Teisės akto galiojimo sustabdymas : Lietuvos atvejis

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjamos Konstitucijos nuostatos, numatančios įstatymų ir kitų teisės aktų galiojimo sustabdymą. Analizuojama, ar teisėkūros subjektai gali panaikinti, papildyti ar pakeisti įstatymą ir kitą teisės aktą, kurio galiojimas pagal Konstituciją sustabdytas. Pateikiama Konstitucinio Teismo suformuota oficiali konstitucinė doktrina. Kritiškai vertinamos Konstitucinio Teismo įstatymo nuostatos, leidžiančios Konstituciniam Teismui spręsti, ar nutraukti pradėtą teiseną tais atvejais, kai ginčijamas įstatymas ar kitas teisės aktas yra panaikinami, o dėl jų atitikties Konstitucijai į Konstitucinį Teismą kreipiasi ne teismai, o kiti Konstitucijos 106 straipsnyje numatyti subjektai. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Konstitucija; Įstatymų ir kitų teisės aktų galiojimo sustabdymo konstitucinė doktrina; Negaliojančių įstatymų ir kitų teisės aktų tyrimas jų atitikties Konstitucijai požiūriu; Constitution; Constitutional doctrine of suspending the validity of laws and other legal acts; Assessing the constitutionality of laws and other legal acts that are no longer valid.

ENParagraph 4 of Article 106 of the Constitution states that an application by the President of the Republic to the Constitutional Court, or a resolution of the Seimas, asking for an investigation into the conformity of an act with the Constitution, suspends the validity of the act. Under Article 145 of the Constitution, the validity of appropriate laws and other legal acts may be suspended upon the imposition of martial law or the declaration of a state of emergency: in such a case, the rights and freedoms specified in Articles 22, 24, 25, 32, 35, and 36 of the Constitution may temporarily be limited. The Constitution does not provide for any other cases when the validity of a law may be suspended. The Constitutional Court has formulated the doctrine that, in cases where the Constitutional Court is addressed not by courts, but by the other subjects specified in Article 106 of the Constitution, and when the relevant impugned act (or part thereof) is no longer valid – it has been declared as no longer valid (it has been repealed or amended) or its validity has expired – the Constitutional Court, taking account of the circumstances of a considered case, has the right to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings. This doctrine is assessed in a critical manner; the conclusion is drawn that the Constitution does not give rise to the powers of the Constitutional Court to decide whether or not to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings in cases where the respective law or other legal act is repealed and the Constitutional Court is addressed not by courts, but by other subjects.Such powers of the Constitutional Court are consolidated in the Law on the Constitutional Court; however, it is not allowed to interpret the Constitution on the basis of laws or other legal acts, since this would deny the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system. The question is raised whether Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, according to which the annulment of the impugned legal act shall be grounds to adopt a decision to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings, is in conflict with the Constitution. [From the publication]