The principle of non bis in idem refers to a prohibition of punishing an individual twice for the same offense. The latter principle is attributed to the criminal law, however thesis analyzes problematic aspects of application of the principle, when criminal proceedings are being initiated to an individual previously punished under the administrative responsibility for the same actions. Thesis consists of four structural parts; in the first of them there will be represented the analysis of national and international legislation regulating application of the principle of non bis in idem. This part of paper explains concept and content of the principle itself. The second part analyzes concept of the principle of non bis in idem according to the jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights and the certain cases of different countries – Austria, Belgium, Russia and the United States. In this part there has been revealed that the law of European Union in certain cases attributes violations in Lithuanian administrative law to the criminal law. The European Union law does not distinguish previously mentioned types of liability since punishment is considered as the main purpose for both these liabilities. The European Court of Human Rights while taking decision whether offense committed by an individual could be classified as criminal applies three "Engel criteria": 1) classification of the commited offense under the national law; 2) nature of the offense; 3) austerity of sanctions imposed to the offender. There has been determined that in a certain cases where the European Court of Human Rights after evaluation of all these criteria takes decision that the administrative offense has criminal nature, then an individual must obtain essencially the same rights as a defendant in the criminal case. The analysis of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights indicated the main characteristics based on which the principle of non bis in idem is considered as without prejudice. These characteristics include: 1) initiation of pre – trial investigation cannot be regarded as a sufficient reason to discontinue legal proceedings of the administrative offense; 2) when the act committed constitutes an overlap between several offenses; 3) when the administrative penalty has been imposed due to inaccuracy or before the disclosure of all significant circumstances needed to classify an offense. The third part analyses the collision between both criminal and administrative liabilities, since composition of the similar norms may lead to violation of the principle of non bis in idem. Furthermore, the particular attention will be given to the certain cases, which reveals that in Lithuanian legal system an administrative offense, which by its nature could be considered as criminal is not clearly determined. While deciding whether the principle of non bis in idem is without prejudice or not, there has been revealed that the case law in the Lithuanian legal system is unequal. The fourth part represents a comparison between the jurisprudence of Lithuania and the European Court of Human Rights, their similarities and distinctions while interpreting the application of the principle of non bis in idem. The results of the research indicated that application of criminal liability to an individual previously punished by the administrative penalty for the same offense is without prejudice to the principle of non bis in idem. It means that the hypothesis, raised by the beginning of the research has been confirmed.
The principle of non bis in idem refers to a prohibition of punishing an individual twice for the same offense. The latter principle is attributed to the criminal law, however thesis analyzes problematic aspects of application of the principle, when criminal proceedings are being initiated to an individual previously punished under the administrative responsibility for the same actions. Thesis consists of four structural parts; in the first of them there will be represented the analysis of national and international legislation regulating application of the principle of non bis in idem. This part of paper explains concept and content of the principle itself. The second part analyzes concept of the principle of non bis in idem according to the jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights and the certain cases of different countries – Austria, Belgium, Russia and the United States. In this part there has been revealed that the law of European Union in certain cases attributes violations in Lithuanian administrative law to the criminal law. The European Union law does not distinguish previously mentioned types of liability since punishment is considered as the main purpose for both these liabilities. The European Court of Human Rights while taking decision whether offense committed by an individual could be classified as criminal applies three "Engel criteria": 1) classification of the commited offense under the national law; 2) nature of the offense; 3) austerity of sanctions imposed to the offender. There has been determined that in a certain cases where the European Court of Human Rights after evaluation of all these criteria takes decision that the administrative offense has criminal nature, then an individual must obtain essencially the same rights as a defendant in the criminal case. The analysis of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights indicated the main characteristics based on which the principle of non bis in idem is considered as without prejudice. These characteristics include: 1) initiation of pre – trial investigation cannot be regarded as a sufficient reason to discontinue legal proceedings of the administrative offense; 2) when the act committed constitutes an overlap between several offenses; 3) when the administrative penalty has been imposed due to inaccuracy or before the disclosure of all significant circumstances needed to classify an offense. The third part analyses the collision between both criminal and administrative liabilities, since composition of the similar norms may lead to violation of the principle of non bis in idem. Furthermore, the particular attention will be given to the certain cases, which reveals that in Lithuanian legal system an administrative offense, which by its nature could be considered as criminal is not clearly determined. While deciding whether the principle of non bis in idem is without prejudice or not, there has been revealed that the case law in the Lithuanian legal system is unequal. The fourth part represents a comparison between the jurisprudence of Lithuania and the European Court of Human Rights, their similarities and distinctions while interpreting the application of the principle of non bis in idem. The results of the research indicated that application of criminal liability to an individual previously punished by the administrative penalty for the same offense is without prejudice to the principle of non bis in idem. It means that the hypothesis, raised by the beginning of the research has been confirmed.
