Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAžubalytė, Rima
dc.date.accessioned2015-03-05T08:44:19Z
dc.date.available2015-03-05T08:44:19Z
dc.identifier.urihttps://www3.mruni.eu/ojs/jurisprudence/article/view/3423/3218
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.mruni.eu/handle/007/13639
dc.description.abstractThis article analyses mechanisms to control discretional prosecution. Discretion without supervision and control may lead to arbitrary decisions. Therefore, the legal system has to implement possibilities for supervision and control of individual prosecutorial decisions and the use of discretionary prosecutorial power by the prosecution service at large. We analyse various possibilities for supervision and control of discretionary power: 1. the rights and possibilities of the victim and the offender to influence prosecutorial decisions; 2. community influence; 3. effective hierarchical structure and internal control; 4. judicial control. Victim and defendant must be informed of the decision to dispose the case in an alternative way and agree (or object) with the chosen modality. Victims and defendants may be given the right to appeal against prosecutorial decision to the superior prosecutor or the court. Many countries also provide the victim with the right to lodge complaint to the court which can examine the prosecutorial discretionary decision, and which may order the initiation of a prosecution if it finds the decision inappropriate. In the majority of the countries the prosecution service is internally organised in a hierarchical way. The rationale of this subordination was made to supervise discretionary power of prosecution service when making prosecutorial decisions. In a number of states the Minister of Justice is the head of the prosecution service. In this capacity he can issue written circulars and guidelines or directives instructing the prosecution service to pursue the prosecution policy as determined by Government. He can also give individual instructions. It means that Ministry of Justice can, by virtue of the code of criminal procedure, order that certain cases must be prosecuted (positive directions). Nevertheless, the majority of theorists believe that the Minister’s power to give general instructions on the one hand and to order the bringing of charges on the other, should never extend to a right of negative instruction. The Minister of Justice would not have the right to oppose or suspend the prosecution. The prosecutor is also controled by the court system. The common law system is characterized by the almost unlimited discretion of the prosecutor to initiate or stop the proceedings during the pretrial phase. The decisions to stop proceedings does not require the approval of a judge if the trial has not yet started. In other countries the prosecutor is required to obtain the consent of a judge before he can drop a prosecution. As was already written, the victim and the defendant have the right to appeal discretionary decision to the court and it is another way of judicial control.en
dc.language.isolten
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.titleProkuroro diskrecinės valdžios kontrolė vykdant baudžiamąjį persekiojimą.en
dc.title.alternativeControl of discretional prosecution.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.description.abstract-ltStraipsnyje daugiausia dėmesio skiriame prokuroro diskrecinių galių kontrolės mechanizmams. Remdamiesi užsienio šalių įstatymais išskiriame ir analizuojame keturias galimas kontrolės formas, kurios būtinos siekiant efektyviai kontroliuoti laisvą pareigūnų (prokurorų) nuožiūrą. Lietuvos įstatymai taip pat numato kompleksą pareigūnų nuožiūrą „koreguojančių“ priemonių: dėl padaryto nusikaltimo nukentėjęs asmuo ir kaltininkas turi teisę apskųsti sprendimą nutraukti baudžiamąją bylą aukštesniam prokurorui arba teismui; nekeliant arba nutraukiant baudžiamąją bylą pagal Baudžiamojo proceso kodekso 9¹ ir 9² straipsnius būtinas teisėjo (teismo) sutikimas. Lietuvai nebūdinga tik visuomenės kontrolė. Įstatymų ir praktikos tyrimas atskleidė reglamentavimo spragų. Naujame Baudžiamojo proceso kodekse šie klausimai sprendžiami tiksliau. Teisę apskųsti sprendimą tiek nutraukti ikiteisminį tyrimą, tiek teisėjo sprendimą nepatvirtinti tyrimo nutraukimo turi visi suinteresuoti proceso dalyviai. Įstatymų ir bylų dokumentų analizė parodė, kad kartais proceso dalyviams sunku realizuoti savo procesines teises, nes įstatymas neįpareigoja pranešti jiems apie jų bylos perspektyvas, galimus sprendimus ir jų prielaidas. Praktiškai proceso dalyviai ne visada tinkamai informuojami apie teisę apskųsti pareigūnų sprendimus.en
dc.identifier.aleph000001356en
dc.publication.sourceJurisprudencija, 2003, 33(41)en
dc.subject.facultyTeisės fakultetasen
dc.subject.keywordgaliosBaudžiamojo proceso kodeksasen
dc.subject.keywordProkuroro diskrecinės galiosen
dc.subject.keywordBaudžiamojo proceso kodeksasen
dc.subject.publicationtypeS5en
dc.subject.sciencedirection01S - Teisėen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record