Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorŠindeikis, Algimantas
dc.date.accessioned2014-09-16T08:10:28Z
dc.date.available2014-09-16T08:10:28Z
dc.identifier.urihttps://www3.mruni.eu/ojs/jurisprudence/article/view/1542/1481
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.mruni.eu/handle/007/11849
dc.description.abstractThis publication analyzes the issue of depersonalization in the field of constitutional substantiation of judicial resolutions, judgements, verdicts and rulings (hereinafter, judicial procedural decisions). Electronic databases are the primary source of information about judicial procedural resolutions for judges, reporters, as well as for the public-at-large. As for judicial practice, the data regarding parties of a case is depersonalised in these databases. Personal names are either replaced with initials, or a message "depersonalized data" is included. The constitutional substantiation for such a ruling by a judicial council is sought by means of this publication. A clash of personal rights at different levels of the Constitution comprises the essence of the problem regarding such a ruling of judicial council. The basis for this ruling is the Law on Legal Protection of Personal Data, which safeguards the private life of an individual. Article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania establishes "The private life of an individual shall be inviolable." This personal right clashes with another constitutional right regarding the freedom to seek, receive and disseminate information. Article 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania provides "Individuals must not be hindered from seeking, obtaining, or disseminating information or ideas." Furthermore, the Constitution imperatively establishes the public nature of a court proceeding. Article 117 of the Constitution establishes "In all courts, the investigation of cases shall be open to the public. Closed court sittings may be held in order to protect the secrecy of a citizen’s or the citizen’s family’s private life, or to prevent the disclosure of State, professional, or commercial secrets." This publication thoroughly examines the practices of national courts of other European countries when declaring resolutions regarding court proceedings, as well as the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The article also analyzes the EU law, as well as the international convention regulating the protection of personal data and examines how these principles of international law were transferred into Lithuania’s Law on the Legal Protection of Personal Rights. The conclusions of this publication attest that in all instances the depersonalisation of the data regarding the sides in a case is not substantiated at the levels, either inasmuch as it concerns the constitutional or the EU law, or the ordinary level of the laws of the Republic of Lithuania. The public openness of court resolutions and the data on case parties thereof constitute an important public control system of the courts. The depersonalisation of the public case parties contradicts the doctrine of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania.en
dc.language.isolten
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.titleTeismų procesinių sprendimų nuasmeninimo konstitucingumo problemos.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.description.abstract-ltTeisėjų tarybos nutarimu „Dėl teismų sprendimų, nuosprendžių, nutarimų ir nutarčių skelbimo internete tvarkos“ Lietuvos Respublikos teismų sprendimuose, nuosprendžiuose, nutarimuose ir nutartyse asmenų vardai, pavardės ir juridinių asmenų pavadinimai nuasmeninti. Ankstesnė bylos šalių skelbimo tvarka „Petras Petraitis prieš UAB „Šviesus rytojus“ pakeista į naują – „P. P. prieš UAB (duomenys neskelbtini)“. Dėl šio Teisėjų tarybos nutarimo Teismų administracijos tvarkomose duomenų bazėse, kurios prieinamos visai visuomenei, procesiniai sprendimai pateikiami kaip abstraktūs, praradę didelę teisinio konflikto esmės dalį, teoriniai juridiniai dokumentai. Po pakeitimų elektroninėse duomenų bazėse visuomenė nebegali įžvelgti teisinio konflikto sprendimo konkrečioje socialinio laikmečio realybėje hinc et nunc ir ribojamos visuomenės galimybės pozityviai kontroliuoti teismus individualizuojant bausmes ar priimant sprendimus contra lege. Tai sunaikina konkretų bylų turinį ir riboja galimybes būti tinkamai informuotiems apie viešųjų asmenų teistumus ar kitokį dalyvavimą teismo procesuose, mažina ir taip menką pasitikėjimą Lietuvos teismais.en
dc.identifier.aleph000005862en
dc.publication.sourceJurisprudencija, 2009, Nr. 3(117)en
dc.subject.facultyTeisės fakultetasen
dc.subject.keywordKonstitucijaen
dc.subject.keywordKonstitucinis Teismasen
dc.subject.keywordOficiali konstitucinė doktrinaen
dc.subject.keywordTeisėjų tarybaen
dc.subject.keywordNutarimasen
dc.subject.keywordNutartysen
dc.subject.keywordDuomenų nuasmeninimasen
dc.subject.keywordNuosprendžiaien
dc.subject.keywordConstitutional Courten
dc.subject.keywordConstitutional substantiationen
dc.subject.keywordJudgementen
dc.subject.keywordJudicial Councilen
dc.subject.keywordJudicial procedural decisionsen
dc.subject.publicationtypeS3en
dc.subject.sciencedirection01S - Teisėen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record