Konstituciniai antstolio įgaliojimų sustabdymo aspektai
LTTeisininkų bendruomenėje ir visuomenės informavimo priemonėse netrūksta diskusijų dėl teisingumo ministro suintensyvintos antstolių veiklos priežiūros. Vienas iš jautresnių aspektų - antstolio, kuris yra įtariamasis baudžiamojoje byloje, įgaliojimų sustabdymas. Todėl svarbu analizuoti Antstolių įstatymo aiškinimo, taikymo ir tobulinimo galimybes: a) konceptualiai ir dalykiškai, t. y. vengiant vertinti naujo ministro ir jo pirmtakų reformas ar „reformos reformą"; b) atsižvelgiant į Konstitucijos normas ir konkrečią teismo administracinę bylą. Tokiu sisteminiu („tarpšakiniu") tyrimu įmanoma optimaliai atskleisti administracinę teisę (jos sistemoje - Antstolių įstatymą) kaip „hipotetiškai detalizuotą Konstituciją ", kuri turi būti vertinama ir taikoma atsižvelgiant į konstitucinius principus. Jie iš esmės yra ne tiek „konstitucinės teisės principai", kiek bendrieji („tarpšakiniai") teisės principai, kildinami iš valstybės teisės sistemos formalizuoto lex fundamentalis (Konstitucijos).
ENSeveral years ago, a reform related with the legal status of court bailiffs was implemented the Republic of Lithuania. The bailiffs became parties of competing economic relations. In 2006, this transformation acquired some new features. The Minister of Justice introduced a stricter supervision over the activity of bailiffs. This is evident from the controversial and widely discussed decision of the Minister to terminate the powers of a bailiff who had for two years been held suspect in a certain criminal case. The Minister did not indicate any reasons for his decision. The court that heard the complaint of the bailiff concerned held that according to the law, the Minister was entitled to use his discretion - i.e. he was not bound by the necessity to provide any reasons for his decision, and he had the right to take such a decision at any time irrespective of the fact that his predecessor (the previous Minister) knew about the criminal case and saw no grounds for terminating the bailiff's powers. In principle (from the constitutional standpoint) any administrative legal act that causes negative effects to any definite person has to be reasoned. In this respect, the relevant decision of the Minister of Justice can be subject to criticism. The same applies to the position of the Court concerned.However, it is surprising that the Court failed to express its opinion concerning the alleged offence (supposed criminal delict), its gravity or risk, and the consequential necessity to terminate the bailiff's powers. It could be presumed that the Court assumed an erroneous (subject to criticism pursuant to the Constitution) attitude that: a) it was not obliged to verify whether the preventive administrative termination of the bailiff's powers was objectively necessary and proportionate; b) the Parliament (Seimas) itself, by establishing a general right for the Minister to terminate a bailiff's powers in the eventuality when such a bailiff was held suspect or accused in any criminal case, as if resolved the issue related with the objective necessity and proportionality of such termination, the examination of which should no longer be in the discretion of the Court. In accordance with the Constitutional principles (requirements) a court is obliged to examine (evaluate) the legitimacy and proportionality of the termination of a bailiff's powers established by the Minister's decree within the context of the factual circumstances.
