Teismo aktyvumo kuriant ir aiškinant teisę plėtros tendencija, motyvai ir problemos

LTStraipsnyje tiriama teismo aktyvumo plėtros tendencija, motyvai ir atskleidžiamos jų problemos, kylančios aktyvaus teismo doktriną supriešinant su kritikuojama valdžių atskyrimo doktrina, pateikiant valdžių atskyrimo doktrinos kritika nepagrįstus teisminio teisės kūrimo motyvus bei keičiant teisės aiškinimo sampratą. Atitinkamoms valdžios institucijoms, ypač teismams ir visiems teisininkams, siūloma laikytis optimalaus valdžių atskyrimo doktrinos, kaip etinės ideologijos, prioriteto principo. Taip pat patariama išsamiau apibrėžti teismų vaidmenį kuriant teisę, atsižvelgiant į tariamai neišvengiamas tokį kūrimą lemiančias aplinkybes, vengti taikyti socialiai subalansuotą teisės aiškinimą bei nustatyti teisės spragos atpažinimo kriterijus. Galiausiai atkreipiamas dėmesys, kad nenuvertintinas kalbinio teisės aiškinimo būdo prioritetas kitų teisės aiškinimo būdų atžvilgiu. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Konstitucija; Konstitucinio teismo statusas; Teismo aktyvumas; Teismų aktyvumo ribos; Teisėkūra; Teisės aiškinimas; Valdžių atskyrimo doktrina; Įstatymų interpretavimas; Įstatymų kūrybą; Constitution; Construction of laws; Interpretation of law; Interpretation of laws; Judicial activism; Legislation; Limits of judicial activism; Separation of powers; Status of Constitutional Court.

ENOne of the characteristics of the contemporary legal community of Lithuania is the concern about the absence of judicial activism. Legal scholars usually advocate for judicial activism in the creation and interpretation of law. The issues of attempts to motivate the expansion of the judicial activism that have already formed a tendency in the scientific writings are analyzed and revealed in the paper. The first issue concerns the discrepancy between the doctrine of the active court and that of the separation of powers, presupposing the critique of the latter in the case of the motivation of the expansion of judicial activism. The paper upholds the view that the doctrine of the separation of powers should be understood as an ethical ideology, providing the governmental institutions with the principles of their activity, and proposes these institutions, particularly the courts, to follow the principle of the optimal priority of the doctrine. Besides the motives of the expansion of judicial activism based on the critique of the doctrine of the separation of powers, there are others that form a separate complex of issues. Firstly, these motives are usually linked to the specific factors, such as linguistic indeterminacy and vagueness or the change of social relationships, which, however, can be essentially equally attributed to the law, created by a democratic legislator or by courts.The paper also reveals that judicial creation of law in the cases of the social change and the gap of law is far from being adequately motivated. Therefore, the role of courts in the creation of law should be defined more properly, socially balanced (dynamic) interpretation should be avoided and the criteria for defining the gap of law should be formulated. Finally, an area of issues is represented by the change in the understanding of legal interpretation, when the expansion of judicial activism is motivated in the process of the critique of the priority of linguistic method of legal interpretation in relation to other methods. As this is done by the use of unclear and inconsistent non-substantive adjectives and adverbs or by naming linguistic interpretation as mechanical, literal or formal, which are also far from being clear concepts, the paper suggests not to reject or devalue the priority of the linguistic method of legal interpretation. [From the publication]