Galimybės siaurinti teismo funkcijas administracinių teisės pažeidimų procese

• TI leidinių archyvas: studijos tekstas

• Beliūnienė, Lina
• Kavoliūnaitė-Ragauskienė, Eglė
• Vitkutė, Evelina Agota
• Latvelė, Rūta

LTMokslo studijoje analizuojama galimybė perduoti teismo kompetencijai priklausančių administracinių teisės pažeidimų (nusižengimų), nagrinėjimą iš teismų neteisminėms institucijoms (privaloma ikiteismine tvarka), tuo siaurinant teismo funkcijas administracinių teisės pažeidimų procese. Tai atliekama palyginant administracinius teisės pažeidimus su savo esme artimais teisės pažeidimais – baudžiamaisiais nusižengimais ir ekonominiais pažeidimais (už kuriuos taikomos ekonominės sankcijos) bei už juos taikomos atsakomybės ypatumus, bei svarstoma, kokiais kriterijai remiantis turėtų (ar neturėtų) teismo funkcijos būti siaurinamos nagrinėjant administracinius teisės pažeidimus. Taip pat darbe nagrinėjama galimybė plėsti administracinio nurodymo institutą, mažinant teismų ir neteisminių institucijų, nagrinėjančių administracinius teisės pažeidimus (nusižengimus), darbo krūvį. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Administracinis teisės pažeidimas; Administraciniai teismai; Administracinis nurodymas; Baudžiamoji teisė; Administrative offence; Administrative courts; Administrative order; Criminal law.

ENThe research study analyses possibilities to narrow the competence of courts in the procedure of administrative offences by increasing number of administrative offences to be transferred to non-judicial institutions (as an obligatory stage before the judicial stage). First of all, the work describes the judicial and non-judicial tasks exercised by courts and highlights which tasks are quasi-judicial and might be transferred to other institutions. This part serves as a theoretical background for the next two parts. The second part presents a comparative analysis of administrative offences and the liability applied for these offences with the neighbouring forms of offences and liability – i.e. criminal offences, and economic offences, as well as the liability applied. The analysis made suggests that there are no obstacles to transfer all of the administrative offences to non-judicial institutions as an obligatory stage with the possibility to challenge their decisions before a court. None of the contextually supported arguments to retain certain groups of offences to be addressed directly to the court (the specifics of cases involving children, higher danger, type or severity of sanctions) seemed to appear substantially grounded in order to be excluded from the general regulation.The third part is dedicated to the specific instrument used in the procedure of administrative offences – administrative order. This is a possibility to be granted a twice reduced fine (according to the proposed new regulation – even more sanctions than a fine) applied where certain conditions are satisfied (the perpetrator has not been sanctioned for administrative offences during the recent year, has covered the damage, etc.). The results of the study suggests extending the application of administrative order as well in respect of cases where a confiscation of property, as an additional sanction is applied, as the confiscation of property is related neither to the gravity of an offence nor to the danger of an offender, and is only related to the type of offence (where a means, instrument, object or result of an offence is important and/or materialised). [From the publication]