The main object of present research is political crimes in Lithuania in 1919–1940. The typology was based on groups of political crimes of rebellion, high treason and subversion that were formulated in the Criminal Statute of 1903. In the first part, the creation process of the legal definition of political crimes was studied, which reflects defence position of the political authorities that have the power – to criminalise acts, that are threatening state's security, and authorities' power. Also it was dealt with the definition of political crimes in the Constitutions of Lithuania, the second section analyses the typology of political crimes in the Penal Statute. It was explored the state of emergency legal regulation and its influence on the political crimes control, the fourth section investigated how and what new state security laws (not) originated because of threats to the state security which emerged ad hoc. In the second part it was analysed how legal agents applied political crimes definitions, thus finishing the construction of the crime fully. Also it covered the criminal process functions of the political police, the prosecutor's office and the general competence courts, the political police organisation and its acts by applying political crime definitions was introduced as well. It was researched the legal regulation of the functions of the persecutor's office and general competence courts. Also analysed tendencies of political crimes cases practice in High Tribunal, district courts and Chamber of Appeal. Finally, it was explained explains Army court and Court-martials work legal reglamentation, tendencies of aforementioned courts practice examining cases of rebellion, high treason and subversion were discussed.
The main object of present research is political crimes in Lithuania in 1919–1940. The typology was based on groups of political crimes of rebellion, high treason and subversion that were formulated in the Criminal Statute of 1903. In the first part, the creation process of the legal definition of political crimes was studied, which reflects defence position of the political authorities that have the power – to criminalise acts, that are threatening state's security, and authorities' power. Also it was dealt with the definition of political crimes in the Constitutions of Lithuania, the second section analyses the typology of political crimes in the Penal Statute. It was explored the state of emergency legal regulation and its influence on the political crimes control, the fourth section investigated how and what new state security laws (not) originated because of threats to the state security which emerged ad hoc. In the second part it was analysed how legal agents applied political crimes definitions, thus finishing the construction of the crime fully. Also it covered the criminal process functions of the political police, the prosecutor's office and the general competence courts, the political police organisation and its acts by applying political crime definitions was introduced as well. It was researched the legal regulation of the functions of the persecutor's office and general competence courts. Also analysed tendencies of political crimes cases practice in High Tribunal, district courts and Chamber of Appeal. Finally, it was explained explains Army court and Court-martials work legal reglamentation, tendencies of aforementioned courts practice examining cases of rebellion, high treason and subversion were discussed.
The main object of present research is political crimes in Lithuania in 1919–1940. The typology was based on groups of political crimes of rebellion, high treason and subversion that were formulated in the Criminal Statute of 1903. In the first part, the creation process of the legal definition of political crimes was studied, which reflects defence position of the political authorities that have the power – to criminalise acts, that are threatening state's security, and authorities' power. Also it was dealt with the definition of political crimes in the Constitutions of Lithuania, the second section analyses the typology of political crimes in the Penal Statute. It was explored the state of emergency legal regulation and its influence on the political crimes control, the fourth section investigated how and what new state security laws (not) originated because of threats to the state security which emerged ad hoc. In the second part it was analysed how legal agents applied political crimes definitions, thus finishing the construction of the crime fully. Also it covered the criminal process functions of the political police, the prosecutor's office and the general competence courts, the political police organisation and its acts by applying political crime definitions was introduced as well. It was researched the legal regulation of the functions of the persecutor's office and general competence courts. Also analysed tendencies of political crimes cases practice in High Tribunal, district courts and Chamber of Appeal. Finally, it was explained explains Army court and Court-martials work legal reglamentation, tendencies of aforementioned courts practice examining cases of rebellion, high treason and subversion were discussed.
This article analyses one element of corpus delicti of misappropriation of authorship, criminalised in Lithuanian Criminal Code Article 191 – the object (or the protected good) of a crime. The quality of Lithuanian national regulation and the scope of object of misappropriation of authorship, which affects the qualification of the crime, is evaluated by comparing it with other European Union countries' criminal legal regulation of intellectual property.
