Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSinkevičius, Vytautas
dc.date.accessioned2015-04-17T06:34:44Z
dc.date.available2015-04-17T06:34:44Z
dc.identifier.urihttps://www3.mruni.eu/ojs/jurisprudence/article/view/3547/3339
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.mruni.eu/handle/007/13910
dc.description.abstractThe article deals with the interpretation of the budgetary competence of the Seimas which is entrenched in the Constitution and in the rulings of the Constitutional Court. While studying the budgetary competence of the Seimas, one analyses how the Constitutional Court interprets the Seimas’ powers to approve the State budget, to establish State taxes and other compulsory payments. The Seimas’ powers to approve the State budget, to establish State taxes and other compulsory payments, which are entrenched in the Constitution, may not be transferred to other State institutions, while the other State institutions may not take them over. These powers may not be restricted by law. Taxes and other compulsory payments may only be established by law. While establishing State and other compulsory payments by law, the law must contain all the most important elements of the tax (the object of the tax, the taxpayer, the amount of the tax (tariff), the term of the tax, the exceptions and deductions). Under the Constitution, it is only the Seimas that may establish taxes and other compulsory payments; taxes and other compulsory payments may not be established by referendum. By the laws pointed out in Paragraph 2 of Article 131 of the Constitution, providing for certain expenditures, which may be not reduced as long as the said laws are not altered, one is permitted to establish expenditures for a concretely defined, generally important purpose to be attained during the time period established by law and only if these needs may not be satisfied during the budget year. Such laws may not establish expenditures to execute routine functions of the State. Once the court which was investigating the case had doubts as to the constitutionality of the law or another legal act applicable in the case and addressed the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has a duty to consider the petition of the said court irrespective of the fact whether the disputed law or other legal act is in effect or not. The provision “the annulment of a disputable legal act shall be grounds to adopt a decision to dismiss the initiated legal proceedings” of Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court is to be construed as establishing the right to the Constitutional Court, in cases when not courts but the other entities pointed out in Article 106 of the Constitution appealed to the Constitutional Court, while taking account of the circumstances of the case, to dismiss the initiated legal proceedings, but not as establishing that in every case when the disputed legal act was annulled the instituted legal proceedings must be dismissed. The Constitution establishes powers for the Constitutional Court to consider the constitutionality of the laws and other legal acts adopted by the Seimas, acts adopted by the Government and acts of the President of the Republic regardless of the fact whether they have gone into effect or not.en
dc.language.isolten
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.titleLietuvos Respublikos Seimo biudžetinė kompetencija Konstitucino Teismo jurisprudencijoje.en
dc.title.alternativeThe budgetary competence of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.description.abstract-ltStraipsnyje nagrinėjama, kaip Konstitucinio Teismo nutarimuose yra aiškinama Konstitucijoje nustatyta Seimo biudžetinė kompetencija. Tiriant Seimo biudžetinę kompetenciją analizuojama, kaip Konstitucinis Teismas interpretuoja konstitucinius Seimo įgaliojimus tvirtinti valstybės biudžetą, nustatyti valstybinius mokesčius ir kitus privalomus mokėjimus. Pateikiama Konstitucijos 131 straipsnyje įtvirtintos nuostatos „negalima mažinti įstatymų numatytų išlaidų, kol tie įstatymai nepakeisti“ samprata. Atskleidžiama, kaip laipsniškai kinta Konstitucinio Teismo požiūris į tai, ar Teismas gali tirti negaliojančių įstatymų bei kitų teisės aktų konstitucingumą. Teigiama, kad Konstitucijoje yra įtvirtinti Konstitucinio Teismo įgaliojimai tirti Seimo priimtų įstatymų ir kitų teisės aktų, Vyriausybės priimtų aktų, Respublikos Prezidento aktų konstitucingumą, neatsižvelgiant į tai, ar jie jau yra įsigalioję.en
dc.identifier.aleph000000968en
dc.publication.sourceJurisprudencija, 2002, 23(31)en
dc.subject.facultyTeisės fakultetasen
dc.subject.keywordKonstitucinis Teismasen
dc.subject.keywordSeimasen
dc.subject.keywordViešoji teisėen
dc.subject.publicationtypeS5en
dc.subject.sciencedirection01S - Teisėen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record