Reikalavimo užtikrinimo priemonių taikymo 2010 metais Lietuvos vyriausiajame administraciniame teisme analizė.

Abstract

Protection 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.