Daikto, kuris buvo administracinio teisės pažeidimo padarymo įrankis arba tiesioginis objektas, ir pajamų, kurios buvo gautos iš padaryto administracinio teisės pažeidimo, konfiskavimas

LTDaikto, kuris yra administracinio teisės pažeidimo padarymo įrankis, tiesioginis objektas ar iš administracinio teisės pažeidimo gautos pajamos, konfiskavimas yra viena iš administracinės prievartos rūšių. Pažymėtina, kad daiktų konfiskavimo, pagal LR administracinių teisės pažeidimų kodekso 26 straipsnį, samprata ir apibrėžimas mažai kuo skiriasi nuo įtvirtinto sovietmečiu priimtame kodekse. Šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjamas daiktų konfiskavimo reglamentavimas, šio instituto santykis su nuosavybės neliečiamumo principu, trumpai apžvelgiama pagrindinės problemos ir praktiniai aspektai. Pabrėžtina, kad siekiant tinkamai suprasti šį institutą reikia atsižvelgti į daiktų konfiskavimui keliamus tikslus: užtikrinti viešųjų ir privačių interesų derinimą, nubausti pažeidėją ir apsaugoti visuomenę nuo neteisėto elgesio. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Administracinė atsakomybė; Administracinė nuobauda; Daiktų ir pajamų konfiskavimas; Konfiskavimas; Teisė į nuosavybės neliečiamumą; Turto konfiskavimas; , right to peaceful enjoyment of the possessions; Administrative liability; Administrative penalt; Administrative sanction; Ceisure of property; Ceizure of property and incomes; Confiscation; Right to possession.

ENThe seizure of the object which has been the tool or a direct object and of the income which was derived from administrative law infringement is one kind of administrative penalties. In the article 26 of the Administrative Code it is said that objects and income can be seized irrespective of who is the owner of the object (the offender or any other individual). Some exceptions are allowed in the Administrative Code and in other laws. The Code of Civil Procedure systematically provides for rules which forbid a recovery from particular debtor’s assets. There are some disputes on the right to property and on the seizure in practice. Traditionally, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania solved these disputes by two decisions. The Constitutional Court stated that the right to property is not the absolute right and it can be restricted by laws as the result of infringement of public interests.There has to be a proportion between the legitimate interests of a person and the needs of society. With regard to case law the article 26 of Administrative Code conforms to the article 23 of Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. According to the statistics of cases in the institutions there is a significant amount of cases when the seizure of objects and incomes is applied. But in the courts, especially in the higher courts, there are few cases related to this institute. The main cases were brought before the decisions of the Constitutional Court which clarified the legitimacy of this kind of penalty. In practice, the number of seizure cases is growing every year. There are many reasons for a development of this process in Lithuania. Some of them are economic, while the others are legal. It is necessary to revise the reglamentation in Administrative Code with regard to the economic benefit, legal effectiveness and implementation of social peace. It should be emphasized that there is very little difference between definitions and the concept of the Soviet Administrative Code and the Revised Administrative Code. [text from author]