Išankstinio administracinių ginčų nagrinėjimo ne teisme institutas Lietuvoje: teisinio reguliavimo aiškinimo problematika

LTStraipsnyje analizuojama Lietuvos teismų praktika, susiklosčiusi išankstinio administracinių ginčų nagrinėjimo ne teisme vertinimo srityje, siekiant patikrinti prielaidą dėl šios jurisprudencijos nenuoseklumo, vertinant administracinių ginčų nagrinėjimą kaip ikiteisminį instituciniu ir funkciniu požiūriu. Autorė stengiasi ištirti, kokios teisės aiškinimo taisyklės yra įtvirtintos šioje jurisprudencijoje ir kokiais teisiniais argumentais asmenų ginčų ir skundų nagrinėjimas konkrečiose administracinėse srityse teismuose kvalifikuojamas ikiteisminiu administracinių ginčų nagrinėjimu, bei įvertinti šios teismų praktikos nuostatų įtaką šio ginčų nagrinėjimo instituto formavimui ir asmens teisės į veiksmingą teisinę gynybą jame apimčiai. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Lietuvos teismų praktika; Išankstinis administracinių ginčų nagrinėjimas; Administraciniai ginčai; Administracinė teisė; Lithuanian case law; Pre-trial administrative disputes resolution; Administrative disputes resolution outof- court; Administrative law.

ENIn Lithuania the regulation of administrative dispute resolution out-of court, challenging legality of administrative acts is rather complex and consists of some general statute provisions, but mostly – of special legislation in separate fields of administrative law. In previous article having examined that in the provisions of general laws the legal characteristics of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution are described especially concisely, when the specific legal provisions also lack clearness, and in majority do not refer to the general categories of the pre-trial dispute resolution or administrative procedures, now the author continuously seeks to investigate the role of court jurisprudence in interpreting general and special provisions of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution. The article firstly concentrates on the very essence and restrictive nature of the pre-trial dispute resolution provisions. They overall imply various conditions to the possibilities of legal defense in its inner system and to the access to court. The author stresses the need and importance of some established legal interpretation rules, diminishing these effects. The article subsequently covers the analysis of the consistency of the application of those legal interpretation rules and of adequacy of other legal arguments in the qualification of binding and not-binding (facultative) pre-trial administrative dispute resolution procedures, when interpreting special legislation in connection with general legal provisions. Researching the court jurisprudence in the afore mentioned aspects, the author aims to assess the influence of it to the formation of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution as a legal institute, and to the implementation of the effective legal protection of persons’ rights under the pre-trial means.The author comes to conclusions, that the jurisprudential qualification of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution in Lithuania is rather formalistic, based on the criteria of its legal establishment in the statute, and even in sub-statutory legislation. The legal argumentation in court decisions on this matter is pretty concise, mostly directly pointing to the special legislation norms on dispute resolution and does not comprise any of more comprehensive evaluation arguments on the nature of it. Due to the restrictions of the analogy of the law in public law sphere, it is not possible to impose any other procedural standards on the pre-trial dispute resolution in administrative institutions, except the principle of good administration. Therefor the case law mostly performs no added value to the filling of the deficiency of qualitative criteria of the pre-trial dispute resolution in general and special regulation. The main legal interpretation rules, that the regulation of the mentioned dispute resolution must be established by statute and be based on strict interpretation of its provisions, are not consistently applied. In practice the courts widely interpret the not-binding kind of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution. This judicial practice triggered the effect that the vast number of administrative institutions, even established by sub-statutory legislation are considered as the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution institutions. The dispute resolution performed by administrative bodies is judicially assessed as a legal priority to the dispute resolution in administrative disputes commissions, or it is legitimized as a parallel pre-trial resolution way, though the latter interpretation contradicts to the relevant provisions of the Law on Administrative Proceedings and Law on Administrative Disputes Commissions.In this scope the court jurisprudence does not provide the sufficient level of clearness and unambiguousness to the nature, the means and the legal guaranties of defense of persons rights in the pre-trial procedures and does not contribute to overall formation of clear conception of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution. The pre-trial procedures in their legal effects restrains the person’s rights and possibilities of defense and the right to court far more than voluntary use of a dispute resolution in common administrative procedures. Therefor the extensive legal interpretation of the provisions of special legislation is to be avoided. The provisions of special regulation on out-of-court dispute resolution, directly addressing the norms of the Law on Public Administration on administrative procedure, ought to be interpreted as establishing dispute resolution in common administrative procedures under that Law, except when unanimously applying afore mentioned legal interpretation rules it can be assuredly reasoned otherwise. The author finally gives some additional prospective insights on the researched theme in the whole cycle of articles, stressing the need of improvement of legal regulation in order to clearly describe the concept of the pre-trial administrative dispute resolution and to base it on one or few clear sets of procedural standards, and emphasizing the demand of further scientific investigation in this area. The author welcomes some adopted improvements, referring to the terms of applying to court after the administrative and the pre-trial procedures, but further proposes, that until the essential improvements of legal regulation of the latter dispute resolution, some remaining jurisprudential restrictions on the persons right to access to court which demand to follow the not-binding pre-trial procedure even in case of its inefficiency, should be waived. [From the publication]

• Administracinė justicija : teorija ir praktika / Jurgita Paužaitė-Kulvinskienė. Vilnius : Justitia, 2005. 245 p.
• Administracinių ginčų komisija: raida ir perspektyvos / Lionela Gelmanienė, Aistė Jungaitytė. Visuomenės saugumas ir viešoji tvarka 2020, 25, p. 151-171.
• Administrative courts in Lithuania: history, evolution, the present, and perspectives / Simona Bareikytė, Barbara Jacevič, Ieva Deviatnikovaitė, Jurgita Paužaitė-Kulvinskienė. Miscellanea Historico-Iuridica 2023, t. 22, z. 2, p. 11-42.
• Specialiųjų žinių taikymas nagrinėjant administracinius ginčus dėl neįgalumo ir darbingumo nustatymo / Eglė Bilevičiūtė. Quo vadis, kriminalistika? Liber Amicorum profesoriui Henryk Malewski / moksliniai redaktoriai ir sudarytojai Snieguolė Matulienė, Gabrielė Juodkaitė-Granskienė, Žaneta Navickienė. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2023. P. 325-345.
• The Role of quasi-courts in controlling the legality of public administration: prerequisites for systematisation of pre-trial tax dispute resolution in Lithuania / Eglė Bilevičiūtė, Birutė Pranevičienė. International Comparative Jurisprudence. 2020, Vol. 6, no. 2, p. 178-189.