Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Type of publication: Straipsnis / Article
Author(s): Tomkevičiūtė, Giedrė
Title: Šeimos narių sąvokos neapibrėžtumas baudžiamajame procese : tos pačios lyties asmenų atvejo analizė
Other Title: Definition of family members and its indetermination in criminal procedure: case study of the same-sex couples
Is part of: Teisės apžvalga, 2013, nr. 1(10), p. 86-135
Date: 2013
Keywords: Baudžiamasis procesas;Šeimos nariai;Teisė į pagarbą šeimai;Tos pačios lyties asmenys;Liudijimo imunitetas;Funkcinis metodas;Criminal procedure;Family members;Right to respect for family life;Same-sex persons;Witness imunity;Functional approach
Abstract: Ar giminystės ryšiu nesusieti tos pačios lyties asmenys, gyvenantys bendrai, baudžiamojo proceso Lietuvos Respublikoje metu turi teisę būti laikomi šeimos nariais? Lietuvoje tos pačios lyties asmenų santykiai nėra siejami su galiojančiomis šeimos teisės normomis – viešoje erdvėje tai yra dažnos kritikos objektas. Vis dėlto, atsižvelgus į platų ir dviprasmišką šeimos narių apibrėžimą Lietuvos Respublikos Baudžiamojo proceso kodekso 38 straipsnyje, a priori nėra pagrindo teigti, jog tos pačios lyties asmenys nebūtų laikomi šeimos nariais baudžiamojo proceso metu, juolab kad pagal konstitucinę dokriną, santykių išraiškos forma konstitucinei šeimos sampratai esminės reikšmės neturi.Nors šeimos nariai nelaikomi baudžiamojo proceso subjektais, jie dėl savo statuso įtakos procesinėms teisėms ir pareigoms gali turėti (įskaitant teisę neduoti parodymų bei pareigą nusišalinti ir t. t.), todėl svarbu konkrečiai įvardyti šeimos nariais laikytinų subjektų ratą. Be to, šeimos nario samprata baudžiamojo proceso kontekste yra svarbi ir dėl žmogaus teisių, įskaitant teisę į pagarbą šeimai, apsaugos.Straipsnyje, vadovaujantis teisės aktais bei doktrina, atskleidžiama teisinė šeimos samprata baudžiamojo proceso teisės kontekste, analizuojamos prielaidos šeimos narių teisėms ir pareigoms atsirasti. Atsižvelgus į pozityviosios teisės sąlygotus neaiškumus, aptarta nacionalinių teismų praktika bei Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo jurisprudencija, kurioje vertinami faktiniai fizinių asmenų santykiai – įvardijus šeimos santykiams būdingus požymius, pateikiama jų ir tos pačios lyties asmenų santykių dermės analizė.
Article „Definition of family members and its indetermination in criminal procedure: case study of the same-sex couples” by Giedrė Tomkevičiūtė173 is based on examining whether relationships of the same-sex couples fall within the legal notion of family in the context of criminal procedure in Lithuania and how to evaluate the fact of family existence while in pretrial investigation or in court.Constitutional requirement to decide case correctly inter alia implies that a court has to guarantee the rights of all parties. However, at first entities capable to acquire those rights must be specified. Although family members themselves are not considered subjects of criminal procedure, they do have certain rights, one of the most important being witness’ immunity. Therefore, it is important to define clearly who is considered a family member in order to avoid an abuse of rights and also to guarantee the protection of and respect to family life.In Lithuania same-sex relationships are not associated with the current family law or legal definition of family as such, especially when common public criticism is taken into consideration. However, given the broad and ambiguous definition of family members in the Article 38 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (between other things stating that a person with whom the other person lives without registering a marriage is considered a family member), there is no a priori reason to argue that same-sex persons cannot be considered family members during criminal proceedings.Firstly the legal concept of family and family members in the context of criminal procedure was analyzed. Moreover, given the uncertainties caused by the positive law, the cases of national courts and European Court of Human Rights were examined, focusing on the ones which considered the actual relationship between individuals (questioning if these relationships constitute family). After naming the features of family relationships and after analysing their consistency with the same-sex relations, conclusions were drawn.It was settled that finite list of the types of family that meet its constitutional concept is not clarified and that the Article 38 of the CCP (as much as it defines what is a family member) is a separate legal category not directly related with the partnership provisions stated in the Civil Code. What is more, institutions implementing the criminal procedure and deciding on whether a person is entitled to the status of family member are bound by the content of the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights plays an important role while implementing the CCP provisions related to definition of family.It was concluded that CCP provisions related to family rights and duties are essentially intended to ensure proper engagement between family members and the full execution of the functioning of the family, so that the rules of criminal procedure are carried out in the constitutional and international requirements with the obligations to respect family life met.According to the national case-law in criminal cases assessing actual relations of individuals, family relationships are most often described by family features including common life, own recognition that persons are linked by familial ties, child rearing, commitment to marry, joint property holding, close relationship. Intimate relationship is not emphasized in case-law analyzed, although under the theory of sociology it is an important family feature. Family features named in ECtHR jurisprudence are similar to the ones mentioned in national case-law but it is also important that this Court has explicitly stated that family can also be established within the union of the same-sex partners. There was a conclusion made that in theory a number of family features (other than a formal agreement to marry under the Article 3.8 of Civil Code) can be inherent to same-sex relations and the same functional approach can be used while defining relationships of same-sex couples in particular cases, in the same way that is used when factual opposite sex relations fall into consideration.
Appears in Collections:Teisės apžvalga / Law Review 2013, nr. 1(10)

Files in This Item:
Show full item record
Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats
Export to Other Non-XML Formats

CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

checked on Mar 30, 2021


checked on Mar 31, 2021

Google ScholarTM


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.