Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34687
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law
Author(s): Kairytė, Kristina
Title: Ar LR BPK reglamentavimas, nustatantis, kad iš kaltininko gali būti išieškomos proceso išlaidos dėl valstybinio gynėjo dalyvavimo net ir tose bylose, kai gynėjo dalyvavimas yra būtinas, neprieštarauja EŽTK 6 str.?
Other Title: Whether Lithuania's legal regulation in criminal proceedings that may oblige a person uponhis conviction to compensate for state-appointed counsel even when suchparticipation of counsel in criminal proceedings is mandatory compatible with ECHR Article 6?
Extent: 44 p.
Date: 1-Jun-2017
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Valstybinis gynėjas;Proceso išlaidos;Išieškojimas;Teisė į gynybą;Pozityvi pareiga;Legal aid;State-appointed counsel;Right to have a lawyer;Positive obligation
Abstract: Šio darbo tikslas buvo išsiaiškinti, ar šiuo metu galiojantis Baudžiamojo proceso kodekso reglamentavimas, numatantis galimybę iš kaltininko išieškoti išlaidas už privalomą gynėjo dalyvavimą proceso metu, tose bylose, kuriose gynėjo dalyvavimas yra privalomas, nepažeidžia šio asmens teisių, numatytų Europos žmogaus teisių konvencijos 6 straipsnio trečioje dalyje (gintis pats arba padedamas savo paties pasirinkto gynėjo arba, jei neturi pakankamai lėšų gynėjui atsilyginti ir, kai tai reikalinga teisingumo interesams, nemokamai gauti advokato pagalbą). LR BPK imperatyviai nustato atvejus, kuomet gynėjo dalyvavimas būtinas, dėl ko asmuo pats negali spręsti dėl savo gynybos (gintis pačiam ar turėti gynėją) ar gynėjo pasirinkimo. Šią funkciją, prisiima atitinkamos institucijos, valstybės įpareigotos užtikrinti gynėjo dalyvavimą būtinaisiais atvejais, todėl vėlesnis išieškojimas iš kaltininko už tokias privalomas gynėjo paslaugas kėlė pagrįstų dvejonių. Išanalizavus Europos žmogaus teisių teismo praktiką dėl nemokamos teisinės gynybos skyrimo ir vėlesnio tokių išlaidų priteisimo asmenį pripažinus kaltu aiškinimo, matyti, kad toks reguliavimas, kuomet asmeniui yra paskiriama valstybės garantuojama teisinė pagalba, tiek jo paties prašymu, tiek esant būtinajam teisingumo interesui užtikrinti, pats savaime nepažeidžia Europos žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos 6 straipsnio 3 (c) dalies ir joje įtvirtintos teisės į nemokamą gynybą, jei atitinka dvi EŽTT išskirtas sąlygas: 1) tokios išlaidos gali būti priteisiamos tik pasibaigus visam baudžiamajam procesui ir asmenį pripažinus kaltu, 2) asmens materialinė padėtis pasibaigus baudžiamajam procesui turi būti tokia, kad šis galėtų tokias išlaidas padengti; šios sąlygos nustatymas paliktas spręsti valstybių nacionalinei teisei. Atlikus Lietuvos teismų praktikos analizę padaryta išvada, kad LR BPK 106 straipsnio 2 dalis, nors ir nepažeidžia EŽTK numatytos teisės į gynybą, tačiau yra neefektyvi ir Lietuvos teismų praktikoje retai taikoma. ritiškai, svarstant klausimą dėl tokių proceso išlaidų išieškojimo iš kaltininko teisiško pagrįstumo.
This paper analyzes Lithuanian Criminal Procedure Code regulation that may oblige a person upon his conviction to compensate for state-appointed counsel even when such participation of counsel in criminal proceedings is mandatory and it‘s compatibility with Eurpean Convention on Human Rights article 6 3 (c) that states:a person had a right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require. Member States are bounded by negative and positive obligations arising from the European Convention on Human Rights which protects most basic and fundamental human rights. To fulfil negative obligation, it is enough that the state would take no action that could be regarded as human rights restriction or violation. To fulfil positive obligation the state must take active steps to ensure the appropriate implementation and protection of human rights in their national laws. As one example of such a positive obligation, it is framed in European Convention on Human rights Article 6 paragraph 3(c) that provides the accused the right to a counsel. The state has an obligation to create a system where every person would have acces to legal aid, if such aid is necessary. The right to a fair trial is provided in various international treaties, including the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as established and Lithuanian criminal justice system and the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of Lithuania and the Criminal Code and is one of the fundamental rights throughout the criminal proceedings. In certain cases, where interest of justice requires, assitance of counsel can be mandatory and must be guaranteed throughout the criminal proceeding by state appointed counsel services. It must be stressed that the mandatory participation and assistance of counsel in criminal proceedings does not mean that a person is deprived of the right to defend himself or herself together with the legal counsel. In the thesis this hypothesis has been formulated: Whether Lithuania's legal regulation in criminal proceedings that may oblige a person upon his conviction to compensate for state-appointed counsel even when such participation of counsel in criminal proceedings is mandatory compatible with ECHR Article 6? After analyzing the European Court of Human Rights case-law, two conditions for free legal aid in crinimal proceedings were ascertained: 1) a person does not have sufficient means to pay for their own lawyer; the ECtHR has left the definition of this condition primarily to the domestic courts. 2) such legal aid is required to satisfy the interests of justice which is determined by four criteria: the seriousness of the offence, the severity of the potential sentence, the complexity of the case and the social and personal situation of the defendant. In these cases, participation of counsel for the defendant is often considered as a condition for the validity of the proceedings. After further analysis of ECtHR case law it was concluded that the requirement to reimburse the state for the fees for legal assistance in crinimal proceedings as stated in Croissant v. Germany does not by itself violate Article 6.3(c). For such reimbursement to be compitable with the European convention on human rights two conditions must be met: 1) such costs may be awarded only after the entire criminal proceedings are over and the person is found gulity. The second condition for the legality of the regulation – defendant’s financial situation after the trial is the improved enought making them able to to cover such costs. Alhough analysis of ECtHR case law found that requirement to reimburse the state for the fees for legal assistance in crinimal proceedings does not violate persons right to fair trial, analysis of Lithuanian case law shows that Lithuanian courts are not inclined to order such reimbursement, although such a possibility is established in Lithuanian Criminal Procedure Code regulation 106 paragraph 2, on the grounds that demanding to pay for state-appointed counsel couldcviolate d persons right to legal defense in criminal proceedings.
Internet: https://eltalpykla.vdu.lt/1/34687
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34687
Appears in Collections:2017 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
Show full item record

Page view(s)

100
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Download(s)

140
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


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