The principle of non bis in idem refers to a prohibition of punishing an individual twice for the same offense. The latter principle is attributed to the criminal law, however thesis analyzes problematic aspects of application of the principle, when criminal proceedings are being initiated to an individual previously punished under the administrative responsibility for the same actions. Thesis consists of four structural parts; in the first of them there will be represented the analysis of national and international legislation regulating application of the principle of non bis in idem. This part of paper explains concept and content of the principle itself. The second part analyzes concept of the principle of non bis in idem according to the jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights and the certain cases of different countries – Austria, Belgium, Russia and the United States. In this part there has been revealed that the law of European Union in certain cases attributes violations in Lithuanian administrative law to the criminal law. The European Union law does not distinguish previously mentioned types of liability since punishment is considered as the main purpose for both these liabilities. The European Court of Human Rights while taking decision whether offense committed by an individual could be classified as criminal applies three "Engel criteria": 1) classification of the commited offense under the national law; 2) nature of the offense; 3) austerity of sanctions imposed to the offender. There has been determined that in a certain cases where the European Court of Human Rights after evaluation of all these criteria takes decision that the administrative offense has criminal nature, then an individual must obtain essencially the same rights as a defendant in the criminal case. The analysis of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights indicated the main characteristics based on which the principle of non bis in idem is considered as without prejudice. These characteristics include: 1) initiation of pre – trial investigation cannot be regarded as a sufficient reason to discontinue legal proceedings of the administrative offense; 2) when the act committed constitutes an overlap between several offenses; 3) when the administrative penalty has been imposed due to inaccuracy or before the disclosure of all significant circumstances needed to classify an offense. The third part analyses the collision between both criminal and administrative liabilities, since composition of the similar norms may lead to violation of the principle of non bis in idem. Furthermore, the particular attention will be given to the certain cases, which reveals that in Lithuanian legal system an administrative offense, which by its nature could be considered as criminal is not clearly determined. While deciding whether the principle of non bis in idem is without prejudice or not, there has been revealed that the case law in the Lithuanian legal system is unequal. The fourth part represents a comparison between the jurisprudence of Lithuania and the European Court of Human Rights, their similarities and distinctions while interpreting the application of the principle of non bis in idem. The results of the research indicated that application of criminal liability to an individual previously punished by the administrative penalty for the same offense is without prejudice to the principle of non bis in idem. It means that the hypothesis, raised by the beginning of the research has been confirmed.
Every human being living in the State of Nature had equal opportunities. Because of the growth of human race, this state altered and the interests of each individual person began to intersect, especially when talking about property. As a result, the rights and freedoms of each individual person were taken under threat. Therefore people began to organize themselves into societies in order to solve collective issues of society all together. When they had elected the most competent representatives, able to represent the interests of all Nation the best they could, people living in the State of Nature voluntarily waived their rights for handling particular issues in collective manner. The first aim of the representatives was the welfare of people. Thus the fundamental institute of the highest government was born. However, decisions taken in the name of all the people would have no power if they could not be enforced and would not reflect interests of the Nation. Seeking to implement supervision, the executive power was established which took care of the general welfare and the realization of all decisions. Thus, having a different purpose in society, legislature and executive authorities acted solely for their own sphere. Therefore, legislature and executive authorities could represent and work for the people as fair as possible. This is the basic idea of the historical division of powers which, variously modified or pure, as the security of democracy, was adopted by the majority of the most developed states in Western Europe and other states. Thus, the aim of every up-to-date democratic and, in particular, postcommunistic regime state is to establish a framework of powers which would perfectly guarantee the rights and freedoms of ordinary member of society and would not revive undemocratic governance trends, when power is concentrated in the hands of the central government. According to the division of powers doctrine stated in the founding works, the governance of state must be established as three divided powers - legislative, executive and judicial powers. As it was mentioned before, each branch of government has only the powers assigned to it and they can neither delegate nor take over functions from the other branches of government. In no way the one branch of government can be interblended with other. However, separation of powers does not mean that legislative, executive and judicial powers are autonomous - this means that they cooperate in a manner seeking to reach the level of balance that no power has an advantage over the other. This principle has to be continuously carried out in respect