Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorŽiobienė, Edita
dc.date.accessioned2015-01-29T11:40:58Z
dc.date.available2015-01-29T11:40:58Z
dc.identifier.urihttps://www3.mruni.eu/ojs/jurisprudence/article/view/3135/2936
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.mruni.eu/handle/007/13311
dc.description.abstractThe 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.isolten
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.titleAktualios konstitucinės teisės į privatų gyvenimą apsaugos problemos.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.description.abstract-ltStraipsnyje 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.aleph000001904en
dc.publication.sourceJurisprudencija, 2005, 56(64)en
dc.subject.facultyTeisės fakultetasen
dc.subject.keywordVisuomenės interesasen
dc.subject.keywordViešasis asmuoen
dc.subject.keywordIkiteisminės institucijosen
dc.subject.keywordRight to privacyen
dc.subject.keywordSociety interesten
dc.subject.keywordPublic personen
dc.subject.publicationtypeS5en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record