This article analyses one element of corpus delicti of misappropriation of authorship, criminalised in Lithuanian Criminal Code Article 191 – the object (or the protected good) of a crime. The quality of Lithuanian national regulation and the scope of object of misappropriation of authorship, which affects the qualification of the crime, is evaluated by comparing it with other European Union countries' criminal legal regulation of intellectual property.
This article analyses one element of corpus delicti of misappropriation of authorship, criminalised in Lithuanian Criminal Code Article 191 – the object (or the protected good) of a crime. The quality of Lithuanian national regulation and the scope of object of misappropriation of authorship, which affects the qualification of the crime, is evaluated by comparing it with other European Union countries' criminal legal regulation of intellectual property.
This article analyses one element of corpus delicti of misappropriation of authorship, criminalised in Lithuanian Criminal Code Article 191 – the object (or the protected good) of a crime. The quality of Lithuanian national regulation and the scope of object of misappropriation of authorship, which affects the qualification of the crime, is evaluated by comparing it with other European Union countries' criminal legal regulation of intellectual property.
The article provides a system of scientific proposals which could be prospective in forming and implementing the effective state policy in the sphere of crime control. The strategic trend of that policy instead of making the laws and punishment stricter, should eliminate in complex way social causes and conditions of criminality, i.e., crime prevention, oriented first of all to social groups of people mostly not adapted to new conditions of market society and people, living under the poverty line, young people who do not study and do not work, dysfunctional families and children who are being raised in them, young people who do not study and do not work, solution of inhabitants employment problems as well as problems of mode of life and morals. Crime prevention should become an integral part of social, economical, legal and cultural policy of the state and local governments institutions. It is proposed to reform in essence also the system of special crime prevention measures and institutions, decreasing their repressive and increasing positive influence by humanising and socialising of this system. Also other scientific (criminological) preconditions and practical possibilities of crime prevention in Lithuania and increase of its effectiveness are discussed paying attention not only to present but also prospective purposes and goals of this problem's solution.
The article provides a system of scientific proposals which could be prospective in forming and implementing the effective state policy in the sphere of crime control. The strategic trend of that policy instead of making the laws and punishment stricter, should eliminate in complex way social causes and conditions of criminality, i.e., crime prevention, oriented first of all to social groups of people mostly not adapted to new conditions of market society and people, living under the poverty line, young people who do not study and do not work, dysfunctional families and children who are being raised in them, young people who do not study and do not work, solution of inhabitants employment problems as well as problems of mode of life and morals. Crime prevention should become an integral part of social, economical, legal and cultural policy of the state and local governments institutions. It is proposed to reform in essence also the system of special crime prevention measures and institutions, decreasing their repressive and increasing positive influence by humanising and socialising of this system. Also other scientific (criminological) preconditions and practical possibilities of crime prevention in Lithuania and increase of its effectiveness are discussed paying attention not only to present but also prospective purposes and goals of this problem's solution.