of parliamentary control of government. Only this way will properly safeguard the Nation's rights and freedoms. Based on the experience of legal history in Lithuania and other foreign countries there was implemented the principle of division of powers. However, the framework of constitutional division of powers in the Republic of Lithuania has a modified nature. This conclusion can be made on the basis of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court ruling where unreasoned finding was made that the member of Seimas at the same time in accordance with the exception to the principle of division of powers provided in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania may be appointed to do duties as a member of the executive branch of government (the Government). In this way, the situation arises where such member of Seimas, taking the parliamentary control and having responsibility to monitor the activities of the executive branch, controls himself. This could result in the abuse of power and dissipation of resources. In this instance, a person being the member of Seimas and also a member of executive branch, shall receive the Constitution set salary for both possitions. Typically, such member of Seimas does not participate in the plenary sittings of Seimas because of the workload in the Government. This problem to be solved is in a competence of Constitutional Court but its power under the doctrine of the division of powers is limited because it would have the opportunity to speak only if called upon by a group of persons referred to in the Constitution. In addition, Constitutional Court has the competence to state only in the limits of the Constitution. As a result, the exceptions stated by Constitutional Court as being established in the Constitution, the principle of division of powers will be implemented in a manner mentioned above. Another possibility to solve this problem is in the prerogative of people or the representatives of people. The Constitution enshrines the opportunity for the members of Seimas to discuss people's concerns and the adoption of the laws limiting the interblending of powers, (whereas the Constitution provides for only the possibility of merger), or to initiate constitutional amendments immediately. If this possibility is not used by the members of Seimas, people can use it by themselves under manner established in the Constitution. The hypothesis (an appointment of the member of Seimas at the same time to do duties as a member of the executive branch contradicts the principle of division of powers estableshed in the Constitution) put forward in this study is denied based on the following considerations: 1. By the consensus of society in the State of Nature it has been decided to delegate own personal rights to the representatives of people. In this way legislature was founded, which meets interests of the people. Enforcement of judgments and accounting of resources have been transmitted for the executive. There was such a framework of governments and balance designed which could ensure the restriction of legislative powers to adopt decisions in excessive waste of the society goods and rapid and qualitative implementation of the rules of executive. Consequently, the merger of governments is not possible. 2. In Lithuania's history of constitutional law, the principle of division of powers in line with the historical principle of the division of powers was implemented in the Constutions of 1922 and 1990. These constitutions have been secured through the implementation of democracy. Constitutions of 1928 and 1938, were drawn in the interest of autocratic regimes. 3. The Constitutional Court decides the constitutionality of acts only according to the limits provided in the Constitution. Since the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is a single act, the constitutionality of legislation is addressed not only expletively, but also implicitly. Therefore, the Constitutional Court found an exception from the principle of division of powers, which allows the member of Seimas, being appointed to do duties as a member of the executive branch of goverment, to work two jobs at once. As a consequence, the activity of the member of Seimas in a given position in the Government do not contradict the principle of division of powers stated in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. It is important to notice that the Constitutional Court shall have the right to decide the constitutionality of legislation only upon the request, but not on its own initiative. The exemption established by the Constitutional Court was declared without initial request. However, under the Constitution, this decision is necessarily enforceable. It is important to mention that the nation or its representatives also has the power to initiate amendments to the Constitution. Therefore it can be assumed that such exception could be the primary expression of the will of nation. 4. On the grounds of the competence of legislative branch, the Seimas has a duty to combine the exeption established and the principle of division of powers. Therefore some issues must be solved concerning compulsory participation of the member of Seimas in plenary sittings, workload, quality of the duties performed, salary for the duties performed and parlamentary control. Under these circumstances, the member of Seimas at the same time in the position of a member of the executive branch has the right not to participate in plenary sittings, exceed the competence, get salary for the both positions despite the fact that some duties as being the member of Seimas is not carried out and act without adequate control. This clearly contradicts the priciple of division of powers. In summary this condition is legitimized by the Constitutional Court and the issue raised is whether the principle of division of powers as established in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania does not contradict to the historical concept of the principle of separation of powers? The answer can be provided only by the nation or its representatives – the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania.
