Taikių susirinkimų laisvės įgyvendinimo probleminiai aspektai

LTStraipsnyje yra analizuojami teisės į taikius susirinkimus įgyvendinimo tvarkos probleminiai aspektai. Remiantis Lietuvos Respublikos teismų praktika ir Seimo kontrolierės Virginijos Pilipavičienės tyrimo išvadomis, matyti, kad pagrindinė kliūtis teisei į taikius susirinkimus įgyvendinti yra neproporcingas šios teisės ribojimas, nulemtas teisinio reguliavimo trūkumų. Toliau straipsnyje yra aptariamos pagrindinės taikių susirinkimų laisvės įgyvendinimo problemos ir pateikiami galimi jų sprendimo būdai.

ENRight to freedom of peaceful assembly, as the citizens' political mode of public life, is one of the fundamental values of a democratic system. According to the Lithuanian case law and the research findings of the Ombudsman, the disproportionate and unreasonable restriction prevents the effective implementation of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. Thus, the main purpose of this article is to identify and analyse the reasons causing violations of freedom of peaceful assembly and to present the possible solutions to these violations. In the article the following main conclusions are presented. The right to freedom of peaceful assembly as the citizens' political mode of public life, is one of the fundamental values of a democratic system. However, the freedom of peaceful assembly is not absolute; it is associated with certain risks, as well as armed and other unpeaceful meetings (the possibility of organizing them thus distorting the meaning of freedom of assembly). Therefore, the Constitution and the Law on assemblies provide the restrictions of this freedom, which are aimed at maintaining the balance between the public and private interest in the range of freedom of assembly. The act of municipal administration, as an individual act of public administration, to refuse to issue permission (certification) for concerted assembly place, time and form according to Lithuanian legislation, has to be justified and failure to comply with this requirement may be regarded as an absolute annulment basis. However, according to case law, it follows that the insufficient statement of reasons may be justified if there is no conflict with the principles of law and the organized meeting assembly clearly und indisputably is not fall into list of banned assemblies.If the freedom of peaceful assembly, as shown by Lithuanian case law and European Court of Human Right jurisprudence, is one of the most important ways of human self-expression, the prohibition of legal assembly due to the threat of different social groups'confrontation can only be ultima ratio measure. Municipal administration has a duty to ensure that above mentioned groups could have a possibility to implement he right to freedom of peaceful assembly. The latest term the municipal administration to consider the report on organizing assembly and (48 hours before the assembly) and the latest term the court to examine a disputed decision of municipal administration (no later than 3 days), provided in a Law on assemblies, prerequisite for prevention of an effective judicial protection and, in general, to deny freedom of peaceful assembly. It is proposed to legislator to adjust these provisions, especially the deadline of 48 hours, rising to at least 4 days, i.e. 96 hours. This extended period would be compatible with the 3 days term of judicial examination. It is not clear which one of courts, the court of general competence or the administrative court, should consider the case against the negative decision of municipal administration. According to the case law and the fact that the municipal administration is a subject of public administration, it is proposed the Article 13 of Law on assemblies to adjust settling, that the decision to refuse permission for organizing the assembly can be appealed before the administrative court.