Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse legal acts establishing the competence of Constitutional Court of Republic of Lithuania, as well to summarize the constitutional jurisprudence, which reveals the expand of boundaries of constitutional jurisdiction and to dispute main problems of competence of Constitutional Court. The paper is based on analysis of legal acts, decisions of Constitutional Court, juridical publications, articles and other sources. Constitutional Court is the institution implementing the protection of constitutional order, which ensures the supremacy of Constitution and constitutional justice. The competence of Constitutional Court is to review the compatibility of a law with the Constitution. This control includes enactments of Legislature, President and Executive organs. The Constitutional Court also decides on the compatibility of international agreements with the Constitution or the legality of elections and other. There are noticed some changes of limits of jurisdiction in the constitutional doctrine. There has been cases when the Court has decided on the conformity of legal acts with other chapters or priciples of Constitution than it was appealed. Sometimes it was analysed the constitutionality of other enactmens which were not questioned by a petitioner. Boundaries of competence were extended also by deciding on the conformity of legal acts with constitutional laws. Sometimes the object of investigation is invalid acts. Such practise of the Court provocates various discusions. One of sugestions to avoid this practise – to restrict powers of Constitutional Court by forbiding expansive interpretating of tasks and competence of Court. It is important to note that authority of the Court arise from the Constitution. The contraversial decisions of the Constitutional Court are based on interpretion and commentation, but these actions should be more motivated to avoid a violation of the Court's authority. To secure the constitutional protection in the highest level it would be favourable to establish an individual constitutional complaint and an institute of separate opinion of a judge in the constitutional system of Lithaunia, also to consider the possibility to request the European Court of Justice for preliminary decision about the meaning or validity of a particular piece of European Union law to solve the difficulties of interpretation of European Union law.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse legal acts establishing the competence of Constitutional Court of Republic of Lithuania, as well to summarize the constitutional jurisprudence, which reveals the expand of boundaries of constitutional jurisdiction and to dispute main problems of competence of Constitutional Court. The paper is based on analysis of legal acts, decisions of Constitutional Court, juridical publications, articles and other sources. Constitutional Court is the institution implementing the protection of constitutional order, which ensures the supremacy of Constitution and constitutional justice. The competence of Constitutional Court is to review the compatibility of a law with the Constitution. This control includes enactments of Legislature, President and Executive organs. The Constitutional Court also decides on the compatibility of international agreements with the Constitution or the legality of elections and other. There are noticed some changes of limits of jurisdiction in the constitutional doctrine. There has been cases when the Court has decided on the conformity of legal acts with other chapters or priciples of Constitution than it was appealed. Sometimes it was analysed the constitutionality of other enactmens which were not questioned by a petitioner. Boundaries of competence were extended also by deciding on the conformity of legal acts with constitutional laws. Sometimes the object of investigation is invalid acts. Such practise of the Court provocates various discusions. One of sugestions to avoid this practise – to restrict powers of Constitutional Court by forbiding expansive interpretating of tasks and competence of Court. It is important to note that authority of the Court arise from the Constitution. The contraversial decisions of the Constitutional Court are based on interpretion and commentation, but these actions should be more motivated to avoid a violation of the Court's authority. To secure the constitutional protection in the highest level it would be favourable to establish an individual constitutional complaint and an institute of separate opinion of a judge in the constitutional system of Lithaunia, also to consider the possibility to request the European Court of Justice for preliminary decision about the meaning or validity of a particular piece of European Union law to solve the difficulties of interpretation of European Union law.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse legal acts establishing the competence of Constitutional Court of Republic of Lithuania, as well to summarize the constitutional jurisprudence, which reveals the expand of boundaries of constitutional jurisdiction and to dispute main problems of competence of Constitutional Court. The paper is based on analysis of legal acts, decisions of Constitutional Court, juridical publications, articles and other sources. Constitutional Court is the institution implementing the protection of constitutional order, which ensures the supremacy of Constitution and constitutional justice. The competence of Constitutional Court is to review the compatibility of a law with the Constitution. This control includes enactments of Legislature, President and Executive organs. The Constitutional Court also decides on the compatibility of international agreements with the Constitution or the legality of elections and other. There are noticed some changes of limits of jurisdiction in the constitutional doctrine. There has been cases when the Court has decided on the conformity of legal acts with other chapters or priciples of Constitution than it was appealed. Sometimes it was analysed the constitutionality of other enactmens which were not questioned by a petitioner. Boundaries of competence were extended also by deciding on the conformity of legal acts with constitutional laws. Sometimes the object of investigation is invalid acts. Such practise of the Court provocates various discusions. One of sugestions to avoid this practise – to restrict powers of Constitutional Court by forbiding expansive interpretating of tasks and competence of Court. It is important to note that authority of the Court arise from the Constitution. The contraversial decisions of the Constitutional Court are based on interpretion and commentation, but these actions should be more motivated to avoid a violation of the Court's authority. To secure the constitutional protection in the highest level it would be favourable to establish an individual constitutional complaint and an institute of separate opinion of a judge in the constitutional system of Lithaunia, also to consider the possibility to request the European Court of Justice for preliminary decision about the meaning or validity of a particular piece of European Union law to solve the difficulties of interpretation of European Union law.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse legal acts establishing the competence of Constitutional Court of Republic of Lithuania, as well to summarize the constitutional jurisprudence, which reveals the expand of boundaries of constitutional jurisdiction and to dispute main problems of competence of Constitutional Court. The paper is based on analysis of legal acts, decisions of Constitutional Court, juridical publications, articles and other sources. Constitutional Court is the institution implementing the protection of constitutional order, which ensures the supremacy of Constitution and constitutional justice. The competence of Constitutional Court is to review the compatibility of a law with the Constitution. This control includes enactments of Legislature, President and Executive organs. The Constitutional Court also decides on the compatibility of international agreements with the Constitution or the legality of elections and other. There are noticed some changes of limits of jurisdiction in the constitutional doctrine. There has been cases when the Court has decided on the conformity of legal acts with other chapters or priciples of Constitution than it was appealed. Sometimes it was analysed the constitutionality of other enactmens which were not questioned by a petitioner. Boundaries of competence were extended also by deciding on the conformity of legal acts with constitutional laws. Sometimes the object of investigation is invalid acts. Such practise of the Court provocates various discusions. One of sugestions to avoid this practise – to restrict powers of Constitutional Court by forbiding expansive interpretating of tasks and competence of Court. It is important to note that authority of the Court arise from the Constitution. The contraversial decisions of the Constitutional Court are based on interpretion and commentation, but these actions should be more motivated to avoid a violation of the Court's authority. To secure the constitutional protection in the highest level it would be favourable to establish an individual constitutional complaint and an institute of separate opinion of a judge in the constitutional system of Lithaunia, also to consider the possibility to request the European Court of Justice for preliminary decision about the meaning or validity of a particular piece of European Union law to solve the difficulties of interpretation of European Union law.