Every human being living in the State of Nature had equal opportunities. Because of the growth of human race, this state altered and the interests of each individual person began to intersect, especially when talking about property. As a result, the rights and freedoms of each individual person were taken under threat. Therefore people began to organize themselves into societies in order to solve collective issues of society all together. When they had elected the most competent representatives, able to represent the interests of all Nation the best they could, people living in the State of Nature voluntarily waived their rights for handling particular issues in collective manner. The first aim of the representatives was the welfare of people. Thus the fundamental institute of the highest government was born. However, decisions taken in the name of all the people would have no power if they could not be enforced and would not reflect interests of the Nation. Seeking to implement supervision, the executive power was established which took care of the general welfare and the realization of all decisions. Thus, having a different purpose in society, legislature and executive authorities acted solely for their own sphere. Therefore, legislature and executive authorities could represent and work for the people as fair as possible. This is the basic idea of the historical division of powers which, variously modified or pure, as the security of democracy, was adopted by the majority of the most developed states in Western Europe and other states. Thus, the aim of every up-to-date democratic and, in particular, postcommunistic regime state is to establish a framework of powers which would perfectly guarantee the rights and freedoms of ordinary member of society and would not revive undemocratic governance trends, when power is concentrated in the hands of the central government. According to the division of powers doctrine stated in the founding works, the governance of state must be established as three divided powers - legislative, executive and judicial powers. As it was mentioned before, each branch of government has only the powers assigned to it and they can neither delegate nor take over functions from the other branches of government. In no way the one branch of government can be interblended with other. However, separation of powers does not mean that legislative, executive and judicial powers are autonomous - this means that they cooperate in a manner seeking to reach the level of balance that no power has an advantage over the other. This principle has to be continuously carried out in respect of parliamentary control of government. Only this way will properly safeguard the Nation's rights and freedoms. Based on the experience of legal history in Lithuania and other foreign countries there was implemented the principle of division of powers. However, the framework of constitutional division of powers in the Republic of Lithuania has a modified nature. This conclusion can be made on the basis of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court ruling where unreasoned finding was made that the member of Seimas at the same time in accordance with the exception to the principle of division of powers provided in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania may be appointed to do duties as a member of the executive branch of government (the Government). In this way, the situation arises where such member of Seimas, taking the parliamentary control and having responsibility to monitor the activities of the executive branch, controls himself. This could result in the abuse of power and dissipation of resources. In this instance, a person being the member of Seimas and also a member of executive branch, shall receive the Constitution set salary for both possitions. Typically, such member of Seimas does not participate in the plenary sittings of Seimas because of the workload in the Government. This problem to be solved is in a competence of Constitutional Court but its power under the doctrine of the division of powers is limited because it would have the opportunity to speak only if called upon by a group of persons referred to in the Constitution. In addition, Constitutional Court has the competence to state only in the limits of the Constitution. As a result, the exceptions stated by Constitutional Court as being established in the Constitution, the principle of division of powers will be implemented in a manner mentioned above. Another possibility to solve this problem is in the prerogative of people or the representatives of people. The Constitution enshrines the opportunity for the members of Seimas to discuss people's concerns and the adoption of the laws limiting the interblending of powers, (whereas the Constitution provides for only the possibility of merger), or to initiate constitutional amendments immediately. If this possibility is not used by the members of Seimas, people can use it by themselves under manner established in the Constitution. The hypothesis (an appointment of the member of Seimas at the same time to do duties as a member of the executive branch contradicts the principle of division of powers estableshed in the Constitution) put forward in this study is denied based on the following considerations: 1. By the consensus of society in the State of Nature it has been decided to delegate own personal rights to the representatives of people. In this way legislature was founded, which meets interests of the people. Enforcement of judgments and accounting of resources have been transmitted for the executive. There was such a framework of governments and balance designed which could ensure the restriction of legislative powers to adopt decisions in excessive waste of the society goods and rapid and qualitative implementation of the rules of executive. Consequently, the merger of governments is not possible. 2. In Lithuania's history of constitutional law, the principle of division of powers in line with the historical principle of the division of powers was implemented in the Constutions of 1922 and 1990. These constitutions have been secured through the implementation of democracy. Constitutions of 1928 and 1938, were drawn in the interest of autocratic regimes. 3. The Constitutional Court decides the constitutionality of acts only according to the limits provided in the Constitution. Since the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is a single act, the constitutionality of legislation is addressed not only expletively, but also implicitly. Therefore, the Constitutional Court found an exception from the principle of division of powers, which allows the member of Seimas, being appointed to do duties as a member of the executive branch of goverment, to work two jobs at once. As a consequence, the activity of the member of Seimas in a given position in the Government do not contradict the principle of division of powers stated in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. It is important to notice that the Constitutional Court shall have the right to decide the constitutionality of legislation only upon the request, but not on its own initiative. The exemption established by the Constitutional Court was declared without initial request. However, under the Constitution, this decision is necessarily enforceable. It is important to mention that the nation or its representatives also has the power to initiate amendments to the Constitution. Therefore it can be assumed that such exception could be the primary expression of the will of nation. 4. On the grounds of the competence of legislative branch, the Seimas has a duty to combine the exeption established and the principle of division of powers. Therefore some issues must be solved concerning compulsory participation of the member of Seimas in plenary sittings, workload, quality of the duties performed, salary for the duties performed and parlamentary control. Under these circumstances, the member of Seimas at the same time in the position of a member of the executive branch has the right not to participate in plenary sittings, exceed the competence, get salary for the both positions despite the fact that some duties as being the member of Seimas is not carried out and act without adequate control. This clearly contradicts the priciple of division of powers. In summary this condition is legitimized by the Constitutional Court and the issue raised is whether the principle of division of powers as established in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania does not contradict to the historical concept of the principle of separation of powers? The answer can be provided only by the nation or its representatives – the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania.