SUMMARY Extortion of Property and Self-Governing: Similarities and Differrences in Crime Composition Extortion of property and self-governing are dangerous criminal activities punishable by law in accordance with the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Extortion of property encroaches upon the most important underpinnings of democratic society: property, property rights and property interests. Self-governing undermines the rule of law, i.e. county's ability to implement its persons' rights and obligations through laws and other legal regulations. This thesis employs current laws, published scholarly works, actual criminal cases and statistical results of an author's study to address the tasks outlined its introduction: it analyzes definitions and features of property extortion and self-governing, describes similarities and differences between them, and addresses difficulties in attributing a crime to particular category. The first part of the thesis analyzes the definitions of property extortion and self-governing with attention to the evolution of those definitions over time alongside changes in law and compares them to Criminal Codes of other countries. The second part of the thesis provides a comprehensive review of property extortion and self-governing crime compositions and exposes their similarities and differences, which either appeared new or were altered by the introduction of the new Criminal Code. Based on actual court cases, it addresses tendencies to re-classify those crimes and provides author's assessment of such practice. It accents Lithuanian Supreme Court senate clarifications which help to form and unify court practices regarding both of the crimes. The thesis strictly adheres to its primary goal of revealing essential similarities and differences between the two crimes, while emphasizing their relationship with other criminal activities defined by Criminal Code. It presents statistical data about property extortion and self-governing dynamics in Lithuania and data about re-classification of property extortion as self-governing in a Panevėžys region. The third part of the Master's thesis analyzes and compares the defining features of property extortion and self-governing. These features, specific to each crime category, make such activity dangerous and influence the gravity of the crime. In accordance with law changes, a new composition of the crime of self-governing and the role of an organized crime group as a defining feature of property extortion are emphasized.
SUMMARY Extortion of Property and Self-Governing: Similarities and Differrences in Crime Composition Extortion of property and self-governing are dangerous criminal activities punishable by law in accordance with the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Extortion of property encroaches upon the most important underpinnings of democratic society: property, property rights and property interests. Self-governing undermines the rule of law, i.e. county's ability to implement its persons' rights and obligations through laws and other legal regulations. This thesis employs current laws, published scholarly works, actual criminal cases and statistical results of an author's study to address the tasks outlined its introduction: it analyzes definitions and features of property extortion and self-governing, describes similarities and differences between them, and addresses difficulties in attributing a crime to particular category. The first part of the thesis analyzes the definitions of property extortion and self-governing with attention to the evolution of those definitions over time alongside changes in law and compares them to Criminal Codes of other countries. The second part of the thesis provides a comprehensive review of property extortion and self-governing crime compositions and exposes their similarities and differences, which either appeared new or were altered by the introduction of the new Criminal Code. Based on actual court cases, it addresses tendencies to re-classify those crimes and provides author's assessment of such practice. It accents Lithuanian Supreme Court senate clarifications which help to form and unify court practices regarding both of the crimes. The thesis strictly adheres to its primary goal of revealing essential similarities and differences between the two crimes, while emphasizing their relationship with other criminal activities defined by Criminal Code. It presents statistical data about property extortion and self-governing dynamics in Lithuania and data about re-classification of property extortion as self-governing in a Panevėžys region. The third part of the Master's thesis analyzes and compares the defining features of property extortion and self-governing. These features, specific to each crime category, make such activity dangerous and influence the gravity of the crime. In accordance with law changes, a new composition of the crime of self-governing and the role of an organized crime group as a defining feature of property extortion are emphasized.
SUMMARY Extortion of Property and Self-Governing: Similarities and Differrences in Crime Composition Extortion of property and self-governing are dangerous criminal activities punishable by law in accordance with the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Extortion of property encroaches upon the most important underpinnings of democratic society: property, property rights and property interests. Self-governing undermines the rule of law, i.e. county's ability to implement its persons' rights and obligations through laws and other legal regulations. This thesis employs current laws, published scholarly works, actual criminal cases and statistical results of an author's study to address the tasks outlined its introduction: it analyzes definitions and features of property extortion and self-governing, describes similarities and differences between them, and addresses difficulties in attributing a crime to particular category. The first part of the thesis analyzes the definitions of property extortion and self-governing with attention to the evolution of those definitions over time alongside changes in law and compares them to Criminal Codes of other countries. The second part of the thesis provides a comprehensive review of property extortion and self-governing crime compositions and exposes their similarities and differences, which either appeared new or were altered by the introduction of the new Criminal Code. Based on actual court cases, it addresses tendencies to re-classify those crimes and provides author's assessment of such practice. It accents Lithuanian Supreme Court senate clarifications which help to form and unify court practices regarding both of the crimes. The thesis strictly adheres to its primary goal of revealing essential similarities and differences between the two crimes, while emphasizing their relationship with other criminal activities defined by Criminal Code. It presents statistical data about property extortion and self-governing dynamics in Lithuania and data about re-classification of property extortion as self-governing in a Panevėžys region. The third part of the Master's thesis analyzes and compares the defining features of property extortion and self-governing. These features, specific to each crime category, make such activity dangerous and influence the gravity of the crime. In accordance with law changes, a new composition of the crime of self-governing and the role of an organized crime group as a defining feature of property extortion are emphasized.
