Suchergebnisse

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 right-wing populist Law and Justice party , which came to power in 2015 in Poland, sought not only to implement its conservative and Christian ideas through the executive and the legislative powers, but also to influence the justice. This article presents an analysis of legal acts adopted or amended on the initiative of this ruling party, which shows how the judicial power has been systematically usurped by this political party, in spite of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, and states that the principle of judicial independence has been violated.

The right-wing populist Law and Justice party , which came to power in 2015 in Poland, sought not only to implement its conservative and Christian ideas through the executive and the legislative powers, but also to influence the justice. This article presents an analysis of legal acts adopted or amended on the initiative of this ruling party, which shows how the judicial power has been systematically usurped by this political party, in spite of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, and states that the principle of judicial independence has been violated.

The right-wing populist Law and Justice party , which came to power in 2015 in Poland, sought not only to implement its conservative and Christian ideas through the executive and the legislative powers, but also to influence the justice. This article presents an analysis of legal acts adopted or amended on the initiative of this ruling party, which shows how the judicial power has been systematically usurped by this political party, in spite of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, and states that the principle of judicial independence has been violated.

The right-wing populist Law and Justice party , which came to power in 2015 in Poland, sought not only to implement its conservative and Christian ideas through the executive and the legislative powers, but also to influence the justice. This article presents an analysis of legal acts adopted or amended on the initiative of this ruling party, which shows how the judicial power has been systematically usurped by this political party, in spite of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, and states that the principle of judicial independence has been violated.

Government organization and activities in a democratic state must be based on the principle of separation of powers. The essence of this principle is to ensure individual rights and freedoms and to help the society prevent government arbitrariness. Each power is implemented through its institutions: Parliament, representing the Nation, legislate the laws and perform other functions provided in the Constitution, the Government implement the laws legislated by Parliament and courts execute justice. If the state does not ensure the implementation of justice, all the talk of democracy, the rule of law, civil society, human rights and freedoms are declarative. Only being independent and autonomous judicial authorities can properly fulfill their function – to execute justice, to ensure implementation of law, expressed in the Constitution, laws and other legal norms, to guarantee the rule of law, to protect human rights and freedoms. Inevitably, the question must be raised whether the courts executing justice ensure these constitutional principles good enough and whether the citizen applying to the court to protect his violated rights can be sure that the court will resolve the dispute impartially and restore his violated rights. Authors of the article examine such an important topic as confidence in the courts, discuss the possible ways and means to achieve that the state government would be more trusted. In the article authors raise a question whether it would be effective to establish associate judges' institute in Lithuania. The authors conclude that Lithuania is one of the few democratic countries having no jury or associate judges institution and that its establishment would help reduce corruption in the legal system. Also it would be a step to increase public confidence in the judiciary. The main conclusion is that discussions about moderate model of associate judges' institution shall be encouraged. The authors believe that such a concept model would not form intervention in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania of 1992 and legal framework, but would complement the practice and the commitment to strengthen the relation between the public authorities and society, which is expressed in the Constitution. The model of such aspiration development really makes sense and would be very necessary.

Government organization and activities in a democratic state must be based on the principle of separation of powers. The essence of this principle is to ensure individual rights and freedoms and to help the society prevent government arbitrariness. Each power is implemented through its institutions: Parliament, representing the Nation, legislate the laws and perform other functions provided in the Constitution, the Government implement the laws legislated by Parliament and courts execute justice. If the state does not ensure the implementation of justice, all the talk of democracy, the rule of law, civil society, human rights and freedoms are declarative. Only being independent and autonomous judicial authorities can properly fulfill their function – to execute justice, to ensure implementation of law, expressed in the Constitution, laws and other legal norms, to guarantee the rule of law, to protect human rights and freedoms. Inevitably, the question must be raised whether the courts executing justice ensure these constitutional principles good enough and whether the citizen applying to the court to protect his violated rights can be sure that the court will resolve the dispute impartially and restore his violated rights. Authors of the article examine such an important topic as confidence in the courts, discuss the possible ways and means to achieve that the state government would be more trusted. In the article authors raise a question whether it would be effective to establish associate judges' institute in Lithuania. The authors conclude that Lithuania is one of the few democratic countries having no jury or associate judges institution and that its establishment would help reduce corruption in the legal system. Also it would be a step to increase public confidence in the judiciary. The main conclusion is that discussions about moderate model of associate judges' institution shall be encouraged. The authors believe that such a concept model would not form intervention in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania of 1992 and legal framework, but would complement the practice and the commitment to strengthen the relation between the public authorities and society, which is expressed in the Constitution. The model of such aspiration development really makes sense and would be very necessary.