Every human being living in the State of Nature had equal opportunities. Because of the growth of human race, this state altered and the interests of each individual person began to intersect, especially when talking about property. As a result, the rights and freedoms of each individual person were taken under threat. Therefore people began to organize themselves into societies in order to solve collective issues of society all together. When they had elected the most competent representatives, able to represent the interests of all Nation the best they could, people living in the State of Nature voluntarily waived their rights for handling particular issues in collective manner. The first aim of the representatives was the welfare of people. Thus the fundamental institute of the highest government was born. However, decisions taken in the name of all the people would have no power if they could not be enforced and would not reflect interests of the Nation. Seeking to implement supervision, the executive power was established which took care of the general welfare and the realization of all decisions. Thus, having a different purpose in society, legislature and executive authorities acted solely for their own sphere. Therefore, legislature and executive authorities could represent and work for the people as fair as possible. This is the basic idea of the historical division of powers which, variously modified or pure, as the security of democracy, was adopted by the majority of the most developed states in Western Europe and other states. Thus, the aim of every up-to-date democratic and, in particular, postcommunistic regime state is to establish a framework of powers which would perfectly guarantee the rights and freedoms of ordinary member of society and would not revive undemocratic governance trends, when power is concentrated in the hands of the central government. According to the division of powers doctrine stated in the founding works, the governance of state must be established as three divided powers - legislative, executive and judicial powers. As it was mentioned before, each branch of government has only the powers assigned to it and they can neither delegate nor take over functions from the other branches of government. In no way the one branch of government can be interblended with other. However, separation of powers does not mean that legislative, executive and judicial powers are autonomous - this means that they cooperate in a manner seeking to reach the level of balance that no power has an advantage over the other. This principle has to be continuously carried out in respect of parliamentary control of government. Only this way will properly safeguard the Nation's rights and freedoms. Based on the experience of legal history in Lithuania and other foreign countries there was implemented the principle of division of powers. However, the framework of constitutional division of powers in the Republic of Lithuania has a modified nature. This conclusion can be made on the basis of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court ruling where unreasoned finding was made that the member of Seimas at the same time in accordance with the exception to the principle of division of powers provided in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania may be appointed to do duties as a member of the executive branch of government (the Government). In this way, the situation arises where such member of Seimas, taking the parliamentary control and having responsibility to monitor the activities of the executive branch, controls himself. This could result in the abuse of power and dissipation of resources. In this instance, a person being the member of Seimas and also a member of executive branch, shall receive the Constitution set salary for both possitions. Typically, such member of Seimas does not participate in the plenary sittings of Seimas because of the workload in the Government. This problem to be solved is in a competence of Constitutional Court but its power under the doctrine of the division of powers is limited because it would have the opportunity to speak only if called upon by a group of persons referred to in the Constitution. In addition, Constitutional Court has the competence to state only in the limits of the Constitution. As a result, the exceptions stated by Constitutional Court as being established in the Constitution, the principle of division of powers will be implemented in a manner mentioned above. Another possibility to solve this problem is in the prerogative of people or the representatives of people. The Constitution enshrines the opportunity for the members of Seimas to discuss people's concerns and the adoption of the laws limiting the interblending of powers, (whereas the Constitution provides for only the possibility of merger), or to initiate constitutional amendments immediately. If this possibility is not used by the members of Seimas, people can use it by themselves under manner established in the Constitution. The hypothesis (an appointment of the member of Seimas at the same time to do duties as a member of the executive branch contradicts the principle of division of powers estableshed in the Constitution) put forward in this study is denied based on the following considerations: 1. By the consensus of society in the State of Nature it has been decided to delegate own personal rights to the representatives of people. In this way legislature was founded, which meets interests of the people. Enforcement of judgments and accounting of resources have been transmitted for the executive. There was such a framework of governments and balance designed which could ensure the restriction of legislative powers to adopt decisions in excessive waste of the society goods and rapid and qualitative implementation of the rules of executive. Consequently, the merger of governments is not possible. 2. In Lithuania's history of constitutional law, the principle of division of powers in line with the historical principle of the division of powers was implemented in the Constutions of 1922 and 1990. These constitutions have been secured through the implementation of democracy. Constitutions of 1928 and 1938, were drawn in the interest of autocratic regimes. 3. The Constitutional Court decides the constitutionality of acts only according to the limits provided in the Constitution. Since the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is a single act, the constitutionality of legislation is addressed not only expletively, but also implicitly. Therefore, the Constitutional Court found an exception from the principle of division of powers, which allows the member of Seimas, being appointed to do duties as a member of the executive branch of goverment, to work two jobs at once. As a consequence, the activity of the member of Seimas in a given position in the Government do not contradict the principle of division of powers stated in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. It is important to notice that the Constitutional Court shall have the right to decide the constitutionality of legislation only upon the request, but not on its own initiative. The exemption established by the Constitutional Court was declared without initial request. However, under the Constitution, this decision is necessarily enforceable. It is important to mention that the nation or its representatives also has the power to initiate amendments to the Constitution. Therefore it can be assumed that such exception could be the primary expression of the will of nation. 4. On the grounds of the competence of legislative branch, the Seimas has a duty to combine the exeption established and the principle of division of powers. Therefore some issues must be solved concerning compulsory participation of the member of Seimas in plenary sittings, workload, quality of the duties performed, salary for the duties performed and parlamentary control. Under these circumstances, the member of Seimas at the same time in the position of a member of the executive branch has the right not to participate in plenary sittings, exceed the competence, get salary for the both positions despite the fact that some duties as being the member of Seimas is not carried out and act without adequate control. This clearly contradicts the priciple of division of powers. In summary this condition is legitimized by the Constitutional Court and the issue raised is whether the principle of division of powers as established in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania does not contradict to the historical concept of the principle of separation of powers? The answer can be provided only by the nation or its representatives – the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania.
