Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/36619
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law
Author(s): Žiūra, Tadas
Title: Ar draudimas rūkyti daugiabučių namų balkonuose gali būti traktuojamas kaip kišimasis į privatumą?
Other Title: Does forbidding smoking in a block of flats balcony can be tracked as a privacy violation?
Extent: 36 p.
Date: 6-Jun-2018
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Draudimas;Rūkymas;Balkonas;Forbidding;Smoking;Balcony
Abstract: Magistro baigiamojo darbo tikslas buvo ištirti, ar Seimo narių siūlomas įstatymo projektas - draudimas rūkyti daugiabučių namų balkonuose- gali būti traktuojamas kaip kišimasis į privatumą? Tyrimas atliktas išanalizavus aktualią teisinę doktriną, skirtingų autorių nuomonę ir teismų praktiką. Siekiant, kad darbas būtų išnagrinėtas kuo objektyviau žmogaus teisėms, buvo remtasi ir užsienio valstybių teisiniu reglamentavimu bei EŽTT praktika. Pirmoje darbo dalyje buvo pasisakyta, kad viešasis interesas ir privatus interesas dažnai prieštarauja vienas kitam. Taip pat Konstitucija gina asmens privačius bei viešuosius interesus, tačiau, anot Lietuvos teismų, viešąjį interesą ir jo saugojimą teismai išskyrė kaip vieną iš pagrindinių valstybės tikslų. Teismai pažymėjo, kad privataus gyvenimo teisė nėra absoliuti, ji gali būti suvaržyta, kad apsaugotų kitų asmenų teises bei laisves, pridedant tai, kad toks privatumo ribojimas turi būti proporcingas. Kalbant apie EŽTK 8 straipsnį, jis gali būti taikomas tik tada, kai asmenims yra padaroma rimta tiesioginė žala, kurią jie, be kita ko, privalės įrodyti. Remiantis EŽTT išaiškinimu dėl valstybės pareigos suvaržyti asmens teises ribų, buvo pasisakyta, kad valstybė ar jos institucijos turi teisę suvaržyti kitų asmenų saugomas teises tik tam, kad apsaugotų kitus asmenis nuo potencialaus didelio pavojaus sveikatai ar gyvybei. Suvaržydama esamas teises, valstybė turi būti įvertinusi bei pasvėrusi tokio suvaržymo pasekmes. Antroje darbo dalyje buvo apžvelgtas užsienio valstybių reglamentavimas bei praktika dėl rūkymo privačioje erdvėje. JAV nėra reglamentuotas rūkymas privačiose erdvėse, tačiau imtis kažkokių alternatyvių veiksmų galima. Pavyzdžiui, remtis Niujorko vyriausybės rekomendaciniu aktu- rinkti įrodymus apie padarytą žalą bei tuo pagrindu rašyti skundą dėl draudimo rūkyti konkrečioje patalpoje. Taip pat JAV yra statomi vadinamieji „Smoke free“ gyvenamieji namai, kuriuose negalima rūkyti. Palyginus Suomijos draudimą rūkyti balkonuose ir Lietuvos įstatymo projektą, Lietuvos atveju yra nurodytas tik draudimas, neturintis jokių teisinių išimčių. Pavyzdžiui, Suomija suteikia teisę namo bendrijai ir jos gyventojams aiškintis bei galimybę susitarti dėl pasyvaus rūkymo žalos, jei tokia yra sukeliama, ir tik tada galima prašyti valstybės įsikišimo. Taigi padaryta išvada, kad Lietuva turėtų sekti Suomijos reglamentavimo pavyzdžiu. Trečioje darbo dalyje buvo apžvelgta, ar draudimas rūkyti balkonuose nepažeistų proporcingumo principo. Taigi pasisakyta, kad draudimas turi būti švelniausias ir mažiausiai ribojantis įtvirtintas žmogaus teises. Trečia dalis tiesiog konstatuoja faktą, kad mano iškelta hipotezė pasitvirtino – toks įstatymo reglamentavimas gali būti traktuojamas kaip kišimasis į privatumą. Draudimo rūkyti daugiabučių namų balkonuose įstatymo projektas nėra proporcingas, nes jis galėtų būti įgyvendintas mažiau ribojančiu reglamentavimu, atsižvelgiant į Suomijos praktiką.  
The aim of the master's thesis was to investigate whether the draft law proposed by the members of the Parliament - a ban on smoking in a block of flats balcony - can be treated as an interference with privacy? The study was carried out by analyzing the relevant legal doctrine, the views of different authors, and case law. In order to ensure that the work was examined as objectively as possible to human rights, the legal regulation of foreign countries and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights were also used. In the first part of the work it was said that public interests and private interests often contradict each other. It has been held in the jurisprudence of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court that "the realization of the public interest as a state recognized and protected by the law of the public interest is one of the most important conditions for the existence and development of society itself. On the other hand, the public interest, as a common interest of the state, of society as a whole, must be combined with the autonomous interests of the individual, since not only the public interest but also the rights of a person are constitutional values, but the courts have noted that the