|Abstract: ||Darbe “Teisėjų atsakomybės instituto tradicija Lietuvos teisėje“ nagrinėjamos įvairios teisėjų atsakomybės formos: baudžiamoji, civilinė, drausminė, administracinė įvairiais chronologiniais laikotarpiais: pagal Lietuvos Statutus Lietuvos Didžiojoje kunigaikštystėje XVI – XVII a., Lietuvos Respublikoje 1918-1940 m., sovietiniu laikotarpiu 1945-1990 m. ir po Nepriklausomybės atkūrimo Lietuvos Respublikoje nuo 1990 m., siejant teisėjų atsakomybės taikymo ypatumus su pagrindiniais teisėjų veiklos principais: nepriklausomumo, nešališkumo bei su teismo autoriteto elementu. Darbe atskleidžiamos teisėjo aukštesnio elgesio (ne tik darbe, bet ir ne profesinėje veikloje) standarto ir teisinio elgesio sureguliavimo įvairaus lygio teisės aktais, priežastys. Tiriama teisės aktų, numatančių teik teisėjų elgesio standartus, tiek jų atsakomybės sąlygas, kaita bei šiuolaikinės teisės taikymo taisyklės, iš esmės suformuotos Lietuvos Konstitucinio teismo. Pateikiama rekomendacija, susijusi su tinkamo teisėjų elgesio proceso metu kontrolės užtikrinimu.|
The aim of this work (named “The tradition of judge’s legal responsibility in Lithuanian law”) is to analyze the evolution of the judge’s legal responsibility institute by historical aspect and to evaluate law tradition’s impact to nowadays different judge’s liability forms. The first chapter of this work deals with the principle of judge’s independence and its relation to requirements of judge’s legal responsibility. The most important principles of judge’s job are independence, equity and impartiality. A judge and courts should be independent while administering justice. The honor and dignity of the judge or the court shall be protected by the laws. The demands of judges and courts when they administer justice shall be binding upon all natural persons, enterprises and organizations. The non-compliance with these demands shall incur responsibility provided by laws. The main obligation to follow the judgments and responsibility determines the higher standards of judge‘s behavior and moral and different from other individuals conditions of legal responsibility. The legal responsibility of judges to whom they have injured is a long-standing issue in the republic of Lithuania, one that has proved divisive and exceedingly difficult to solve. In different historical period legal systems of Lithuania regulated the liability of judge differently. The nature and magnitude of the problem of judicial misconduct, and the structures of civil, criminal and administrative responsibility, likewise vary. The second chapter is about judge’s legal responsibility in the Lithuanian Grand Duchy in the XVI-XVII centuries. The requirement to obey litigation parties is based on parity: the judge, as well as plaintiff or defendant for misbehavior might be punished by criminal penalty. The third chapter deals with legal regulation of judge‘s different forms of responsibility in 1918-1940 in Republic of Lithuania. The uncommon form was material responsibility, which was applicable in the case judge acted as administrator of the court. The rest of responsibility forms were mostly the same as today‘s: criminal, administrative, disciplinary. Civil liability of judges was distinguished from disciplinary proceedings against them since the aim and effects of each are quite different in nature. The fourth chapter is about legal regulation in the period of soviet occupation from 1945 to 1990. There was primary individual liability of the judge alone for judicial misconduct (with the supplemental state liability in case of non-collectability). The last chapter is about the last evolution period from 1990. The analyze of judge‘s legal responsibility aspects grounds on international documents, such as Universal Charter of the Judge, and the precedents of Lithuanian Constitutional court, Lithuania Court of Appeals. The main difference from previous regulations was legal prohibition to apply primary civil liability to the judge. Lithuanian laws allow primarily liability to the state and grant a right of recourse against the judges. In the subsection of disciplinary liability the legislation regarding the disciplinary liability of judges and its implementation through the special institutions: The court of Judge‘s Honor Court and The Commission of discipline and ethic is described. The subchapter dealing with criminal liability also describes the judicial immunity, which provides those exercising judicial functions in a court with exemption from all civil liability for anything done or said by them in their judicial capacity. The reason underlying this immunity is to ensure “that they may be free in thought and independent in judgment”. As to immunity of judge - a judge may not be prosecuted, arrested, may not be restricted in his personal freedom without the consent of the Seimas, and in the period between the sessions of the Seimas - without the consent of the President of the Republic. If criminal proceedings are instituted against a judge, his powers shall be suspended by the Seimas. Administrative action may not be brought against a judge. When a judge shall have committed an administrative violation of law, the material shall be transferred to the Minister of Justice or to the Chairperson of the Supreme Court in order to bring a disciplinary action against a judge. The recommendation relates to importance to ensure the polite behavior of judge while administering justice. One of the ways to do that – to change the 170th article of Civil Procedure code of Republic of Lithuania, providing that the recording of court proceedings is compulsory.