The Criminal procedure code of Lithuania, entered into the force first May 2003, replaced the long prevailing notion of evidence while adjusting the evaluation of evidence approach whereby the prerogative of recognition of facts and the evaluation of evidence is concentrated in the only single entity, that is, in the hands of the court. The significance of the evaluation of evidence, being as the main part of the substantiation process, is unquestionable right neither in doctrine, neithet in case law. Firstly, the paper provides a brief historical overview of the evaluation of the evidence existed systems, emphasizing on the inquisitorial criminal process during the life of evidence prevailing in the formal evaluation system, court's role in it and it's full discedit by transition to the new evaluation system, with it's core – free evaluation of evidence. Further in the paper is particularly analysed the suggestions of Lithuanian and foreign authors', how should be defined the term – evaluation of evidence and trying to give a definition of its key features distinguish, namely, requirement for the evaluation of facts (evidence) to follow the inner conviction, justifying it on thorough and impartial examination of the circumstances, requirement for the overall evaluation process and its outcome – follow the law. Each rule is derived through the analysis of legislation, doctrine and judicial practice. Much attention is paid to the formation process of inner conviction, it's objective and subjective sides. The analysis of the other evaluation criteria - requirement to follow the law, is stressed that such a requirement should not be construed only as a guide instruction of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also includes other legal sources. Finally, the paper reveals the content of the evaluation of the facts (evidence), including the evaluation on the relevance and the admissibility of the facts (evidence) and them as a whole - the sufficiency of the facts (evidence).

