Tarėjų instituto Lietuvos Respublikos teismų sistemoje modelio paieškos teoriniai aspektai

Direct Link:
Collection:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Straipsnis / Article
Language:
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Title:
Tarėjų instituto Lietuvos Respublikos teismų sistemoje modelio paieškos teoriniai aspektai
Alternative Title:
Theoretical aspects modelling the institute of assessors in the judiciary of the Republic of Lithuania
In the Journal:
Tiltai [Bridges] [Brücken]. 2018, Nr.2 (80), p. 23-41
Keywords:
LT
Demokratija; Teismas; Teisingumas.
EN
Democracy; Court; Justice.
Summary / Abstract:

LTValdžios struktūra ir jos veikla demokratinėje valstybėje turi būti grindžiama valdžių atskyrimo principu. Taip siekiama užtikrinti individualias teises ir laisves bei padėti visuomenei užkirsti kelią valdžios savivalei. Kiekviena valdžios galia įgyvendinama per tam tikras institucijas: parlamentą, atstovaujantį tautai ir leidžiantį įstatymus bei vykdantį kitas Konstitucijoje numatytas funkcijas; Vyriausybę, kuri įgyvendina parlamento priimtus įstatymus; teismus, kurie vykdo teisingumą. Jei valstybė negarantuoja teisingumo įgyvendinimo, visos kalbos apie demokratiją, teisėtumą, pilietinę visuomenę, žmogaus teises ir laisves lieka deklaratyvios. Tik nepriklausomos ir savarankiškos teisminės institucijos gali tinkamai atlikti savo pareigas – vykdyti teisingumą, užtikrinti Konstitucijoje, įstatymuose ir kituose teisės aktuose įtvirtintų nuostatų įgyvendinimą, garantuoti teisės viršenybę, ginti žmogaus teises ir laisves. Natūraliai kyla klausimas, ar teisingumą vykdantys teismai užtikrina šių principų įgyvendinimą, ar pilietis, kreipęsis į teismą, kad apgintų savo pažeistas teises, gali būti tikras, jog teismas ginčą išspręs nešališkai ir atkurs pažeistas teises.Straipsnio autoriai nagrinėja tokią svarbią temą kaip pasitikėjimas teismais, aptaria, kokiais būdais ir priemonėmis galima pasiekti didesnio pasitikėjimo šalies valdžia. Keliamas klausimas, ar būtų veiksminga Lietuvoje steigti teismų tarėjų institutą. Autoriai formuluoja išvadą, kad Lietuva yra viena iš nedaugelio demokratinių šalių, neturinčių prisiekusiųjų teismų ar tarėjų institucijos, kurios įkūrimas padėtų mažinti korupciją teisinėje sistemoje. Be to, būtų žengtas žingsnis siekiant padidinti visuomenės pasitikėjimą teismais. Pagrindinė išvada – būtina skatinti diskusijas apie nuosaikų tarėjų institucijos modelį. Autoriai mano, kad toks koncepcijos modelis neformuotų intervencijos į 1992 m. Lietuvos Respublikos Konstituciją ir teisinę sistemą, o papildytų esamą praktiką bei Konstitucijoje išreikštą siekį stiprinti valdžios institucijų ryšį su visuomene. Tokio siekio plėtojimo modelis būtų prasmingas. [Iš leidinio]

ENThe court is one of the constituent parts of state power, which has exclusive jurisdiction to pursue justice. The courts also play a special role in the public consciousness, because the courts remain the only hope in protecting violated rights and freedoms. Modern relations between society and state authorities are valued at the level of trust, which in turn is the basis for creating a sense of public security and wellbeing. Trust in courts is a people’s faith in the implementation of honest and responsible justice as a source of protection of human rights and freedoms. The court is one of the tools of social harmony, therefore it is important for the public to know that in any case the rights and freedoms of the citizens will be ensured, that any disputes will be solved fairly and impartially. Trust in the courts is necessary for the effective functioning of a democratic state under the rule of law and for the creation of a civil society which guarantees that the violated rights and freedoms will always be protected by an independent and impartial court. The main factors influencing trust in the courts are: independence of the courts, efficiency of court decisions and respect for them, high qualification and morale of the judge, publicity of court activity, court process, procedural behaviour of the judge, efficiency of administration of court activity. Trust in courts is also based on the social trust and condition of law in general. As a basis for the formation of a fair and reasonable opinion concerning courts, it is necessary to refer to the consistent formation of the legal consciousness of the society, which has been most influenced by media information in recent times. One of the most important factors in trust the courts is the independence of the courts and judges, which is the guarantee of stability of the judiciary.The independence of the judiciary in a democratic state is a duty and one of the most important conditions for the protection of human rights and freedoms. It is a duty, in accordance with the requirements of the law and the understanding of justice, to judge a particular case, independently of any possible influence from the side, thus becoming a guarantor of the stability of social and economic relations. The settled in Constitution system of the courts establishes the possibilities for eliminating possible mistakes of the courts of lower instances, preventing injustice, thus protecting the rights of a person, society and legitimate interests. Such a remedy is one of the guarantors of public confidence in the whole system of general jurisdiction. The main problems of court activity are the workload of judges, the concentration and economy of procedures, the financing of courts, and the modernization of court proceedings. Frequently changing laws regulating court activity issues indicate the state’s efforts to ensure the effective implementation of court functions. With the help of information technology, the organizational work of courts is facilitated, but slowly, thus the main problem – the workload of judges – is being solved. Trust in courts is growing when the hearing of cases complies with the requirements of procedural justice, such as the possibility of expressing a view, the clarification of appeals to the parties and the ethics of the judge. As the proceedings are conducted by a judge, the qualification of the judge and the behaviour of the judge during the trial are very important. Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania emphasizes that public authorities serve people, and therefore the relationship of state public authorities (not just of courts) with the public should be developed and concepts developed for their implementation.It would be interesting to have a model of public accountability for all other government bodies (which also have low public confidence). There is a constant debate among lawyers and scientists about the Institute of Jury or Assessors. However, most lawyers are cautious about the effectiveness and expediency of these institute. Some consider it as one of the means of transparent judicial power, the means of ensuring the transparency of the judiciary, thus reducing the doubts about the objectivity of judgments made and increasing trust in the courts; others consider that our society has not yet become accustomed to such changes, the more the society itself does not express a strong need. True, Seimas (Lithuania Parliament) should change the Constitution. Thus, the most important problem of the establishment of the Institute of Assessors is connected with the Constitution, in Section IX “The Court”, which establishes the structure of the courts of the Republic of Lithuania and the principles of activity, the mandatory provision stipulating that judges are appointed (Article 112), provides for the possibility of setting up specialized courts only. The issue of the Institute of Assessors in courts, or at least the prospect of establishing it, is not discussed here. In order to consolidate this institute, it would undoubtedly be necessary to amend the Constitution. The public is engaged in public relations with public authorities. For these reasons, the issue of compensation to the public representatives should not even be the subject of debate. The debate about the modest model of the Institute of Assessors, according to which the assessors would work gratis and would be any representatives of the society, having the procedural rights to ask and receive motivated court explanations, complain about the lack of such explanations, questioning their validity, clarity, etc. [...]. [From the publication]

ISSN:
1392-3137; 2351-6569
Subject:
Related Publications:
Permalink:
https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/80268
Updated:
2019-11-19 11:04:57
Metrics:
Views: 73    Downloads: 1
Export: