Ar LR Apsaugos nuo smurto artimoje aplinkoje įstatymo nuostata, jog smurtautojas gali būti priverstinai iškeldinamas iš jo gyvenamosios vietos prieštarauja LR Konstitucijoje įtvirtintam nuosavybės neliečiamybės principui?
Mažliakaitė, Inga |
Kovai su smurtu artimoje aplinkoje, 2011 m. gegužės 26 d. buvo priimtas Apsaugos nuo smurto artimoje aplinkoje įstatymas (toliau – ANSAAĮ). Įstatyme yra įtvirtinta nuostata – laikinas smurtautojo iškeldinimas iš gyvenamojo būsto, kuris gali būti skiriamas, net jei nuosavybės teise priklauso pačiam smurtautojui. Darbe keliama teisinė problema: Ar LR Apsaugos nuo smurto artimoje aplinkoje įstatymo nuostata, jog smurtautojas gali būti priverstinai iškeldinamas iš jo gyvenamosios vietos, prieštarauja LR Konstitucijoje įtvirtintam nuosavybės neliečiamumo principui? Darbo uždaviniai: (1) Išanalizuoti nuosavybės teisės reglamentavimą tarptautiniuose teisės aktuose ir LR Konstitucijoje; (2) išnagrinėti nuosavybės teisės ribojimo pagrindus LR Konstitucinio Teismo praktikoje ir baudžiamojo proceso kontekste; (3) atskleisti, ar ANSAAĮ įtvirtintos aukos apsaugos priemonės – laikino smurtautojo iškeldinimo skyrimo ir vykdymo tvarkos teisinis reglamentavimas suderintas su su LR Baudžiamojo proceso kodeksu ir LR Konstitucijoje įtvirtintu nuosavybės neliečiamumo principu. Darbo tikslas – išsiaiškinti, ar įstatymų leidėjas, nustatydamas ANSAAĮ priverstinį smurtautojo iškeldinimą iš gyvenamosios vietos, nepažeidžia nuosavybės neliečiamumo principo. Darbo objektas – ANSAAĮ įtvirtintos aukos apsaugos priemonės – laikino smurtautojo iškeldinimo iš gyvenamosios vietos skyrimas ir vykdymas. Įgyvendinant darbo tikslą buvo analizuojama nuosavybės teisės ir laikino smurtautojo iškeldinimo skyrimo, vykdymo tvarkos teisinis reglamentavimas, nagrinėjant teismų praktiką, įstatymus, mokslinę literatūrą ir užsienio šalių teisės aktus. Darbe iš dalies pasitvirtino hipotezė, kad smurtautojo iškeldinimas iš jam nuosavybės teise priklausančios gyvenamosios vietos, kai kuriais atvejais gali pažeisti nuosavybės teisės neliečiamumo principą. Nuosavybės teisės apsauga garantuojama tarptautiniuose teisės aktuose ir LR Konstitucijoje. Absoliutus nuosavybės teisės neliečiamumas išprovokuotu kitus teisių pažeidimus. Siekiant apsaugoti konstitucines asmens teises numatyta jos ribojimo galimybė. Smurtautojui, pažeidusiam kito asmens konstitucines teises, apriboti nuosavybės teisę, kuri taip pat garantuojama LR Konstitucijos, būtų teisėta. Iškeldinimo klausimas iš nuosavybės teise priklausančio būsto turi būti sprendžiamas nepažeidžiant įstatymų ir proporcingumo principo. ANSAAĮ numatytas laikinas smurtautojo iškeldinimas iš gyvenamosios vietos skiriamas vadovaujantis ne LR Baudžiamojo proceso kodeksu, o atskiru įstatymu, kuris nereglamentuoja esminių dalykų turinčių užtikrinti aiškų ir teisingą baudžiamąjį procesą, nepažeidžiantį asmenų teisių.