SUMMARY Extortion of Property and Self-Governing: Similarities and Differrences in Crime Composition Extortion of property and self-governing are dangerous criminal activities punishable by law in accordance with the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Extortion of property encroaches upon the most important underpinnings of democratic society: property, property rights and property interests. Self-governing undermines the rule of law, i.e. county's ability to implement its persons' rights and obligations through laws and other legal regulations. This thesis employs current laws, published scholarly works, actual criminal cases and statistical results of an author's study to address the tasks outlined its introduction: it analyzes definitions and features of property extortion and self-governing, describes similarities and differences between them, and addresses difficulties in attributing a crime to particular category. The first part of the thesis analyzes the definitions of property extortion and self-governing with attention to the evolution of those definitions over time alongside changes in law and compares them to Criminal Codes of other countries. The second part of the thesis provides a comprehensive review of property extortion and self-governing crime compositions and exposes their similarities and differences, which either appeared new or were altered by the introduction of the new Criminal Code. Based on actual court cases, it addresses tendencies to re-classify those crimes and provides author's assessment of such practice. It accents Lithuanian Supreme Court senate clarifications which help to form and unify court practices regarding both of the crimes. The thesis strictly adheres to its primary goal of revealing essential similarities and differences between the two crimes, while emphasizing their relationship with other criminal activities defined by Criminal Code. It presents statistical data about property extortion and self-governing dynamics in Lithuania and data about re-classification of property extortion as self-governing in a Panevėžys region. The third part of the Master's thesis analyzes and compares the defining features of property extortion and self-governing. These features, specific to each crime category, make such activity dangerous and influence the gravity of the crime. In accordance with law changes, a new composition of the crime of self-governing and the role of an organized crime group as a defining feature of property extortion are emphasized.
Under Article 74 of the Constitution, the President of the Republic, the President and justices of the Constitutional Court, the President and justices of the Supreme Court, the President and judges of the Court of Appeal, as well as any members of the Seimas, who grossly violate the Constitution or breach their oath, or are found to have committed a crime, may be removed from office or have the mandate of a member of the Seimas revoked by a 3/5 majority vote of all the members of the Seimas. This is performed through impeachment proceedings, which is established by the Statute of the Seimas. In its ruling of 25 May 2004, the Constitutional Court stated that the institution of impeachment is a method of public democratic control over the activity of the President of the Republic and the other state officials listed in Article 74 of the Constitution and a method of holding such officials liable, where the said method includes, inter alia, the possibility of removing them from office if they fail to fulfil their obligation to follow only the Constitution and law, if they place their personal or group interests above the interests of society, or when they bring discredit on state power by their actions. One of the grounds of impeachment is being "found to have committed a crime". The persons referred to in Article 74 of the Constitution may be removed from office not only for the commission of a crime by which the Constitution was grossly violated and the oath was breached, but also for the commission of any other crime. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Constitution, only a court may hold that a person has committed a crime. However, in the course of carrying out impeachment proceedings, the Seimas itself (in the absence of a court judgment) may hold that the persons referred to in Article 74 of the Constitution have committed a crime. If they have committed a crime while holding the office specified in Article 74 of the Constitution, the circumstance that the crime has been committed may be established by the Seimas itself only if the fact of the commission of the crime (as well as the official who committed it) is obvious, and also when the President of the Republic is being impeached. In the event that a crime had been committed by the President and justices of the Constitutional Court, the President and justices of the Supreme Court, the President and judges of the Court of Appeal, or a member of the Seimas before they took office, the fact of committing a crime may not be considered obvious; in such cases, a court must determine the circumstances relevant to the application of impeachment, i.e. the fact that a crime was committed (together with the official who committed it). The circumstance that a person committed a crime before taking the office of the President of the Republic can only be established by the Seimas and only when the crime is obvious. The statement of the Seimas that a person referred to in Article 74 of the Constitution has committed a crime or the statement of the Constitutional Court that such a person has committed actions for which liability is provided for in the Criminal Code is not the same as a convicting judgment of a court rendered in a criminal case. Impeachment does not mean the application of criminal liability even if a crime constitutes grounds for impeachment. If a person referred to in Article 74 of the Constitution has been removed from office through impeachment proceedings, or his/her mandate of a member of the Seimas has been revoked for a gross violation of the Constitution, a breach of the oath, or for such a crime by which the Constitution was grossly violated and the oath was breached, he/ she may never in the future hold such office whose beginning is linked with taking the oath provided for in the Constitution.
