Penkiolika Konstitucijos metų ir Konstitucinio Teismo naujadarai

LTDar niekada nebuvo tokios naujoviškos, įvairiapusės ir radikalios Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo veiklos kaip 2006 m., kai buvo kruopščiai tiriamas Teismų įstatymas, Pilietybės įstatymas, BPK, CPK ar Administracinių bylų teisenos įstatymas. Šiam laikotarpiui iš esmės galima priskirti ir 2007 metų sausį vasarį, kai Teismas paskelbė rezonansinį (skubiai rengtą) nutarimą dėl savivaldybių tarybų rinkimų tvarkos. Visa tai radikaliai pakeitė konstitucinės teisės raidą, šitaip tarsi pasitinkant ir įprasminant Lietuvos Respublikos 1992 m. Konstitucijos 15 metų galiojimo sukaktį. Taigi svarbu apžvelgti praeitį ir panagrinėti dvi teoriškai kontraversiškiausias („tarpdalykines") Konstitucinio Teismo koncepcijas: precedentą kaip teismų teisės šaltinį konkrečiose bylose (bet ne jų nagrinėjimo praktikos apibendrinimuose) ir asmens konstitucinę teisę į apeliacinę teismo instanciją visais teisminio ginčo atvejais. Tokios koncepcijos verčia perrašyti arba bent pakeisti (papildyti) daugybę proceso normų ir teisės studijų vadovėlių, plačiau suvokti Konstitucijos (30 str. 1 d., 109 str. 3 d.) nuostatas. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: 15 metų; Konstitucija; Konstitucinio Teismo naujadarai; Konstitucinio Teismo sprendimai; Konstitucinis teismas; Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija; Precedentas; 15 years; Constitution; Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court's decision, the Constitutional Court of neologisms; Court; Lithuania; Precedent.

ENThe 15th anniversary of the validity of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, which had no equivalents in the inceptive period of the Republic from 1918 to 1940, could be viewed as a particular jubilee. This anniversary is somehow unique taking in regard the complicated development of the restored statehood and modern constitutionality traditions in the period between 1990 and 2007. It might seem surprising and even unusual in this context that the Draft of the Constitution, which practically had not been discussed in the Parliament of 1991-1992 before it was submitted to the referendum on 25 October 1992 with a huge number of references to hypothetically (potentially) 'non-final' provisions (that could be within one year be amended in the newly elected Seimas by a simplified procedure), eventually turned into an effective instrument of stability and integration. It has since been nine times submitted to insignificant amendments that did not affect the system of public authorities or the foundation of their competencies, i.e. those amendments were limited to such issues of some­what narrower or specific character as the sale of non-agricultural land plots to foreigners; the procedure of elections into municipal institutions; the function of prosecutors and the procedure for the appointment to the post of the prosecutor general; the foundations for the Lithuanian membership in the European Union and the related procedure for the currency (sooner or later in the future - the Euro) emission.The 'advantages' or 'shortcomings' of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania ought to be evaluated in a comparative way by taking in regard the 1997 Constitution of the neighbouring Republic of Poland, which in 2007 celebrated its 10th anniversary. This an­niversary, which is by five years 'smaller' than the analogous event in Lithuania, offers a perfect opportunity to compare the lex fundamentalis of the two States that share a common source of constitutionality (the Constitution of 3rd May 1791). The Constitution of Poland, which was adopted later, is in a number of aspects better accomplished in respect of juridical technique, structure and the system of 'checks and balances'. One of the most essential transformations in the conception of the Lithuanian Constitution that emerged within those fifteen years is the new doctrine of the Constitutional Court on: a) the right of a person to apply to the court of appeal instance in all cases after a court of the first instance has decided a certain dispute or other issue; b) court precedents that determine the coherence of court practice and have to be formed exclusively during the hearing of particular cases but not 'from above' by means of the surveys of cases (of a particular category) previously heard before courts of lower instances. The new doctrine of the Constitutional Court ma­kes it necessary to amend a whole range of procedural laws and law textbooks, where court precedent is attributed exclusively to the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. [text from author]