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.

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.

The article deals with organization and administration of activities of Lithuanian courts, their ways and means, which helps to ensure independence of judges and courts from internal and external factors, limiting the possibilities of other powers to interfere in the judiciary. Lithuanian legislation on judicial independence, their change and improvement over the last decades in order to delimit the judiciary from interference of executive power are also investigated in this article. The article also deals with local authorities of courts and public judicial organizations, ensuring the independence of the judiciary, enhancing the prestige of the profession of judges and improving the public opinion. Problems of organization and administration of courts and weaknesses of courts administration are also indicated in the article.

The article deals with organization and administration of activities of Lithuanian courts, their ways and means, which helps to ensure independence of judges and courts from internal and external factors, limiting the possibilities of other powers to interfere in the judiciary. Lithuanian legislation on judicial independence, their change and improvement over the last decades in order to delimit the judiciary from interference of executive power are also investigated in this article. The article also deals with local authorities of courts and public judicial organizations, ensuring the independence of the judiciary, enhancing the prestige of the profession of judges and improving the public opinion. Problems of organization and administration of courts and weaknesses of courts administration are also indicated in the article.

The article deals with organization and administration of activities of Lithuanian courts, their ways and means, which helps to ensure independence of judges and courts from internal and external factors, limiting the possibilities of other powers to interfere in the judiciary. Lithuanian legislation on judicial independence, their change and improvement over the last decades in order to delimit the judiciary from interference of executive power are also investigated in this article. The article also deals with local authorities of courts and public judicial organizations, ensuring the independence of the judiciary, enhancing the prestige of the profession of judges and improving the public opinion. Problems of organization and administration of courts and weaknesses of courts administration are also indicated in the article.

The article deals with organization and administration of activities of Lithuanian courts, their ways and means, which helps to ensure independence of judges and courts from internal and external factors, limiting the possibilities of other powers to interfere in the judiciary. Lithuanian legislation on judicial independence, their change and improvement over the last decades in order to delimit the judiciary from interference of executive power are also investigated in this article. The article also deals with local authorities of courts and public judicial organizations, ensuring the independence of the judiciary, enhancing the prestige of the profession of judges and improving the public opinion. Problems of organization and administration of courts and weaknesses of courts administration are also indicated in the article.

The article is intended to analyze similarities and differences of the 1992Lithuanian Constitution and the 1997Polish Constitution regarding the constitutional status of the judiciary. The article consists of three parts: I. The place of judicial power in the Polish and Lithuanian constitutions, II. Lithuanian Constitutional Court and Polish Constitutional Tribunal and III. A special institution of judges under the Constitution of Lithuania and the National Judicial Council under the Constitution of Poland. At the end of the article following differences are to be distinguished: 1. The Polish Constitution mentions military courts, while in Lithuania they do not exist. In addition, the Polish Constitution provides for two types of judicial authorities: courts and tribunals, including the Constitutional Tribunal, meanwhile, the Lithuanian Constitution include only courts. 2. The Constitution of Lithuania provides for two methods of dismissal of judges of the Supreme Court, when they discredit the name of a judge: 1) by the resolution of the Seimas and 2) under impeachment proceedings. Meanwhile, the Polish Constitution does not mention the impeachment proceedings for dismissal of judges. 3. The Constitutional Court of Lithuania and the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland in broader sense belong to the judiciary, and the functions of these institutions are very similar, however, the main difference could be that there are more subjects to address the Polish Constitutional Tribunal than to the Lithuanian Constitutional Court. On the other hand, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal has no jurisdiction to rule on the actions of officials under impeachment and on violations of electoral laws. Finally, under ordinary law, at least one member of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal ex officio is also a member of the Polish Central Electoral Commission. 4. Although the Polish Constitution pays considerably more attention to the National Judicial Council, currently the decisions of the Lithuanian Judicial Council have a greater constitutional weight (than the Polish National Judicial Council), as its negative advice on the appointment or dismissal obliges the President of the Republic. In addition, according to the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania, only judges, the majority of whom are elected by the General Assembly of Judges, may be members of the Lithuanian Judicial Council, while some members of the Polish Judicial Council are not members of judiciary, including those, appointed by politicians.