The Criminal procedure code of Lithuania, entered into the force first May 2003, replaced the long prevailing notion of evidence while adjusting the evaluation of evidence approach whereby the prerogative of recognition of facts and the evaluation of evidence is concentrated in the only single entity, that is, in the hands of the court. The significance of the evaluation of evidence, being as the main part of the substantiation process, is unquestionable right neither in doctrine, neithet in case law. Firstly, the paper provides a brief historical overview of the evaluation of the evidence existed systems, emphasizing on the inquisitorial criminal process during the life of evidence prevailing in the formal evaluation system, court's role in it and it's full discedit by transition to the new evaluation system, with it's core – free evaluation of evidence. Further in the paper is particularly analysed the suggestions of Lithuanian and foreign authors', how should be defined the term – evaluation of evidence and trying to give a definition of its key features distinguish, namely, requirement for the evaluation of facts (evidence) to follow the inner conviction, justifying it on thorough and impartial examination of the circumstances, requirement for the overall evaluation process and its outcome – follow the law. Each rule is derived through the analysis of legislation, doctrine and judicial practice. Much attention is paid to the formation process of inner conviction, it's objective and subjective sides. The analysis of the other evaluation criteria - requirement to follow the law, is stressed that such a requirement should not be construed only as a guide instruction of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also includes other legal sources. Finally, the paper reveals the content of the evaluation of the facts (evidence), including the evaluation on the relevance and the admissibility of the facts (evidence) and them as a whole - the sufficiency of the facts (evidence).

This master paper "Constitutional Court and Legislation in Lithuania" is dedicated to analysis of Constitutional Court's participation in legislation procedure. In Lithuania as well as in other democratic countries it is important to ensure proper constitutional control in order to safeguard essential human rights and freedoms, constitutional regulation of the most important social relationship. In the Republic of Lithuania the constitutional control is perforemd by the Constitutional Court. In Lithuania the system of the institutional authority is based on the partition of powers. Every link of the authority system performs the functions which are assigned to it. In contemporary democratic states judicial authority acts as separate state authority independently from the legislative or the executive. Therefore this master paper raises a question how (if at all) the Constitutional Court influence the legislation. The Constitutional Court's functions, purposes, competence, its limits shall be seeked to be revealed herein while analysing relevant rulings of the Constitutional Court, actions of the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania (legal acts adopted), interdependence shall be seeked to be identified, i.e. whether Constitutional Court influences the legislation. The statistical data on the rulings adopted by the Constitutional Court and the ammendments of the laws adopted by the Parliament o the Republic of Lithuania shall be provided. First part of the paper is introduction. The second part analyses the competence of the Constitutional Court, its composition, order of constitution; the procedure of legislation and its association to Constitutional Court, what influence to legislation is made by the Constitutional Court is also discussed therein. The place of the Constitutional Court in the system of the partition of powers shall be also discussed. The third part provides statistic data of the Constitutional Court and the Parliament during period from year 2005 to 2008, discusses specific rulings of the Constitutional Court and their influence to legislation. Finally the conclusions are provided.

This master paper "Constitutional Court and Legislation in Lithuania" is dedicated to analysis of Constitutional Court's participation in legislation procedure. In Lithuania as well as in other democratic countries it is important to ensure proper constitutional control in order to safeguard essential human rights and freedoms, constitutional regulation of the most important social relationship. In the Republic of Lithuania the constitutional control is perforemd by the Constitutional Court. In Lithuania the system of the institutional authority is based on the partition of powers. Every link of the authority system performs the functions which are assigned to it. In contemporary democratic states judicial authority acts as separate state authority independently from the legislative or the executive. Therefore this master paper raises a question how (if at all) the Constitutional Court influence the legislation. The Constitutional Court's functions, purposes, competence, its limits shall be seeked to be revealed herein while analysing relevant rulings of the Constitutional Court, actions of the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania (legal acts adopted), interdependence shall be seeked to be identified, i.e. whether Constitutional Court influences the legislation. The statistical data on the rulings adopted by the Constitutional Court and the ammendments of the laws adopted by the Parliament o the Republic of Lithuania shall be provided. First part of the paper is introduction. The second part analyses the competence of the Constitutional Court, its composition, order of constitution; the procedure of legislation and its association to Constitutional Court, what influence to legislation is made by the Constitutional Court is also discussed therein. The place of the Constitutional Court in the system of the partition of powers shall be also discussed. The third part provides statistic data of the Constitutional Court and the Parliament during period from year 2005 to 2008, discusses specific rulings of the Constitutional Court and their influence to legislation. Finally the conclusions are provided.

