dc.contributor.author | Žiobienė, Edita | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2015-01-29T11:40:58Z | |
dc.date.available | 2015-01-29T11:40:58Z | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://www3.mruni.eu/ojs/jurisprudence/article/view/3135/2936 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.mruni.eu/handle/007/13311 | |
dc.description.abstract | The relation of the right to privacy to other rights and possible means and limitations of the combination
of these rights are examined in this article. Law has to harmonize opposite interests and guarantee adequate
protection of these interests by legal regulation. The principle of constitutional integrity is a legal imperative to
the legislator and other subjects to base their actions upon the Constitution as an integral system. Therefore,
from the standpoint of legal validity, no constitutional norm can be superior to another. It is not possible for a
legal regulation, where an individual is deprived of a certain constitutional right while realizing another, to be
set. Exceptional attention is paid to regulation of the right to privacy and the protection of information about
private life, taking into consideration a different social status of public and private persons.
Since notion of a public person is not defined in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, it is the
legislator’s, who establishes the institute of a public person, duty to define the criteria according to which certain
people could be attributed to the group of public people. The notion in Part 3 Article 14 of the Law on
Provision of Information to the Public that people participating in public work are treated as public people is
doubtful because the criterion established by law is not concrete and ambiguous. It is not clear how intensively
an individual would have to act in the society to be treated as a public person. A conclusion is to be drawn that
the legislator should make the criteria according to which a person is attributed to the group of public people
more concrete. It is proposed to supplement the notion of the law and define that only politicians and civil
servants who influence solution of important state questions are to be treated as public people.
The article analyses the protection means of information about person’s private life. Special attention is
paid for before the trial protection. The conclusion is that the protection of private life in before-the-trial
institutions is not effective because very few applications are investigated, practically no sanctions are applied to
the infringer, adopted decisions do not provide for moral satisfaction to an injured person, therefore he is
obliged to sue. | en |
dc.language.iso | lt | en |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
dc.title | Aktualios konstitucinės teisės į privatų gyvenimą apsaugos problemos. | en |
dc.type | Article | en |
dc.description.abstract-lt | Straipsnyje analizuojamos konstitucinės teisės į privatų gyvenimą reglamentavimas, nes kokia
apimtimi Konstitucijos įvardytas visuomeninis santykis bus apsaugotas, labai daug priklauso ne tik
nuo pačios konstitucinės normos interpretacijos, susiklosčiusių teisės tradicijų, teisinės kultūros, bet
ir įstatymų leidėjo. Įstatymų leidėjo pareiga yra materializuoti konstitucinės normos turinį ir nustatyti
apsaugos mechanizmą, t. y. realią galimybę pasinaudoti teise ir ją veiksmingai ginti.
Straipsnyje aptariami konstitucinės teisės į privatų gyvenimą gynimo būdai, analizuojamas ikiteisminių
institucijų veiklos efektyvumas, nagrinėjama Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo jurisprdencija
teisės į privatų gyvenimą klausimais. | en |
dc.identifier.aleph | 000001904 | en |
dc.publication.source | Jurisprudencija, 2005, 56(64) | en |
dc.subject.faculty | Teisės fakultetas | en |
dc.subject.keyword | Visuomenės interesas | en |
dc.subject.keyword | Viešasis asmuo | en |
dc.subject.keyword | Ikiteisminės institucijos | en |
dc.subject.keyword | Right to privacy | en |
dc.subject.keyword | Society interest | en |
dc.subject.keyword | Public person | en |
dc.subject.publicationtype | S5 | en |