STRENGTHENING VALUES IN LITHUANIAN JUDGES' ACTIVITY: DISCUSSION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE AND IMPARTIALITY

Žaneta Navickienė, Vaidotas Žilys

Abstract


In today‘s guaranteeing of justice, the public becomes an active evaluator of the activities of courts and judges. The latest changes in the legal regulation since 2013 have enabled any member of the public to turn to the Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission due to doubtful judge‘s behaviour. In addition, this commission was given a new function of giving consultations to judges. This shows that the increasingly attention of the scientists and practitioners is paid to the observance of the principles of professional ethics of judges, while the judges must consciously understand the meaning of ethical provisions in their professional activities and lives, constantly uphold the fundamental values.

The aim of the paper is to analyse the principle of the ethics of Lithuanian judges – justice and impartiality. The analysis of the realization of this ethical principle in practice was carried out (49 decisions were analysed, among which 4 decisions adopted by the Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission were relevant in this regard) which showed a high level of integrity of this principle. The research reveals two main vectors for the implementation of this principle of ethics by Lithuanian judges. Firstly, in the scientific and practical implementation of the principles of professional ethics there is a debate about its realization in practice (application). Secondly, this principle of the judge's ethics is most clearly elaborated by comparing the content of the principle of impartiality of the investigator or prosecutor.

 

 


Keywords


ethics principles; judge; Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission; justice and impartiality; professional ethics

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adiyaryani, N.N., Nyoman, N. I., Navianto, I., Prija, D. (2017). The Study of Legal Norms in Criminal Law Procedures Code (KUHAP) That Is the Concretization of the Judge's Independence and Impartiality Principle. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization,. 57, 103–109.

Baȉada-Hirèche, L., Garmilis, G. (2015). Accounting Professionals’ Ethical Judgment and the Institutional Disciplinary Context: A French–US Comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 1, 1–21.

Dereškevičiūtė, M. (2013). Elements of Procedural Justice in Jurisprudence of Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania. Law. 87, 112–126.

Evans, L. (2015). Professionalism and Professional Development: What These Research Fields Look Like Today – And What Tomorrow Should Bring. Hillary Place Papers, 2nd edition, January 2015. University of Leeds, 1–12.

Evetts, J. (2013). Professionalism: Value and Ideology. Current Sociology Review. 61. 778–796.

Examination Program for Candidates to Judicial Office, approved by the Judicial Council in 2 August 2013 Resolution No. 13P-98- (7.1.2).

Gewirtz, S., Mahony, P., Hextall, I., Cribb, A. (2009). Policy, Professionalism and Practice: Understanding and Enhancing Teachers’ Work. In: Gewirtz, S., Mahony, P., Hextall, I. & Cribb, A. ed(s). Changing teacher professionalism. London: Routledge. 3–16.

Husen, L. O., Sampara, S., Rahman, S., Umar, S. (2017). Independence and Accountability, Supreme Court In The Implementation: The Power Of Judgment in Indonesia. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research,, 3, 5, 1976–1981.

Judicial Ethics: from the status quo towards the exemplary model: a collective monograph. Vytautas Magnum university, 2016.

Kiršienė, J. (2015). The Crisis of Legal Profession as Three-Dimensional Problem. Jurisprudence, 22 (2), 191–205.

Mahdavi, G. (2016). Criminological and Legal Investigation of Independence and Despotism of the Judge in Judgment. Journal of Politics and Law, 9, 10, 103–112.

Navickienė, Ž., Žiemelis, D. (2015). The Dimensions of Judicial Profession in Lithuania: Qalification, Competence, and Personal Qualities. Law, 97, 183–199.

Neve, H., Lloyd, H., Collett, T. (2017). Understanding Students’ Experiences of Professionalism Learning: A ‘Threshold’ Approach. Teaching in Higher Education. Volume 22, Issue 1. P. 92-108.

Reeves, A. R. (2010). Do Judges Have an Obligation to Enforce the Law?: Moral Responsibility and Judicial-Reasoning. Law and Philosophy, 29, 2, 159–187.

Regulations of the Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission approved in 1 February 2013 by the decision of the Judicial Council No. 13P-9- (7.1.2). (Amended by the Judicial Council Resolution No. 13P-54-8 of 28 March 2014 (7.1.2).

Šileikis, E. (2005). Alternative Constitutional Law. Vilnius: Center of Legal Information.

Whitecross, R. W. (2016). Teaching Legal Professionalism: A Comparative Study Of Teaching Professional Values And Lessons For Legal Education. Journal of Commonwealth Law and Legal Education, 11(1), 3–25.

The Code of Police Ethics approved by the General Police Commissioner of Lithuania of 16 June 2004. By decision no. 347.

The Code of Prosecutors Conduct of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the General Prosecutor of Republic of Lithuania of 9 January 2012. By decision no. I-15.

Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. State News. 1992. Nr. 31-953; No. 33-1014 (with later supplements and amendments).

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania Ruling “On the Compliance of the Qualification Requirements of Higher Education in Law for the Persons Who Wish to Hold, Under Procedure Established by Law, the Position of A Judge as Approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1568) “On Approving The Qualification Requirements of Higher Education in Law for the Persons Who Wish to Hold, Under Procedure Established by Law, the Position of a Judge” of 4 October 2002 with Paragraph 1 (Wordings of 24 January 2002, 18 May 2004, 1 June 2006) of Article 51 of The Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Courts and Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Entry into Force and Implementation of the Law on Amending the Law on Courts” (Case No. 19/05, 20 of February, 2008).

The Code of Judicial Conduct of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the General Meeting of Judges of 28 June 2006. By decision no. 12 P-8.

The Guidelines on Application of Code of Prosecutors Conduct of the Republic of Lithuania. Retrieved 27/09/2017 from http://www.prokuraturos.lt/data/public/uploads/2017/03/prokuroru-etikos-kodekso-taikymo-praktinis-vadovas-red.pdf

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania Ruling “On the compliance of Item 7 of Paragraph 1 of Article 37, Article 39, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 40, Article 45 and Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 46 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Commercial Banks with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania“. (Case No. 12/95, 18 of April, 1996).

The Law of the Courts of the Republic of Lithuania, 1994 May 31 Law no. I-480. State News. 1994. No. 46-851. New wording of the law from 1 May 2002: No. IX-732, 24-01-2002 State News. 2002. Nr. 17-649 (2002-02-20). (Current edition, 23 May 2006, Official Gazette 2006, No. 60-2121.

of September 2014 Consultation of the Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission.

of March 2015 Decision of the Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission on the Refusal to Start Discipline Case for Judge R. A. (No. 18 P-3).

April 2015 Decision of the Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission on the Refusal to Start Discipline Case for Judge R. Š. (No. 18 P-11).

of December 2015 Decision of the Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission on the Refusal to Start Discipline Case for Judge R. P. (No. 18 P-23).

of April 2016 Decision of the Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission to Start Discipline Case for Judge J. S. (No. 18 P-1).




DOI: https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2018vol1.3175

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.