Reikalavimo užtikrinimo priemonių taikymo 2010 metais Lietuvos vyriausiajame administraciniame teisme analizė

LTReikalavimo užtikrinimo priemonės administracinėse bylose pagal Lietuvos Respublikos administracinių bylų teisenos įstatymą (toliau – ABTĮ) gali būti taikomos tuo atveju, jei būsimo teismo sprendimo vykdymas šių priemonių nepritaikius gali pasunkėti ar pasidaryti negalimas. Vis dėlto teismų praktikoje įstatyme ABTĮ numatytų pagrindų buvimas ar nebuvimas yra aiškinamas kur kas plačiau ir detaliau, negu tą galima numanyti. Siekiant atskleisti įstatymo numatytų ir teismų praktikoje pripažįstamų reikalavimo užtikrinimo priemonių taikymo pagrindų santykį, buvo atliktas Lietuvos vyriausiojo administracinio teismo praktikos reikalavimo užtikrinimo priemonių bylose per 2010 metus analitinis tyrimas. Apibendrintos tyrimo išvados skelbiamos šiame straipsnyje. Tyrimo metu paaiškėjo, jog Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas gana plačiai ir ne visai tinkamai interpretuoja reikalavimo užtikrinimo priemonių taikymo pagrindus. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Administracinių bylų teisenos užtikrinimas; Administracinės bylos; Apygardos administracinis teismas; Laikinosios apsaugos priemonės; Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas; Reikalavimo užtikrinimo priemonės; Administrative cases; District administrative court; Interim protection measures; Measures of protection in administrative procedure; Temporary Protection measures; The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania.

ENProtection measures in the administrative procedure are regulated by the Law on Administrative Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania. These measures are applied when there is a risk of aggravation of execution of future administrative court decision taken in favour of the petitioner. The law provides a fixed number and types of possible protection measures, namely: 1) temporary suspension of an administrative decision in question; 2) prohibition of certain course of action for the defendant; 3) temporary suspension of execution of a writ. Only these three types of protection measures can be legally applied in the administrative procedure in Lithuania. Nevertheless, administrative courts are more willing to construe the reasons of application of protection measures in a more detailed and not often correct way than provided by the law. In order to reveal and prove this phenomenon an analytical study has been performed of the decisions adopted by the Supreme Administrative Court during 2010 regarding the protection measures. The Article presents generalised conclusions of the study. In the course of the study it has been revealed that the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania improperly construes the application of protection measures and deviates from the legal background of application of such measures. The court bases its decisions on general phrases, adds additional criteria to the application of protection measures which are not provided by the law.Furthermore, the Supreme Administrative Court fails to rely sufficiently on the particular facts of the cases heard by it. The particular argumentation of the court, namely that "the application of protection measures is adequate to the aims pursued" or "the ruling of the court of first instance is not sufficiently reasoned" does lead the court to theoretical considerations only, instead of adding transparency and evidence to the questions heard. Due to general phrases used, any third parties to the case are prevented from understanding the real justification for the protection measures applied. The author does not agree with the above-mentioned practice and considers it faulty. To criticise courts is not the only aim of the author of this Article, as he is looking for the benefit to the whole legal system instead, to this end, the author analyses and comments court arguments usually met when applying protection measures. The Article contains brief legal evaluation of those arguments and related recommendations. [From the publication]