institute of "motivated opinion" (public comments) are disscussed in this work. Such topics as realisation of ES rules for definition of sanctions for breaking laws of GMO (GMP) usage in Lithuania Republic and rules of international contracts, such as Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity and Orhus convention, and their influence upon law regulation in ES and Lithuanian Republic are also disscussed here.

Based on social representations theory, the paper focuses on the communication of attitudes towards childless women in politics in one of the Internet news sites. One article case was selected, and a qualitative content analysis of comments (365) was conducted. The article and the content of comments were on childless women in politics. The predominant hegemonic social representation is most commonly reflected via an argument that childless women lack practical experience; therefore, they could not represent the interests of families with children. The chosen method allows expressing more radical and aggressive attitudes towards childless women roles. The polemic social representation opposes hegemonic attitudes through the arguments breaking the interlink between female procreation role and their role in the public sphere, also through the critique of double standards. Finally, emancipatory social representation undertakes the neutral position, emphasizing the freedom of choice. Thematic anchoring is the most common communicative mechanism in all three types of social representations.

Based on social representations theory, the paper focuses on the communication of attitudes towards childless women in politics in one of the Internet news sites. One article case was selected, and a qualitative content analysis of comments (365) was conducted. The article and the content of comments were on childless women in politics. The predominant hegemonic social representation is most commonly reflected via an argument that childless women lack practical experience; therefore, they could not represent the interests of families with children. The chosen method allows expressing more radical and aggressive attitudes towards childless women roles. The polemic social representation opposes hegemonic attitudes through the arguments breaking the interlink between female procreation role and their role in the public sphere, also through the critique of double standards. Finally, emancipatory social representation undertakes the neutral position, emphasizing the freedom of choice. Thematic anchoring is the most common communicative mechanism in all three types of social representations.

Based on social representations theory, the paper focuses on the communication of attitudes towards childless women in politics in one of the Internet news sites. One article case was selected, and a qualitative content analysis of comments (365) was conducted. The article and the content of comments were on childless women in politics. The predominant hegemonic social representation is most commonly reflected via an argument that childless women lack practical experience; therefore, they could not represent the interests of families with children. The chosen method allows expressing more radical and aggressive attitudes towards childless women roles. The polemic social representation opposes hegemonic attitudes through the arguments breaking the interlink between female procreation role and their role in the public sphere, also through the critique of double standards. Finally, emancipatory social representation undertakes the neutral position, emphasizing the freedom of choice. Thematic anchoring is the most common communicative mechanism in all three types of social representations.

Based on social representations theory, the paper focuses on the communication of attitudes towards childless women in politics in one of the Internet news sites. One article case was selected, and a qualitative content analysis of comments (365) was conducted. The article and the content of comments were on childless women in politics. The predominant hegemonic social representation is most commonly reflected via an argument that childless women lack practical experience; therefore, they could not represent the interests of families with children. The chosen method allows expressing more radical and aggressive attitudes towards childless women roles. The polemic social representation opposes hegemonic attitudes through the arguments breaking the interlink between female procreation role and their role in the public sphere, also through the critique of double standards. Finally, emancipatory social representation undertakes the neutral position, emphasizing the freedom of choice. Thematic anchoring is the most common communicative mechanism in all three types of social representations.

Constitutional law is the supreme law, which is developed via jurisprudence of a Constitutional Court. No act of legislation may contradict the Constitution, nobody is allowed to break the law of Constitution, constitutional law and order must be protected and the Constitution itself determines if acts of legislation contradict the Constitution or not. Disregard to the mentioned requirements is considered breaking a constitutional principle of a legal state. Purpose of the Constitutional Court is to execute constitutional justice, guarantee superiority of Constitution in the system of law and ensure constitutional legitimacy. The Constitutional Court must obey the final laws of it's own. Final laws shackle the Constitutional Court by not allowing it to change the laws if there is no constitutional reason to do so. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court ensures continuation of the constitutional jurisprudence and predictability of it's decisions, therefore sustaining stability of whole law system. Constitutional jurisprudence, formed by the Constitutional Court, determines the constitutional justice and legitimacy in a decisions and laws made by courts. Justice pursuit function determines independence of a judge and a court: courts must ensure justice and order, guarantee superiority of law and protect human freedom and rights. Purpose of the court instance system is to solve possible mistakes of lower instance courts, prevent breaking the law and therefore protect rights and rightful interests of person and society. Court instance system, described in the Constitution, must function accordingly to the constitutional principles and allow one practice of courts to be formed, which will ensure cases being solved in the same way, by following already formed precedents, corresponding to constitutional justice principles, which is revealed in presented verdicts. Obligation of court to suspend a case and appeal to the Constitutional Court with a request to investigate an act of legislation match for the Constitution is an expressis verbis described in the Constitution. Court doesn't have a locus standi to appeal to the Constitutional Court with a request to investigate if a law or other act of legislation, which should not be applied in solving that kind of cases, is contradicting the Constitution. Constitutional justice jurisprudence, formed by the Constitutional Court determines a requirement, that all courts must ensure, that decisions they make are corresponding to constitutional justice and legitimacy. The Constitutional Court justice jurisprudence ensures, that the justice executed by courts is corresponding to the highest measure of justice – the Constitution. Ensuring superiority of the Constitution and protecting the constitutional order is the purpose of judicial power.