private life law as such is not absolute, it may be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of other persons, adding that this restriction of privacy must be proportionate. In addition to that, Article 8 of ECHR act is applicable if there is serious direct harm to individuals which they will be required to prove, among other things. According to the ECHR’s explanation of the state’s obligation to restrict the rights of a person, it was said that the state or its institutions have the right to restrict the rights of other persons only in order to protect other individuals from a potential high risk to health or life. By enforcing existing rights, the state must assess and weigh the consequences of such a constraint. Whether passive smoking by one person has a major impact on the health of other people, and therefore the rights of the spreader must be restricted, this would be a question of investigation. If the amount of polluted emissions is sufficient, it is likely that this limitation of rights will be proportionate and reasonable. In the second part of the work I was analyzing foreign country practices and regulations for application for infringement in private life. Since Lithuania often adopts legislation on the regulation of foreign practice, it is also necessary to take into account foreign regulations on the prohibition of smoking in private space. I chose the USA and Finland. Taking into account Finnish policy, the ban on scalding on balconies and apartment blocks has a controlled function transferred to home communities. If the inhabitant of the home disturbs the quality of life of the residents by constant smoking, that is, passive smoking affects the health of the population, it is warned. A general meeting of the housing corporation may be decided to apply to the municipality for a smoking ban in a certain apartment. With this kind of insurance control, Finland shows a more preventive rather than a forbidding function. Comparing Lithuania’s prohibited smoking ban draft in apartment blocks and the Finnish legal regulation, Lithuania should change such a draft, to encourage people to negotiate, and not to prosecute. Also, only the prohibition and punishment may violate the rights of a person to the inviolability of the private sphere as if the interpretation of the law is not extended. The project on smoking in the balconies should take into account Finnish practice. According to USA regulation, The USA does not have a law that specifically prohibits a neighbor from smoking in her own home unless it is part of a residential care institution or child care institution, but it is possible to take some alternative action on the basis of the New York Government’s guideline – to collect evidence of the damage caused by cigarette and, on that basis, to write a complaint regarding the prohibition of smoking in a specific area. Smoke free houses are also being constructed in the United States, where smoking isn’t allowed. Alternative ways without privacy restrictions are possible. In the third part of the work it was reviewed whether the smoking ban on the balconies would not violate the principle of proportionality. Different authors argue that the clarification of the principle of proportionality merely shows that the state bodies, when adopting laws that restrict the constitutionality of human rights, such as privacy in this case, must take into account that such a prohibition will be the most lenient and least restrictive. The ECHR's interpretation of the principle of proportionality was that the restriction was necessary in a democratic society when there is a proportionate pursuit of a legitimate aim, in other words a fair balance between public and private interest has been observed. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania also explained similarly that the right balance must be found in the limitation of certain rights. The third part simply observes the fact that hte hypothesis i have argued proved that this regulation of the law can be treated as an interference with privacy. The ban on smoking in apartment blocks on a balcony is not balanced, as it could be implemented by less restrictive regulation, taking into account Finnish practice.  
Internet: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/36619
Appears in Collections:2018 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
tadas_ziura_md.pdf1.13 MBAdobe PDF   Restricted AccessView/Open   Request a copy

Show full item record

Page view(s)

84
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Download(s)

10
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


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