| Abstract [eng] |
The formation of uniform court practice in the field of criminal law and law of criminal procedure is one of the main tasks of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania. In accordance with Lithuanian laws which are in force at the moment, the Supreme Court can use three separate measures of the formation of uniform court practice: these are the Court’s decisions in individual criminal cases; recommendatory interpretations of law which are based on the review of lower courts’ decisions and are passed by the Senate of the Supreme Court; advisory opinions delivered by the justices of the Supreme Court. Although at the moment all the measures mentioned above are legal to use as they are provided by the Lithuanian Law on Judiciary, at the moment only the Supreme Court’s decisions in individual criminal cases are actually applied. The other two are not in use because of the criticism expressed by the Constitutional Court in its decision of March 28, 2006. The Constitutional Court said that the only way of the formation of uniform court practice which is compatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania are the interpretations of law witch are expressed when hearing and deciding individual cases. Other measures such as recommendatory interpretations based on the review of court practice or advisory opinions are inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s mission to administer justice. In addition to that, they are considered as a threat of the violation of lower courts’ and judges’ independence. Although this criticism is rather strongly based, I still support the opinion that first of all one should take into consideration the fact that Lithuanian legal system is far from perfect and unstable court practice is one of the main problems. Therefore I think that recommendatory interpretations of law passed by the Senate of the Supreme Court should be used as a measure of the formation of uniform court practice as they are rather effective and not a major threat to the independence of lower judges. From my point of view, some amendments of the Law on Judiciary are needed in order to resolve the question of the advisory opinions as they form a far bigger threat to the lower courts’ independence. They should be either abolished or turned into an extraordinary measure of the formation of uniform court practice. |