Legal state aims to protect the vulnerable participants of the proceedings from the possible negative impact in the criminal proceedings. As there is no exact definition of vulnerable victims, witnesses, suspects and defendants in national legislation and international documents, the vulnerability determination of these participants is complicated. In addition, the different legal regulation may be established for the vulnerability of individual persons. Therefore, there is a need to analyse how the rights and additional procedural guarantees of the vulnerable persons with a procedural statuses of victim, witness, suspect and defendant are implemented during the procedure without prejudice of the right to a fair trial of the other participants of the proceedings. Thesis aims to reveal the importance of the additional procedural guarantees and peculiarities of their application to the protection of participants of the proceedings without prejudice of the right to a fair trial of the other participants of the proceedings, taking into account the vulnerability determination criteria of the participants of proceedings.
Legal state aims to protect the vulnerable participants of the proceedings from the possible negative impact in the criminal proceedings. As there is no exact definition of vulnerable victims, witnesses, suspects and defendants in national legislation and international documents, the vulnerability determination of these participants is complicated. In addition, the different legal regulation may be established for the vulnerability of individual persons. Therefore, there is a need to analyse how the rights and additional procedural guarantees of the vulnerable persons with a procedural statuses of victim, witness, suspect and defendant are implemented during the procedure without prejudice of the right to a fair trial of the other participants of the proceedings. Thesis aims to reveal the importance of the additional procedural guarantees and peculiarities of their application to the protection of participants of the proceedings without prejudice of the right to a fair trial of the other participants of the proceedings, taking into account the vulnerability determination criteria of the participants of proceedings.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania defined freedom of expression as the right to disseminate not only positive, but also shocking and disturbing thoughts or ideas. Nevertheless, Lithuania supplemented the Criminal Code with the Article 170-2 and banned the public endorsement for international crimes, the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany crimes against the Republic of Lithuania or its residents, their denial or gross trivialization. While the world is increasingly protecting human rights, in Lithuania for a number of speeches there's a threat of imprisonment. Therefore, this thesis analyzes whether such regulation set in Lithuania is without prejudice to the freedom of expression of individuals to express their beliefs, thoughts or ideas. Research focus – the regulation of the denial of crime, endorsement or gross trivialization in the context of freedom of expression indicated at the disposal of Article 170-2 of the Criminal Code. The aim of this thesis - to determine whether, based on scientific work, the European Court of Human Rights and foreign regulation, public endorsement, denial or gross trivialization of international crimes, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany crimes against the Republic of Lithuania or its residents is without prejudice to the freedom of expression under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Keywords: freedom of expression, incitement to hatred and violence, denial, endorsement, trivialization, international crimes, Soviet regime crimes, Nazi Germany crimes. The analysis of scientific literature, legislation, case law, provides that freedom of expression is not absolute but could be restricted by the law in order to protect persons health, morals, honor, dignity, public order, constitutional order or to protect persons from criminal acts - hate, violence and incitement to discrimination. These restrictions must be proportionate to legitimate aim. Denial, endorsement or gross trivialization of international crimes against humanity – genocide, war crimes or aggression – are considered hate crimes that are forbidden in European countries. In the USA denial, endorsement or gross trivialization of genocide, war crimes or aggression are protected by First Amendment to the United States Constitution and in contrast to Europe there is no risk of criminal liability for such actions. It is claimed that Lithuania supplemented the Criminal Code with the Article 170-2 and limits the freedom of expression but it is made by law in order to protect persons health, morals, honor and dignity because incitement of hatred and violence is incompatible with democratic values and it is a proportionate measure to deal with racist and xenophobic crimes, inciting hatred and violence.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania defined freedom of expression as the right to disseminate not only positive, but also shocking and disturbing thoughts or ideas. Nevertheless, Lithuania supplemented the Criminal Code with the Article 170-2 and banned the public endorsement for international crimes, the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany crimes against the Republic of Lithuania or its residents, their denial or gross trivialization. While the world is increasingly protecting human rights, in Lithuania for a number of speeches there's a threat of imprisonment. Therefore, this thesis analyzes whether such regulation set in Lithuania is without prejudice to the freedom of expression of individuals to express their beliefs, thoughts or ideas. Research focus – the regulation of the denial of crime, endorsement or gross trivialization in the context of freedom of expression indicated at the disposal of Article 170-2 of the Criminal Code. The aim of this thesis - to determine