Use this url to cite ETD: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/124857
Options
Ar ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjai užtikrina, kad ikiteisminio tyrimo metu nebūtų pažeistos proceso dalyvių teisės?
Field of Science
Teisė / Law (S001)
Type of publication
type::text::thesis::master thesis
Title
Ar ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjai užtikrina, kad ikiteisminio tyrimo metu nebūtų pažeistos proceso dalyvių teisės?
Other Title
Or an investigating judge ensure trial investigation has not resulted in infringement of the procedural rights of the participants?
Author
Žvirblis, Povilas |
Advisor
Extent
40 p.
Date Issued
2015-06-04
Abstract
Ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjas – apylinkės teismo teisėjas, apylinkės teismo pirmininko paskirtas atlikti įstatymų numatytus proceso veiksmus bei priimti sprendimus. Taip pat ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjas yra vienas iš ikiteisminio tyrimo proceso subjektų, kuris ikiteisminio tyrimo metu priima svarbiausius sprendimus ir užtikrina, kad visas procesas vyktų laikantis teisingumo principo. Šių dienų ikiteisminio tyrimo procese pasitaiko nemažai keblių situacijų, kurių metu gali būti pažeidžiamos ikiteisminio tyrimo dalyvių teisės. Dėl šios priežasties įstatymų leidėjas baudžiamajame procese įtvirtino naują ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjo institutą, kurio numatyta esmė buvo ne pagražinti ikiteisminio tyrimo procesą, bet sumažinti proceso dalyvių teisių pažeidimus. Siekiant išsiaiškinti, ar ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjas atlieka įstatymo leidėjo numatytas funkcijas, svarbiausias tikslas buvo atsakyti į klausimą, ar ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjai užtikrina, kad ikiteisminio tyrimo metu nebūtų pažeistos proceso dalyvių teisės? Darbe buvo atlikta ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjo įgaliojimų bei pareigų analizė nacionaliniu ir tarptautiniu lygių, kuri parodė tai, kad ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjo institutas yra labai svarbus tiek Lietuvoje, tiek kitose šalyse. Tačiau, norint rasti atsakymą į išsikeltą tikslą, pagrindinis uždavinys buvo išanalizuoti Lietuvos ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjo institutą ir išsiaiškinti, ar ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjui nėra užkertamas kelias užtikrinti ikiteisminio tyrimo proceso dalyvių teises. Atliekant šias išsikeltas užduotis buvo analizuojama Lietuvos teismų praktika, mokslinė literatūra bei moksliniai straipsniai. Išanalizavus visą pateiktą informaciją buvo padarytos galutinės išvados, kad ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjas vis dėlto yra ikiteisminio tyrimo proceso dalyvių teisių garantas, nes jis yra tas nešališkas arbitras, kuris į visus proceso dalyvius žvelgia vienodai. Tačiau norint, kad ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjas labiau užtikrintų teisėtumo principą, įstatymų leidėjas turėtų padaryti pakeitimų Lietuvos teisinėje sistemoje ir atsisakyti prokuroro vienvaldystės ikiteisminiame tyrime bei priimti tokią ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjo koncepciją, kurios metu šis institutas taptų viso ikiteisminio tyrimo nešališku prižiūrėtoju
A pre-trial investigation judge is a judge of a county court, appointed by the President of the county court to carry out procedural actions established by laws and to pass decisions. A pre-trial investigation judge is one of the subjects of a pre-trial investigation process, who during the pre-trial investigation makes the most important decisions and ensures that the entire process is conducted in accordance with the principle of justice. These days, a number of difficult situations incurs in the pre-trial investigation process during which the rights of the participants may be violated. For this reason, in 2003, while introducing a new Code of Criminal Procedure in Lithuania, the legislator has established a new institute – a pre-trial investigation judge, whose define daim was not to enhance the pre-trial investigation process, but to reduce the violations of the rights of the participants to the process. In order to understand whether this institution operates in Lithuania and performs its functions, it was necessary to analyse the powers and duties of a pre-trial investigation judge and their linkages with the powers and duties of other participants in the pre-trial investigation. In addition, while performing the study, the main objective was to answer the question whether pre-trial investigation judges ensure that the rights of the process participants are not violated in the pre-trial investigation. The paper contains an analysis of the powers