Teisė į teisminę gynybą Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo jurisprudencijoje

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjama konstitucinė asmens teisė kreiptis į teismą. Aiškinant šią Konstitucijoje įtvirtintą asmens teisę analizuojama Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo jurisprudencijoje suformuota asmens teisės kreiptis į teismą doktrina. Kartu straipsnyje nagrinėjama ir asmens teisė į tinkamą teisinį procesą, kuri yra neatskiriama nuo asmens teisės kreiptis į teismą. Tik esant tinkamam teisiniam procesui gali būti užtikrintas konstitucinės asmens teisės kreiptis į teismą įgyvendinimas. Straipsnyje aptariamas ir teisėjo bei teismo nepriklausomumas, kuris yra esminė konstitucinės asmens teisės į tinkamą teisinį procesą, taigi ir asmens teisės kreiptis į teismą, įgyvendinimo sąlyga. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Teisė į teisminę gynybą; Teisė į tinkamą teisminį procesą; Teisėjo ir teismo nepriklausomumas; Person's right to apply to court; The rigth to a proper court process; Independence of courts and judges; Konstitucinė teisė į teisminę gynybą; Teisėjų ir teismų nepriklausomumas; The Constitutional Right to Apply to Court; The Independence of Courts and Judges.

ENThe article deals with the constitutional right of a person to apply to court. While construing this constitutionally entrenched right of a person, one analyses the doctrine of the right of a person to apply to court, which was formed in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania. The right of a person to court is entrenched expressis verbis in Paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Constitution whereby the person whose constitutional rights or freedoms are violated shall have the right to apply to court. The doctrine of the Constitutional Court derives this right also from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. The right of a person to court is inseparable from other norms and principles of the Constitution, which are equality of rights, the right to compensation of damage, the right to a proper court process, etc. While construing the right of a person to apply to court, which is entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has noted that, in Lithuania, as a state under the rule of law, a possibility must be ensured for everyone to protect his rights in court from other persons, as well as from unlawful actions of state institutions or officials. Under the Constitution, the legislator has a duty to establish, by means of a law, the legal regulation whereby all disputes regarding violation of rights and freedoms of persons, including acquired rights, could be decided in a court.The Constitutional Court has also held that the right to apply to court is absolute one; the constitutional right of the person may not be restricted by artificial means, and the implementation of this right cannot be burdened unreasonably, either. Otherwise, one would have to state that this constitutional right is only of declarative character. The article also analyses some problematic issues of the constitutional right of a person to apply to court and those of the constitutional right of a person to a proper court process. It discusses the doctrine regarding filing a complaint against a court decision and reasoning of a court decision, which was formulated in the doctrine of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania. The article also deals with the independence of courts and judges as one of essential guarantees of judicial protection. Some aspects of procedural and institutional independence of courts and judges are touched upon. It is noted that the guarantees entrenched in the laws will not ensure that the person who is unwilling, or, due to his personal or professional features, is unable to be independent, will become an independent judge. Thus, one of the main guarantees of independence of the judiciary is also the judge as an independent personality and as a qualified expert of his professional area.The article discusses also one more aspect of the inviolability of courts and judges - it is the independence from the opinion of the public, which is being formed or has already been formed, as regards a concrete case considered by a court. When information is given about the decision of a court in a concrete case, and, especially, when such a decision is commented upon, reference is quite often made to preconceived assessments of non-qualified or even interested persons, but not to those of higher courts or legal experts. In case no resolute and prompt measures are taken in order to avoid preconceived and groundless criticism or other pressure to courts, the courts might begin to adopt decisions which are not substantiated by evidence and laws, but populist decisions, which reflect the opinion of the public: this might determine the rise of so-called "caste" of the "sacred" or "semi-sacred". [From the publication]