whether, based on scientific work, the European Court of Human Rights and foreign regulation, public endorsement, denial or gross trivialization of international crimes, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany crimes against the Republic of Lithuania or its residents is without prejudice to the freedom of expression under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Keywords: freedom of expression, incitement to hatred and violence, denial, endorsement, trivialization, international crimes, Soviet regime crimes, Nazi Germany crimes. The analysis of scientific literature, legislation, case law, provides that freedom of expression is not absolute but could be restricted by the law in order to protect persons health, morals, honor, dignity, public order, constitutional order or to protect persons from criminal acts - hate, violence and incitement to discrimination. These restrictions must be proportionate to legitimate aim. Denial, endorsement or gross trivialization of international crimes against humanity – genocide, war crimes or aggression – are considered hate crimes that are forbidden in European countries. In the USA denial, endorsement or gross trivialization of genocide, war crimes or aggression are protected by First Amendment to the United States Constitution and in contrast to Europe there is no risk of criminal liability for such actions. It is claimed that Lithuania supplemented the Criminal Code with the Article 170-2 and limits the freedom of expression but it is made by law in order to protect persons health, morals, honor and dignity because incitement of hatred and violence is incompatible with democratic values and it is a proportionate measure to deal with racist and xenophobic crimes, inciting hatred and violence.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania defined freedom of expression as the right to disseminate not only positive, but also shocking and disturbing thoughts or ideas. Nevertheless, Lithuania supplemented the Criminal Code with the Article 170-2 and banned the public endorsement for international crimes, the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany crimes against the Republic of Lithuania or its residents, their denial or gross trivialization. While the world is increasingly protecting human rights, in Lithuania for a number of speeches there's a threat of imprisonment. Therefore, this thesis analyzes whether such regulation set in Lithuania is without prejudice to the freedom of expression of individuals to express their beliefs, thoughts or ideas. Research focus – the regulation of the denial of crime, endorsement or gross trivialization in the context of freedom of expression indicated at the disposal of Article 170-2 of the Criminal Code. The aim of this thesis - to determine whether, based on scientific work, the European Court of Human Rights and foreign regulation, public endorsement, denial or gross trivialization of international crimes, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany crimes against the Republic of Lithuania or its residents is without prejudice to the freedom of expression under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Keywords: freedom of expression, incitement to hatred and violence, denial, endorsement, trivialization, international crimes, Soviet regime crimes, Nazi Germany crimes. The analysis of scientific literature, legislation, case law, provides that freedom of expression is not absolute but could be restricted by the law in order to protect persons health, morals, honor, dignity, public order, constitutional order or to protect persons from criminal acts - hate, violence and incitement to discrimination. These restrictions must be proportionate to legitimate aim. Denial, endorsement or gross trivialization of international crimes against humanity – genocide, war crimes or aggression – are considered hate crimes that are forbidden in European countries. In the USA denial, endorsement or gross trivialization of genocide, war crimes or aggression are protected by First Amendment to the United States Constitution and in contrast to Europe there is no risk of criminal liability for such actions. It is claimed that Lithuania supplemented the Criminal Code with the Article 170-2 and limits the freedom of expression but it is made by law in order to protect persons health, morals, honor and dignity because incitement of hatred and violence is incompatible with democratic values and it is a proportionate measure to deal with racist and xenophobic crimes, inciting hatred and violence.
The dissertation deals with issues of those art practices, where an artist or a curator employs people as a project material so as to realize his/her creative purpose. Projects like this commonly expand beyond the aesthetic field: instead of representing social or political reality, they actually perform it. Therefore the dissertation aims at constructing a conceptual model that would enable the analysis of the problems around participatory art, as a practice operating both in aesthetic and social fields. The model is based primarily on rethinking of the classical divide between production and action (poiēsis and praxis) and the principle premise that contemporary production is increasingly becoming akin to action (Paolo Virno, Giorgio Agamben). The dissertation suggests that participatory practices are the clearest evidence of this dialectics between production and action in contemporary art. The model constructed of diverse philosophical concepts (idle talk, tactics, everyday practices, performativity, iteration) is employed for analysis of participatory art practices in Lithuania, which shows how looking through the prism of production and action foregrounds certain problems, general to participatory art (e.g. those of documentation, relation between art event and artwork, labor and entertainment, etc.). At the same time it proves to be a handy tool that helps to highlight peculiarities of a particular project, to question certain established prejudices, and to unveil new aspects.