and duties of a pre-trial investigation judge at the national and international levels, which showed that the pre-trial judge institute is very important both in Lithuania and in other countries. However, it was noted that in different countries the functions performed by pre-trial investigation judges differ in the pre-trial investigation process and that these functions depend on the principal of the criminal procedure prevailing in the country. After considering of the aspects of the French and German pre-trial investigation, it was observed that these countries do not pay very much attention on the function of pre-trial investigation judges to be responsible for non-violation of the participants’ rights during the pre-trial investigation process. However, a completely different trend is observed in the Lithuanian legal system compared to other countries - in Lithuania, the primary function of apre-trial investigation judge is to ensure that the entire pre-trial investigation proceedings are conducted lawfully and in the event of a dispute between the participants, it is resolved by an impartial arbitrator. Seeking to find out the answer to set the goal, the key attention was focused on the analysis of the institute of the Lithuanian pre-trial investigation judge and figure out whether the pre-trial investigating judge is not prevented from the ensuring of the pre-trial proceedings participants’ rights. While fulfilling these tasks, the Lithuanian case law was analysed and it was observed that pre-trial investigation judges carefully carry out their duties and the most important decisions during the investigation are taken without prejudice to the rule of law, equality and adversarial principles. However, while performing the analysis of judicial practice, some contradictions were observed among the judges as well, and these objections usually emerge from the fact that the institute of the pre-trial investigation judge is young enough and is not fully regulated. For example, other investigating bodies, prosecutors and investigating officers have their own laws, which clearly defines theirs power limits and responsibilities, however, all that is lacking in the analysis of the institute of the pre-trial investigation judge. Seeking to find out the current place of the pre-trial investigation judge in the process, it was necessary to analyse the legal literature and scientific articles. From these sources, it has been observed that attempting to answer the question whether the pre-trial investigation judge ensures that the rights of participants are not violated in the pre-trial investigation process, the researchers took different views. Scientific authors split into two parts: a part of them believes that the entire pre-trial investigation must be focused in the prosecutor’s hands, while others argue that the entire pre-trial investigation and its legitimacy should be supervised by an impartial arbiter, which Lithuania is the pre-trial investigation judge currently. However, an analysis of the scientific literature and judicial practice discovered that pre-trial investigation judges only partially ensure the rights of participants in the process, because they are not completely free in the pre-trial investigation process. Pre-trial investigation judges are restricted by a prosecutor because only the prosecutor can include a pre-trial investigation judge in a pre-trial investigation, with the exception of the complaint investigation process. This restriction prevents pre-trial investigation judges from fully realization of their duties to carry out their duties and thus other participants of the pre-trial investigation suffer as they cannot be assured that their rights during the investigation will be fully secured. This situation in the Lithuanian pre-trial proceedings has emerged solely because the legislature provides for a passive concept of the pre-trial investigation judge. Summarizing all the provided information, the final conclusion was made that the pre-trial investigation judge is nevertheless the guarantor of the rights of the parties, because he / she is an impartial arbiter who considers all participants alike. However, in order a pre-trial investigation judge could ensure better the principle of legality, the legislator should make changes in the Lithuanian legal system, i.e. not only refuse the autocracy of the prosecutor in the pre-trial investigation process, but also to establish such a position of the pre-trial investigation judge in the pre-trial investigation process so this institute would become a supervisor of the entire pre-trial investigation process.
Language
Lietuvių / Lithuanian (lt)
Defended
Taip / Yes
Access Rights
Atviroji prieiga / Open Access