Ar teisėsaugos institucijos turi teisę klausytis kliento pokalbių su advokatu?
Kavaliauskas, Mantas |
Šiuolaikinėje visuomenėje advokatų vaidmuo yra neatsiejama teisinės sistemos dalis, jų dėka ginamos žmogaus teisės ir vykdomas teisingumas. Tenka sutikti, kad kovoje su valstybe žmogus yra silpnoji pusė. Atsižvelgiant į profesijos svarbą visuomenėje ir baudžiamojo proceso perspektyvoje jau nuo seno advokatams suteikiamas imunitetas, kuris yra asmens neliečiamybės papildomos garantijos, reikalingos ir būtinos to asmens pareigoms tinkamai atlikti. Advokato imunitetas baudžiamajame procese šio darbo prasme apima pasiklausymo problematiką advokato kliento santykiuose šiuolaikinių technologijų kontekste. Advokatams suteikiamos privilegijos siejamos ne su advokato statuso turėjimu, o su būtinybe užtikrinti veiklos garantijas vykdant konkrečias profesines pareigas. Be to, tai ne advokato, o kliento privilegija. Advokato paslaptis yra kliento privilegija, kuri įpareigoja advokatą ją saugoti. Profesinė paslaptis ir žmogaus teisės yra glaudžiai susijusios, kadangi advokatui suteikiamų privilegijų pagalba siekiama užtikrinti žmogaus teises. Nagrinėjamos Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijos, Advokatūros įstatymo, Baudžiamojo proceso kodekso, Lietuvos Respublikos įstatymų bei tarptautinių teisės aktų normos, reglamentuojančios advokato profesinei veiklai suteikiamą imunitetą santykiuose su klientu baudžiamajame procese. Atlikus šaltinių analizę susistemintos advokato imuniteto reglamentavimo tendencijos, skirtumai skirtingose valstybėse, teisinėse sistemose. Išskirti praktiniai atvejai, kurie sąlygoja advokato imuniteto taikymą, problematiką. Darbe buvo keliama hipotezė, kad teisėsaugos institucijos neturi teisės klausytis advokato pokalbių su klientu, kuri pasitvirtino iš dalies. Teisėsaugos institucijos negali klausytis advokato konfidencialių pokalbių su klientu, nes tai yra profesinė paslaptis, tačiau, esant išimtims, operatyviniai tyrimai advokato atžvilgiu galimi. Advokato pareiga apsaugoti profesinę paslaptį. Valstybės pareiga užtikrinti, kad teisėsaugos institucijos laikytųsi reikalavimų būtinų demokratinėje visuomenėje, užtikrintų teisę į teisingą teismą ir laikytųsi proporcingumo principo siekiamiems tikslams. Darbo pabaigoje pateiktos apibendrintos išvados.
In modern society, the role of the lawyers is an integral part of the legal system, with their effort we can defend human rights and preserve justice. In cases where people struggle against government, people are usually the underdogs. Taking into account the importance of lawyer profession to society and criminal proceedings, lawyers are granted with immunity witch is extra safety guarantees, necessary for proper job performance. Lawyer’s immunity in criminal proceedings in terms of his work involves listening problems attorney-client relationship in the context of modern technology. Attorneys granted the privileges associated not with a lawyer at the status of ownership but with the need to provide performance guarantees in specific professional responsibilities. It is important to mention that it is not a lawyer but client privilege. Attorney secret is client privilege, which obliges to keep it. Professional secrecy and human rights are closely related because attorney granted privileges intended to ensure human rights. It should be noted that this kind of work is quite exceptional because in the Lithuanian jurisprudence can be detected only a few publications on this topic, but this issue is widely discussed in the public domain. In Lithuania there are mere articles dealing with witness, diplomatic and consular immunities. In comparison with foreign countries it is clear that the Lithuanian legal literature of such research works is extremely lacking. The subject matter of this work is institute of attorney immunity in criminal procedure. The aim of this work is analyzing the judicial and doctrinal interpretation of attorney immunity in various countries to ascertain and reveal whether law enforcement authorities have the right to wiretap on the client’s conversations with an attorney during criminal procedure. In this work the investigation is based on attorney-client relationship. Taking into account, the importance of the existence of attorney immunity in criminal procedure there is raised the hypothesis that enforcement authorities do not have a right to wiretapping on the client’s conversations with an attorney. In order to implement the objective of this master, these goals are analyzed: 1. The historical evolution of attorney immunity. The impact of wiretapping which threatens attorney-client communications in the context of modern technology; 2. The beginning of attorney client privilege in criminal procedure. The exceptions of attorney granted immunity in criminal procedure. The importance and practical issues of attorney granted immunity in criminal procedure; 3. Attorney immunity regulatory trends in European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. 4. Attorney immunity regulatory trends and differences in different states and legal systems. In reference of legal instruments, Lithuanian and foreign sources of the court practice a conclusion is drawn that: In order to fulfill project objectives the immunity of the attorney in criminal proceedings was analyzed. First of all, the analysis starts from attorney’s immunity’s historical development. In the research was revealed that attorney’s – client relationship was mentioned in historical documents in the 16th century. The perception of such relationship in 16th century was that, it is the attorney’s privilege to represent client. The years went by, number of legal precedents grew and the perception of privileges changed, privilege was for the client to be represented by the attorney. New technologies had significant influence to the methods of the attorney’s job it is no doubts that new technologies is making job easier, because it is possible for the attorney to consult his client from miles away, but on the other hand, the risk of confidentiality being breached is increasing. In spite of these reasons new requirements are given to maximize the confidentiality of the case. Court hearings acknowledged such problem and indicated that attorney should not expect confidential conversations while using mass communication channels. In the length of time, requirements were made: a) Attorney has the duty to choose adequate communication type with the client b) Attorney’s duty is to tell about potential risk to confidentiality while using unsafe communication channels. Investigating the job of attorney it is very important to identify the start of immunity and what conditions are needed to ensure the safety of client’s secrets. There are two very important objectives to set the start of attorney’s immunity: a) signed agreement between the lawyer and the client b) attorney order/warrant in criminal defence After investigating national and international legislations and official documents it can be said that against attorney operational actions regarding confidentiality can be done in several cases: In the European convention on human rights practice it is stated, that based on ECHR, article 6 part d. b. paragraph: In some cases state can restrict the client – lawyer confidentiality if there are any reasonable suspicions that defendant abused procedural situations, misleads the court or interferes with the normal process. 1. Restriction can be granted if it is linked with money laundering and terrorist financing. 2. Restriction can be granted if attorney is using inappropriate defense actions. 3. Restriction can be granted when attorney is accused of criminal actions. 4. Restriction can be granted if there is suspicion of public safety. Based on foreign countries practice, the “Code of criminal procedure of republic of Lithuania” and the legislation regarding the immunity should be improved, supplementing the code of criminal procedure with additional provisions regarding, governing the granting of immunity, grounds, scopes and exceptions.