Ar Konstitucija leidžia Seimo nariams šokti, arba kai kurie Seimo nario teisinio statuso aiškinimo probleminiai aspektai

Abstract

The Constitution prohibits Members of the Seimas from working in any other work and from receiving any other remuneration, with the exception of remuneration for creative activities. Under the Constitution, the mandate of a Member of the Seimas may be used only in the manner so that the Member of the Seimas might exercise the rights and duties of the representative of the Nation, might participate when the Seimas—the representation of the Nation—executes its functions and powers. The mandate of a Member of the Seimas may not be used for personal gain or for the private gain of other persons. The Constitution does not tolerate any such situation when Members of the Seimas conclude agreements with commercial televisions regarding their participation in various television entertainment projects (shows) and assume corresponding obligations, since in this manner the mandate of a Member of the Seimas is indirectly used for private gain of other persons and for private gain of the Member of the Seimas. It is incompatible with the essence of the mandate of a Member of the Seimas and with the constitutional status of a Member of the Seimas. Under the Constitution, a Member of the Seimas enjoys immunity only against criminal liability. The provision “A Member of the Seimas may not be <…> arrested, nor may his freedom be otherwise restricted without the consent of the Seimas” of Paragraph 2 of Article 62 of the Constitution also means that in all cases before arresting a Member of the Seimas or otherwise restricting his freedom, regardless of what type of liability is applied, the prior consent of the Seimas is necessary. Paragraph 3 of Article 261 of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law provides that if this Code provides for administrative arrest for an administrative violation of law, which has been committed by a Member of the Seimas, the officers who drew up the protocol shall, before referring the case to the court or other institution considering the case, within three days, apply to the Prosecutor General regarding the prior consent of the Seimas to restrict the freedom of the Member of the Seimas. Such legal regulation means that the court is even not allowed to begin consideration of a case of an administrative violation of law committed by a Member of the Seimas and impose an administrative penalty upon that Member of the Seimas, if the legal norm provides that one of the sanctions is administrative arrest and if the prior consent of the Seimas to restrict the freedom of the Member of the Seimas has not been received. By such legal regulation the legislator groundlessly expanded the immunity of the Member of the Seimas provided for in the Constitution. It is proposed that the legal regulation established in the Code of Administrative Violations of Law be amended and that it would establish that the court should apply to the Seimas regarding the consent of the Seimas to restrict the freedom of a Member of the Seimas only after consideration of a case of administrative violation of law committed by a Member of the Seimas, when, in the opinion of the court, the Member of the Seimas should be imposed administrative arrest. Without such consent the court would not be allowed to impose administrative arrest upon the Member of the Seimas, but it might impose another penalty not related with restriction of freedom of the Member of the Seimas. Such legal regulation would not allow the Member of the Seimas to avoid administrative liability only because the legal norm applicable to him provides, among all other penalties, also administrative arrest, and, the Seimas has not expressed its prior consent to restrict his freedom.