State Accusation in a First Instance Court. The adversarial principle is one of the fundamental principles of criminal procedure. The obligation to prove the accused's guilt is available only to accusation half. An important function of a prosecutor - his presence in court and prosecution support. A prosecutor in criminal proceedings is one of the parties to the proceedings - he accuses the suspect. It is necessary to the criminal process - the State's complaint, as a public interest remedy. The State must punish those infringed legislation. Here originates from a charge function publicity. This function is delegated to the Public Prosecutor's Office. Prosecutor involvement in the consideration of criminal proceedings in court, saying indictment language, to argue orally the accused guilt requires punishment. The allegation is the starting mechanism of the criminal process, it gives impetus to all the other primordial procedural functions. The Prosecutor in court is not only a guarantee that the court will accept the legitimate and reasonable decision, but one of the prosecutor and the activities of prevention of crime. Maintenance of public prosecutions in criminal cases in court is one of the priority activities of the Prosecutor in the care that all laws of the would be subject to a precise and uniform. In all their actions in criminal cases at first instance the prosecutor should assist the court to establish truth and justice in the implementation of the same goals. For the purposes of this magistral work examines the procedural position of the Prosecutor, the chosen tactic of keeping a charge, the Prosecutor participation in the first instance, maintaining the charge, language structure and content, assess its value in criminal proceedings and the relationship with other stakeholders, analyzed the Republic of Lithuania Code of Criminal Procedure rules governing the activities of a prosecutor in court . Examined at the beginning of the work function of a prosecutor in court, then the prosecution tactics, the use of judicial investigation.

State Accusation in a First Instance Court. The adversarial principle is one of the fundamental principles of criminal procedure. The obligation to prove the accused's guilt is available only to accusation half. An important function of a prosecutor - his presence in court and prosecution support. A prosecutor in criminal proceedings is one of the parties to the proceedings - he accuses the suspect. It is necessary to the criminal process - the State's complaint, as a public interest remedy. The State must punish those infringed legislation. Here originates from a charge function publicity. This function is delegated to the Public Prosecutor's Office. Prosecutor involvement in the consideration of criminal proceedings in court, saying indictment language, to argue orally the accused guilt requires punishment. The allegation is the starting mechanism of the criminal process, it gives impetus to all the other primordial procedural functions. The Prosecutor in court is not only a guarantee that the court will accept the legitimate and reasonable decision, but one of the prosecutor and the activities of prevention of crime. Maintenance of public prosecutions in criminal cases in court is one of the priority activities of the Prosecutor in the care that all laws of the would be subject to a precise and uniform. In all their actions in criminal cases at first instance the prosecutor should assist the court to establish truth and justice in the implementation of the same goals. For the purposes of this magistral work examines the procedural position of the Prosecutor, the chosen tactic of keeping a charge, the Prosecutor participation in the first instance, maintaining the charge, language structure and content, assess its value in criminal proceedings and the relationship with other stakeholders, analyzed the Republic of Lithuania Code of Criminal Procedure rules governing the activities of a prosecutor in court . Examined at the beginning of the work function of a prosecutor in court, then the prosecution tactics, the use of judicial investigation.

State Accusation in a First Instance Court. The adversarial principle is one of the fundamental principles of criminal procedure. The obligation to prove the accused's guilt is available only to accusation half. An important function of a prosecutor - his presence in court and prosecution support. A prosecutor in criminal proceedings is one of the parties to the proceedings - he accuses the suspect. It is necessary to the criminal process - the State's complaint, as a public interest remedy. The State must punish those infringed legislation. Here originates from a charge function publicity. This function is delegated to the Public Prosecutor's Office. Prosecutor involvement in the consideration of criminal proceedings in court, saying indictment language, to argue orally the accused guilt requires punishment. The allegation is the starting mechanism of the criminal process, it gives impetus to all the other primordial procedural functions. The Prosecutor in court is not only a guarantee that the court will accept the legitimate and reasonable decision, but one of the prosecutor and the activities of prevention of crime. Maintenance of public prosecutions in criminal cases in court is one of the priority activities of the Prosecutor in the care that all laws of the would be subject to a precise and uniform. In all their actions in criminal cases at first instance the prosecutor should assist the court to establish truth and justice in the implementation of the same goals. For the purposes of this magistral work examines the procedural position of the Prosecutor, the chosen tactic of keeping a charge, the Prosecutor participation in the first instance, maintaining the charge, language structure and content, assess its value in criminal proceedings and the relationship with other stakeholders, analyzed the Republic of Lithuania Code of Criminal Procedure rules governing the activities of a prosecutor in court . Examined at the beginning of the work function of a prosecutor in court, then the prosecution tactics, the use of judicial investigation.