To fight violence in the domestic environment, the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania adopted the Law of Protection against Domestic Violence intended to protect the individuals against the violence in the domestic environment. The violence in the domestic environment, due to damage caused to society is attributable to the acts of public importance incurring criminal liability. The act of Protection against Domestic Violence provides that in the case of the violence in the domestic environment a pre-trial investigation is initiated leading to a criminal procedure, which is regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter referred to as CPC RL). The act of Protection against Domestic Violence provides the measure of protection of a victim of violence – a temporary eviction of the perpetrator from the place of residence. This coercive measure can be imposed even if the suspected person owns the residence. The above mentioned law has caused havoc to the law of criminal procedure, since temporary eviction of the perpetrator from the residence is appointed not in accordance with the CPC RL, which governs coercive measures and their imposition during the criminal proceedings. The legal issue at the heart of this thesis: Whether the provision of the act on Protection against Domestic Violence, which provides that the perpetrator can be compulsory, evicted from his residence is contrary to the principle of the inviolability of property contained in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania? The tasks of the thesis: (1)To analyze the impairment of the right of property in international legal instruments and in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania; (2) to examine the regulation of the ownership in the legal order of the Republic of Lithuania and in the context of criminal procedures; (3) to reveal whether the legal status of the proceedings and the enforcement of protection measures to victims established under the act of Protection against Domestic Violence such as temporary eviction of the perpetrator is adapted to the CPC RL and to the principle of the inviolability of property contained in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The objective of the thesis is to discover whether the legislator do not observes the principle of the inviolability of property ownership by setting compulsory temporary eviction of the perpetrator from the residence established under the act of Protection against Domestic Violence. The object of the thesis - protection measures to victims established under the act of Protection against Domestic Violence - the proceedings and the enforcement of the temporary eviction of the perpetrator from the place of residence. In the first part of this thesis, the regulation of ownership is analyzed in international legislations. The rule established by the European Court of Human Rights is analyzed in the context of the protection of the ownership. The ownership regulation is analyzed in the national legislation – The Constitution. In the second part of the thesis, the scope of the application of the ownership limitations and constraints is determined. The third part of the thesis is dedicated to the legal issues of the temporary eviction of the perpetrator from the place of residence established under the act of Protection against Domestic Violence. The focus is put on the legal regulations of the temporary eviction of the perpetrator from the place of residence established under the act of Protection against Domestic Violence and it is compatibility with the principle of the inviolability of property established under the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. In order to achieve the objective the ownership the proceedings and the enforcement of the temporary eviction of the perpetrator legal regulations was analyzed using the method of analysis of the case-law, the law, scientific literature and the laws of the foreign countries. The hypothesis put forth in this thesis that the eviction of the perpetrator from the proprietary residence in some cases poses threat to the principle of the inviolability of property seemed to have been positively validated. The protection of the ownership, it is statutory limiting possibilities are ensured by the international law and the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. An absolute integrity of the property may provoke the violations of other constitutional rights and values therefore the possibility of limitation is provided which State can exercise only as required by law. The ownership might be limited not only for reasons of public interest but also in order to protect the constitutional rights and freedom of individuals such as the right to life, health, physical integrity, and the integrity of the person. In criminal proceeding the constitutional rights of the individual might be limited, therefore all procedural coercive measures should be applied in compliance with the rules set out in the CPC RL and in line with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the European Convention on Human Rights. To do otherwise could generate the violations of the human rights. It would be legitimate to limit the ownership, which is also granted by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, to the perpetrator who had violated the constitutional right of the other individual. The issue of the eviction from the owned residence must be resolved without prejudice to any national and international legislation and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. The real risk and the balance between the coercive measures applied and the constitutional rights of the defendant must be determined. The act of Protection against Domestic Violence allows temporary eviction of the perpetrator from the residence. Applied in accordance with the separate law which does not regulate the essential elements, responsible for ensuring the obvious equitable criminal proceeding that does not affect individual rights rather than in accordance with the CPC RL. The act does not define the term of the temporary eviction of the perpetrator from the residence, leading to the restriction of the right of ownership without a time limit; the lack of clarity in the regulation of the appeal against the decision which means that applied temporary eviction of the perpetrator from the residence may cause confusion during the criminal procedure; a person suspected of having committed a violent act experience the problems concerning the handling of his personal belongings, because they are returned only if the victim do not oppose. In the establishment of the fact of an incident of domestic violence, in case of physical violence, it is likely that the violence has been used against the person. However, in the case of non-physical violence, the fact can be put in question, which is subject to the abuse. Therefore, it is likely, that the rights of the violence victim is being abused, which would be subject to the possibility of fraudulent reports. Statistics show that the coercive measure under the act of Protection against Domestic Violence - temporary eviction of the perpetrator have until now been almost inexistent, because problems arise as a result of the uncertainty of the regulation of the Law.