Teismų praktikos reikšmė Lietuvoje: stare decisis v. jurisprudence constante

LTŠiuo straipsniu nesiekiama pateikti išsamaus teisėjo vaidmens procese ar teismo precedento, kaip teisės šaltinio, mokslinio tyrimo, bet, sutinkant su tuo, kad kontinentinės teisinės sistemos šalyse teismų praktikos vaidmuo vis didėja, aktualiu tampa klausimas, ar teismo precedentas, grindžiamas stare decisis doktrina, reiškia tą patį, ką ir vienodos teismų praktikos formavimas arba jurisprudence constante doktrinos įtvirtinimas kontinentinės teisinės sistemos šalyse ir kokia apimtimi skiriasi teismų praktikos vaidmuo bendrosios ir kontinentinės teisinės sistemos šalyse. Šis klausimas Lietuvoje yra aktualus dėl to, kad Konstitucinis Teismas, pasisakydamas dėl jurisprudencijos tęstinumo būtinybės, aiškiai nurodė, kad teismų precedentai yra teisės šaltiniai ir rėmimasis precedentais yra vienodos ir nuoseklios teismų praktikos įgyvendinimo sąlyga, todėl žemesnės instancijos teismai yra saistomi aukštesnės instancijos ir savo paties sprendimų - precedentų, o esami aukštesnės instancijos bendrosios kompetencijos teismų sukurti precedentai atitinkamų kategorijų bylose susaisto ne tik žemesnės instancijos bendrosios kompetencijos teismus, priimančius sprendimus analogiškose bylose, bet ir tuos precedentus sukūrusius aukštesnės instancijos bendrosios kompetencijos teismus (inter alia Lietuvos apeliacinį teismą ir Lietuvos Aukščiausiąjį Teismą). Konstituciniam Teismui pasisakius dėl teismus saistančios horizontalios ir vertikalios teismų precedentų galios ir šį principą įtvirtinus pateiktame svarstyti Lietuvos Respublikos Seimui Teismų įstatymo projekte neišvengiamai kyla klausimas dėl teismų precedentų imperatyvaus pobūdžio ir dėl to, ar precedento privalomumo įtvirtinimas įstatymu reiškia stare decisis doktrinos, būdingos bendrosios teisinės sistemos šalims, recepciją Lietuvoje ir kokia yra imperatyvo.

ENIn the latter years European civil law systems shows the trend to be more and more influenced by the court practice. This development raises discussion about the convergence of both: common law system which is based on stare decisis doctrine and civil law system which is based on the principle of separation of powers and jurisprudence constante doctrine. In Lithuania, after the Constitutional Court in its several decision in 2006 and 2006 has stated that in order to ensure the uniformity (regularity, consistency) of the practice of courts of general jurisdiction, which arises from the Constitution, thus, also the continuity of the jurisprudence, it is necessary that already existing precedents in cases of corresponding categories, which were created by courts of general jurisdiction of higher instance, were binding on the courts of general jurisdiction of the same and the lower instances that adopt decisions in analogous cases, and One may deviate from the existing precedents and create new precedents only in such particular exceptional cases when it is unavoidably and objectively necessary, when it is constitutionally grounded and reasoned and only when it is properly (clearly and rationally) argued, it is discussed that such position of the Constitutional Court not only means, that court decision has acquired an official status of a source of law, but also that Lithuania has implemented stare decisis doctrine in its legal system. In this article it is argued that in order to make such a conclusion, firstly, it is necessary to clarify the differences between stare decisis and jurisprudence constante doctrines and to know clearly on what points they differ and on what points they are the same, secondly - to take in to account the peculiarities of Lithuanian legal tradition and only then to make a decision whether it is a best solution for our legal system.The analysis of the role of a precedent in civil and common laws system showed that there are lots of differences between them. Stare decisis is a fundamental jurisprudential policy followed by common law jurisdictions. It means that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law. According to this doctrine previous decisions make law, which must be followed are applied by subsequent courts when dealing with similar cases. It is not everything that the judge says in his judgement, which constitutes law, that is binding on subsequent courts. It is only the principle of law based on the material facts of the case, which the judge considers necessary for his decision, which is given this status. However the doctrine that holdings have binding precedential value is not valid within most civil law jurisdictions as it is argued that this principle interferes with the right of judges to interpret law and the right of the legislature to make law. Most such systems, however, recognize the concept of jurisprudence constante, which argues that even though judges are independent, they should rule in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. It means, that in theory, lower courts are generally not bound to precedents established by higher courts, but in practice, the need to have predictability means that lower courts generally defer to precedents by higher courts and in a sense, the highest courts in civil law jurisdictions are recognized as being bodies of a quasi-legislative nature.It is conluded that despite the fact that the goals of both: stare decisis and jurisprudence constante doctrines are very similar, the consequences and techniques differ much. While common law judges following stare decisis doctrine engage extremely closely with the variety of approaches, techniques, principles and considerations which they find in earlier judgments, and they evaluate precisely the substantive arguments which these address, judges form the civil law systems use previous court decisions more that a method of interpretation of law but is not a rule of law as it is treated in common law systems. It is also argued that the doctrine of jurisprudence constante ad stare decisis influence much on how court decisions are structured. In general, court decisions in common law jurisdictions are extremely wordy and go into great detail as to the how the decision was reached. This occurs to justify a court decision on the basis of previous case law as well as to make it easier to use the decision as a precedent in future cases. By contrast, court decisions in some civil law jurisdictions tend to be extremely brief, mentioning only the relevant legislation and not going into great detail about how a decision was reached. This is the result of the theoretical view that the court is only interpreting the view of the legislature and that detailed exposition is unnecessary. In other civil law jurisdictions, such as the German-speaking countries, court opinions tend to be much longer than in others and courts will frequently cite previous cases and academic writing. However, there are no unanimous attitude to the role of court decisions and some courts put less emphasis of the particular facts of the case than common law courts, but put more emphasis on the discussion of various doctrinal arguments and on finding what the correct interpretation of the law is.

• On the academic understanding of legal interpretation in Lithuania.. International journal of Baltic law 2005, 2, 1, 60-79.
• Teisminio precedento reikšmė jo tėvynėje - Anglijoje. Teisė 2002, 42, 152-165.
• Teisminio precedento reikšmė romanų-germanų teisinėje sistemoje. Vilnius, 2004. 183 lap.
• The Guarantee of the uniform interpretation of law and the principle of equality before law: requirements of legal certainty. Teisė 2002, 44, 71-85.