Constitutional law is the supreme law, which is developed via jurisprudence of a Constitutional Court. No act of legislation may contradict the Constitution, nobody is allowed to break the law of Constitution, constitutional law and order must be protected and the Constitution itself determines if acts of legislation contradict the Constitution or not. Disregard to the mentioned requirements is considered breaking a constitutional principle of a legal state. Purpose of the Constitutional Court is to execute constitutional justice, guarantee superiority of Constitution in the system of law and ensure constitutional legitimacy. The Constitutional Court must obey the final laws of it's own. Final laws shackle the Constitutional Court by not allowing it to change the laws if there is no constitutional reason to do so. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court ensures continuation of the constitutional jurisprudence and predictability of it's decisions, therefore sustaining stability of whole law system. Constitutional jurisprudence, formed by the Constitutional Court, determines the constitutional justice and legitimacy in a decisions and laws made by courts. Justice pursuit function determines independence of a judge and a court: courts must ensure justice and order, guarantee superiority of law and protect human freedom and rights. Purpose of the court instance system is to solve possible mistakes of lower instance courts, prevent breaking the law and therefore protect rights and rightful interests of person and society. Court instance system, described in the Constitution, must function accordingly to the constitutional principles and allow one practice of courts to be formed, which will ensure cases being solved in the same way, by following already formed precedents, corresponding to constitutional justice principles, which is revealed in presented verdicts. Obligation of court to suspend a case and appeal to the Constitutional Court with a request to investigate an act of legislation match for the Constitution is an expressis verbis described in the Constitution. Court doesn't have a locus standi to appeal to the Constitutional Court with a request to investigate if a law or other act of legislation, which should not be applied in solving that kind of cases, is contradicting the Constitution. Constitutional justice jurisprudence, formed by the Constitutional Court determines a requirement, that all courts must ensure, that decisions they make are corresponding to constitutional justice and legitimacy. The Constitutional Court justice jurisprudence ensures, that the justice executed by courts is corresponding to the highest measure of justice – the Constitution. Ensuring superiority of the Constitution and protecting the constitutional order is the purpose of judicial power.

Constitutional law is the supreme law, which is developed via jurisprudence of a Constitutional Court. No act of legislation may contradict the Constitution, nobody is allowed to break the law of Constitution, constitutional law and order must be protected and the Constitution itself determines if acts of legislation contradict the Constitution or not. Disregard to the mentioned requirements is considered breaking a constitutional principle of a legal state. Purpose of the Constitutional Court is to execute constitutional justice, guarantee superiority of Constitution in the system of law and ensure constitutional legitimacy. The Constitutional Court must obey the final laws of it's own. Final laws shackle the Constitutional Court by not allowing it to change the laws if there is no constitutional reason to do so. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court ensures continuation of the constitutional jurisprudence and predictability of it's decisions, therefore sustaining stability of whole law system. Constitutional jurisprudence, formed by the Constitutional Court, determines the constitutional justice and legitimacy in a decisions and laws made by courts. Justice pursuit function determines independence of a judge and a court: courts must ensure justice and order, guarantee superiority of law and protect human freedom and rights. Purpose of the court instance system is to solve possible mistakes of lower instance courts, prevent breaking the law and therefore protect rights and rightful interests of person and society. Court instance system, described in the Constitution, must function accordingly to the constitutional principles and allow one practice of courts to be formed, which will ensure cases being solved in the same way, by following already formed precedents, corresponding to constitutional justice principles, which is revealed in presented verdicts. Obligation of court to suspend a case and appeal to the Constitutional Court with a request to investigate an act of legislation match for the Constitution is an expressis verbis described in the Constitution. Court doesn't have a locus standi to appeal to the Constitutional Court with a request to investigate if a law or other act of legislation, which should not be applied in solving that kind of cases, is contradicting the Constitution. Constitutional justice jurisprudence, formed by the Constitutional Court determines a requirement, that all courts must ensure, that decisions they make are corresponding to constitutional justice and legitimacy. The Constitutional Court justice jurisprudence ensures, that the justice executed by courts is corresponding to the highest measure of justice – the Constitution. Ensuring superiority of the Constitution and protecting the constitutional order is the purpose of judicial power.