The aim of this research is to analyze ethnic topics of Lithuanian press. The objective of the research is to examine in what forms and how ethnic intolerance is constructed in printed and Internet media texts through representation of topics, problems, named causers of the problems and their causality (i.e. by introducing/presenting explanations of causes of the problems). Therefore, the main problem of this study is the assessment of the concept of ethnic intolerance and measurement of ethnic intolerance in media discourse. The main body of empirical data was collected during the qualitative research of printed and Internet media, which consisted of two parts: (1) media content analysis and (2) structured interviews with experts (politicians, officials, representatives of ethnic minorities, and journalists). The findings of the research of ethnic intolerance content in Lithuanian media reveals that topics (problems) of interethnic relations in Lithuanian press are mostly interrelated with economical and political issues and less with cultural and psychological causality aspects. Each ethnic or religious group – Roma, Jews, Polish, Russians, Muslims and immigrants – is associated with specific problems in the Lithuanian press. No aggressive forms of ethnic intolerance (incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence) were found in the content of Lithuanian press. The most common manifestations of ethnic intolerance in Lithuanian press were hate speech, harassment, subtle (hidden)prejudices, stereotypes and the discourse of silence. The understanding of ethnic problems (topics) in Lithuanian society and representation of ethnic problems in Lithuanian press present a closed circulation cycle as the problems experienced by ethnic, religious and migrant groups in Lithuanian society and identified by surveyed experts, are partially reiterated from topics about ethnic groups covered in media.
The aim of this research is to analyze ethnic topics of Lithuanian press. The objective of the research is to examine in what forms and how ethnic intolerance is constructed in printed and Internet media texts through representation of topics, problems, named causers of the problems and their causality (i.e. by introducing/presenting explanations of causes of the problems). Therefore, the main problem of this study is the assessment of the concept of ethnic intolerance and measurement of ethnic intolerance in media discourse. The main body of empirical data was collected during the qualitative research of printed and Internet media, which consisted of two parts: (1) media content analysis and (2) structured interviews with experts (politicians, officials, representatives of ethnic minorities, and journalists). The findings of the research of ethnic intolerance content in Lithuanian media reveals that topics (problems) of interethnic relations in Lithuanian press are mostly interrelated with economical and political issues and less with cultural and psychological causality aspects. Each ethnic or religious group – Roma, Jews, Polish, Russians, Muslims and immigrants – is associated with specific problems in the Lithuanian press. No aggressive forms of ethnic intolerance (incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence) were found in the content of Lithuanian press. The most common manifestations of ethnic intolerance in Lithuanian press were hate speech, harassment, subtle (hidden)prejudices, stereotypes and the discourse of silence. The understanding of ethnic problems (topics) in Lithuanian society and representation of ethnic problems in Lithuanian press present a closed circulation cycle as the problems experienced by ethnic, religious and migrant groups in Lithuanian society and identified by surveyed experts, are partially reiterated from topics about ethnic groups covered in media.
The aim of this research is to analyze ethnic topics of Lithuanian press. The objective of the research is to examine in what forms and how ethnic intolerance is constructed in printed and Internet media texts through representation of topics, problems, named causers of the problems and their causality (i.e. by introducing/presenting explanations of causes of the problems). Therefore, the main problem of this study is the assessment of the concept of ethnic intolerance and measurement of ethnic intolerance in media discourse. The main body of empirical data was collected during the qualitative research of printed and Internet media, which consisted of two parts: (1) media content analysis and (2) structured interviews with experts (politicians, officials, representatives of ethnic minorities, and journalists). The findings of the research of ethnic intolerance content in Lithuanian media reveals that topics (problems) of interethnic relations in Lithuanian press are mostly interrelated with economical and political issues and less with cultural and psychological causality aspects. Each ethnic or religious group – Roma, Jews, Polish, Russians, Muslims and immigrants – is associated with specific problems in the Lithuanian press. No aggressive forms of ethnic intolerance (incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence) were found in the content of Lithuanian press. The most common manifestations of ethnic intolerance in Lithuanian press were hate speech, harassment, subtle (hidden) prejudices, stereotypes and the discourse of silence. The understanding of ethnic problems (topics) in Lithuanian society and representation of ethnic problems in Lithuanian press present a closed circulation cycle as the problems experienced by ethnic, religious and migrant groups in Lithuanian society and identified by surveyed experts, are partially reiterated from topics about ethnic groups covered in media.
