Administracinio teismo istorija Lietuvoje 1918-1940 m.

LTKnygoje yra trys dalys: pirmoje apžvelgiamos institucijos, kurios savo kompetencija bent kiek panėšėjo į administracinį teismą, antroje analizuojami teisės aktai ir projektai, kuriuose buvo įtvirtinta arba siekiama įtvirtinti administracinių aktų teisėtumo kontrolę, trečioje – tiriama mokslinė administracinės justicijos doktrina tarpukario Lietuvoje, taip pat apžvelgiami praktikų, dažniausiai tarnautojų, publicistiniai straipsniai ir studentų požiūris į administracinį teismą. Šių trijų aspektų – institucijų, teisės aktų ir doktrinos – analizė padėjo pasiekti mokslinio tyrimo tikslą visapusiškai atskleisti administracinio teismo istoriją tarpukario Lietuvoje. Žvelgiant iš šių laikų perspektyvos administracinio teismo klausimas tarpukario Lietuvoje nepakankamai išanalizuotas. Paminėtini M. Maksimaičio, A. Andruškevičiaus, J. Paužaitės-Kulvinskienės, B. Pranevičienės, S. Šedbaro, A. Dziegoraičio, D. Urbono tyrimai. Tačiau šiuose darbuose administracinio teismo klausimas tiriamas fragmentiškai, dažniausiai tik minint administracinį teismą, nuodugniau neanalizuojant nei Administracinio teismo įstatymo projektų, nei jų rengimo aplinkybių, nei M. Römerio monografijos „Administracinis teismas“. Kita vertus, tai suprantama, nes nė vienas iš tyrimų nebuvo skirtas išskirtinai tarpukario administracinės justicijos klausimams nagrinėti. Vis dėlto keletas darbų paminėtini atskirai – tai M. Maksimaičio, A.Andruškevičiaus, J. Žilio, K. Lapinsko straipsniai.Kai kurie mokslininkai tyrė ne administracinio teismo klausimą, o kitus, susijusius ir su mūsų tema, aspektus, pavyzdžiui, V. Andriulio ir M. Maksimaičio Valstybės Tarybos analizė, J. Žilio Konstitucinio Teismo teisinių ir istorinių prielaidų tyrimas, G. Kalinausko tarpukario seimų peticijų komisijos veiklos problemų vertinimas, M. Maksimaičio Ministerijų juriskonsultų komisijos statuso ir veiklos apžvalga. Šių eilučių autorė jau keletą metų domisi tarpukario Lietuvos administracine teise ir yra išleidusi ne vieną publikaciją. Vienose išskirtinai gvildenamas tarpukario administracinio teismo klausimas, kitose analizuojami kiti teisminių institucijų klausimai, tačiau jie sietini su administracinių aktų teisėtumo teismine kontrole, dar kitose administracinio teismo istorija tiriama per tarpukario administracinės teisės studijas. Tačiau ir autorės, ir kitų mokslininkų straipsniai neatskleidžia visos administracinio teismo istorijos 1918–1940 m. Esamą Lietuvos administracinės teisės istorijos mokslo spragą autorė siūlo užpildyti šia monografija. [Iš teksto, p. 16-19]

ENIn interwar Lithuania, the issue of the administrative court was ambiguous. Some lawyers (M. Römeris, A. Merkys, etc.) claimed that there was no administrative court in Lithuania, and it was vital to establish it while others (S. Šilingas, A. Voldemaras, etc.) were convinced that it was functioning and there was no need to set it up. The former explained that the competence of the Supreme Tribunal to review the legality of the actions of certain entities, embodying only the attributive function of the administrative court and the random quasi-control of administrative acts, was insufficient and did not guarantee legality in the state because complaints were often dealt with by the same people who received them. Moreover, there was no single institution that would interpret the law in the same way. The latter avoided the establishment of an administrative court in Lithuania due to political convictions or doubts about the qualifications of the young country’s lawyers, since they did not want the judicial authorities to interfere in the affairs of the administration, as well as due to the lack of legal education and knowledge of administrative justice and administrative law in general. From the present perspective, it must be stated that in interwar Lithuania the administrative court did not function either as a separate judicial institution or as a division of a court of general jurisdiction. However, some efforts were made to establish such a court. In Lithuania, certain institutions were established the purpose of which in one way or another was related to the review of the legality of the activities of public administration (officials). That was imperative because in the young state that had just declared its independence there was no clear understanding of the rule of law, public law, administrative law, and its principles, which were still being formed in Western and Central Europe.Thus, in Lithuania, the illegal treatment of people by officials was frequent. Hence, politicians had to think of institutions that would be obliged to monitor and investigate people’s complaints about the behavior of officials. However, an administrative court was not established. There were attempts to replace it with other institutions – the Seimas Complaints Commissions, the Commission of Legal Advisers of the Ministries, or the Council of State. But all those institutions were not equivalent to an administrative court. They did not have sufficient legal instruments to monitor the legality of administrative acts. From the outset, it was not intended that the legislature would lose the function of disciplining the legitimacy of the administration, eventually it was not desired for the courts to interfere in the affairs of the administration. Some politicians were convinced that for a newly recovered state facing economic problems, complicated foreign policy (due to the Klaipėda region and the Vilnius region), the establishment of an administrative court was merely the whim and luxury for lawyers. Other politicians contended that an administrative court in Lithuania was functioning and that there was no need to establish another judicial institution. They had in mind the competence of the Supreme Tribunal to hear disputes concerning the legality of acts adopted by some ten institutions and officials, as well as three commissions of a judicial nature, in which at least one member was a judge. M. Römeris called such supervision of the legality of administrative acts “microscopic”1436. Indeed, such a system of administrative justice institutions in Lithuania did not ensure the legality of administrative acts. All these questions form a rich history of the administrative court in interwar Lithuania, which is studied in detail in this monograph.The book is comprised of three parts: the first one reviews the institutions that were similar to an administrative court in their competence; the second one analyzes legal acts and draft laws in which the control of the legality of administrative acts had been established or was intended to be established; and in the third one the scientific doctrine of administrative justice in interwar Lithuania is researched, as well as the journalistic articles of practitioners, mostly civil servants, and the attitude of students to the administrative court are reviewed. The analysis of these three aspects – institutions, legal acts, and doctrine – helped to achieve the goal of the research: to comprehensively reveal the history of the administrative court in interwar Lithuania. From the present perspective, the issue of the administrative court in interwar Lithuania has not been sufficiently analyzed. The research of M. Maksimaitis, A. Andruškevičius, J. Paužaitė – Kulvinskienė, B. Pranevičienė, S. Šedbaras, A. Dziegoraitis, and D. Urbonas should be mentioned. However, in these studies the issue of the administrative court was examined in a fragmentary way, usually only by mentioning the administrative court, without a more detailed analysis of the draft laws of the Administrative Court, the circumstances of their preparation, or M. Römeris’ monograph “Administrative Court”. On the other hand, this is understandable as none of the studies was devoted exclusively to interwar issues of administrative justice. However, several works should be mentioned separately – these are the articles written by M. Maksimaitis, A. Andruškevičius, J. Žilys, and K. Lapinskas. [...]. [From the publication]