Under Article 74 of the Constitution, the President of the Republic, the President and justices of the Constitutional Court, the President and justices of the Supreme Court, the President and judges of the Court of Appeal, as well as any members of the Seimas, who grossly violate the Constitution or breach their oath, or are found to have committed a crime, may be removed from office or have the mandate of a member of the Seimas revoked by a 3/5 majority vote of all the members of the Seimas. This is performed through impeachment proceedings, which is established by the Statute of the Seimas. In its ruling of 25 May 2004, the Constitutional Court stated that the institution of impeachment is a method of public democratic control over the activity of the President of the Republic and the other state officials listed in Article 74 of the Constitution and a method of holding such officials liable, where the said method includes, inter alia, the possibility of removing them from office if they fail to fulfil their obligation to follow only the Constitution and law, if they place their personal or group interests above the interests of society, or when they bring discredit on state power by their actions. One of the grounds of impeachment is being "found to have committed a crime". The persons referred to in Article 74 of the Constitution may be removed from office not only for the commission of a crime by which the Constitution was grossly violated and the oath was breached, but also for the commission of any other crime. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Constitution, only a court may hold that a person has committed a crime. However, in the course of carrying out impeachment proceedings, the Seimas itself (in the absence of a court judgment) may hold that the persons referred to in Article 74 of the Constitution have committed a crime. If they have committed a crime while holding the office specified in Article 74 of the Constitution, the circumstance that the crime has been committed may be established by the Seimas itself only if the fact of the commission of the crime (as well as the official who committed it) is obvious, and also when the President of the Republic is being impeached. In the event that a crime had been committed by the President and justices of the Constitutional Court, the President and justices of the Supreme Court, the President and judges of the Court of Appeal, or a member of the Seimas before they took office, the fact of committing a crime may not be considered obvious; in such cases, a court must determine the circumstances relevant to the application of impeachment, i.e. the fact that a crime was committed (together with the official who committed it). The circumstance that a person committed a crime before taking the office of the President of the Republic can only be established by the Seimas and only when the crime is obvious. The statement of the Seimas that a person referred to in Article 74 of the Constitution has committed a crime or the statement of the Constitutional Court that such a person has committed actions for which liability is provided for in the Criminal Code is not the same as a convicting judgment of a court rendered in a criminal case. Impeachment does not mean the application of criminal liability even if a crime constitutes grounds for impeachment. If a person referred to in Article 74 of the Constitution has been removed from office through impeachment proceedings, or his/her mandate of a member of the Seimas has been revoked for a gross violation of the Constitution, a breach of the oath, or for such a crime by which the Constitution was grossly violated and the oath was breached, he/ she may never in the future hold such office whose beginning is linked with taking the oath provided for in the Constitution.
