宪法法院法官的不同意见:以立陶宛为例

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Laws Pub Date : 2023-01-18 DOI:10.3390/laws12010011
Dovilė Pūraitė-Andrikienė
{"title":"宪法法院法官的不同意见:以立陶宛为例","authors":"Dovilė Pūraitė-Andrikienė","doi":"10.3390/laws12010011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although allowing justices of constitutional courts to publish their separate opinions has become a clear trend in Europe, until an amendment to the Law on the Constitutional Court in 2008, the justices of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania did not have this possibility. However, after the introduction of this institution in Lithuania, criticism was voiced by the public regarding its legal regulation. Therefore, this article examines the legal regulation governing the institution of a separate opinion of a justice of the Constitutional Court, as well as the use of this institution in Lithuania. The article seeks to reveal the shortcomings of this regulation, as well as to provide proposals for its improvement. The issues in question are examined in the context of the legal framework governing the institution of a separate opinion in other European Union countries (with a particular focus on Eastern and Central European countries). In order to provide a basis for this research, the article also examines the institution of a separate opinion in the context of the principle of the secrecy of the deliberation room and the secrecy of voting results in the decision-making process of constitutional justice institutions.","PeriodicalId":30534,"journal":{"name":"Laws","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Separate Opinions of a Justice of a Constitutional Court: A Case of Lithuania\",\"authors\":\"Dovilė Pūraitė-Andrikienė\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/laws12010011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although allowing justices of constitutional courts to publish their separate opinions has become a clear trend in Europe, until an amendment to the Law on the Constitutional Court in 2008, the justices of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania did not have this possibility. However, after the introduction of this institution in Lithuania, criticism was voiced by the public regarding its legal regulation. Therefore, this article examines the legal regulation governing the institution of a separate opinion of a justice of the Constitutional Court, as well as the use of this institution in Lithuania. The article seeks to reveal the shortcomings of this regulation, as well as to provide proposals for its improvement. The issues in question are examined in the context of the legal framework governing the institution of a separate opinion in other European Union countries (with a particular focus on Eastern and Central European countries). In order to provide a basis for this research, the article also examines the institution of a separate opinion in the context of the principle of the secrecy of the deliberation room and the secrecy of voting results in the decision-making process of constitutional justice institutions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30534,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Laws\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Laws\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/laws12010011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laws","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/laws12010011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管允许宪法法院法官发表单独意见在欧洲已成为一种明显的趋势,但在2008年对《宪法法院法》进行修正之前,立陶宛共和国宪法法院法官没有这种可能性。然而,在立陶宛设立这一机构后,公众对其法律规定提出了批评。因此,本条审查了关于宪法法院法官独立意见制度的法律规定,以及立陶宛对这一制度的使用情况。本文试图揭示这一规定的不足之处,并提出改进建议。有关问题是在其他欧洲联盟国家(特别侧重于东欧和中欧国家)制定单独意见的法律框架范围内审查的。为了为这一研究提供依据,文章还结合宪法司法机构决策过程中的议事室保密原则和投票结果保密原则,考察了单独意见的制度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Separate Opinions of a Justice of a Constitutional Court: A Case of Lithuania
Although allowing justices of constitutional courts to publish their separate opinions has become a clear trend in Europe, until an amendment to the Law on the Constitutional Court in 2008, the justices of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania did not have this possibility. However, after the introduction of this institution in Lithuania, criticism was voiced by the public regarding its legal regulation. Therefore, this article examines the legal regulation governing the institution of a separate opinion of a justice of the Constitutional Court, as well as the use of this institution in Lithuania. The article seeks to reveal the shortcomings of this regulation, as well as to provide proposals for its improvement. The issues in question are examined in the context of the legal framework governing the institution of a separate opinion in other European Union countries (with a particular focus on Eastern and Central European countries). In order to provide a basis for this research, the article also examines the institution of a separate opinion in the context of the principle of the secrecy of the deliberation room and the secrecy of voting results in the decision-making process of constitutional justice institutions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Laws
Laws LAW-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
77
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Exploring Defuturing to Design Artificial-Intelligence Artifacts: A Systemic-Design Approach to Tackle Litigiousness in the Brazilian Judiciary Why Equity Follows the Law The Professional Conflict Pertaining to Confidentiality—The Obligation of Disclosure for Intermediaries of Financial Transactions Windfall Profit Taxation in Europe (and Beyond) To Enhance the Credibility of the Green Bond Market through Regulating GBERs: The Case of China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1