Viešosios teisės institutas / Institute of Public Law

This chapter explores the sexual violence faced by women during the Soviet occupation of Lithuania (1940–1941, 1944–1990), focusing on its legal and political dimensions. Wartime and occupation periods often highlight the interplay of violence and power, and this study examines how rape was treated within the Soviet legal framework and influenced by the Communist political agenda. The analysis draws on secondary sources, including scholarly works, and primary archival materials such as legal acts, official reports, criminal cases and secret records from Lithuanian archives. The research reveals that the crime of rape held a unique legal status during the Soviet era, often shaped by shifting political priorities. Criminal cases from the Stalinist period, derived from the records of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic’s Supreme Court, highlight challenges in credibility due to the extensive use of coercive interrogation methods by Soviet authorities like the Cheka and the MVD. These cases reflect a broader context of systemic suppression and control, where legal proceedings were frequently intertwined with political objectives. The chapter underscores the importance of understanding sexual violence not only as a social or legal issue but as a tool of political manipulation during the Soviet occupation, shedding light on the broader dynamics of power and oppression in occupied Lithuania.

Following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, newly re-established democratic states moved swiftly to consolidate their regained independence. Lithuania was the first of the Baltic States to declare its withdrawal from the Soviet Union. Upon the restoration of independence, the country required a new constitution, as the last one in force prior to the Soviet occupation, the 1938 Constitution of Lithuania, was neither fully democratic nor aligned with the expectations of a modern state. Its validity was restored for a few minutes to mark the continuation of the state that existed before the occupation, only to be suspended right away. The newly adopted 1992 Constitution introduced, for the first time in Lithuanian legal history, the establishment of a constitutional review body – the Constitutional Court. By opting for the European model of constitutional review, as did Latvia (and unlike Estonia, where constitutional review is entrusted to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court), Lithuania established a new separate institution with the mission entrusted to it to ensure the supremacy of the Constitution. review body overseeing other branches of government was not entirely novel. As early as the interwar period, the Lithuanian constitutional theorist Mykolas Römeris had analysed European practice and argued in favour of the necessity of such an institution.

Belarus's first nuclear power plant (NPP) is located in Ostrovets, near the border with Lithuania. The procedure behind the transboundary environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the construction of this NPP required the application of the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context. As the nature of nuclear energy-related activities involves a potentially wide scope of severe impacts, a great deal of public concern has been raised by this issue, not to mention the potential impact on national interest, in view of which the sound and transparent transboundary EIA procedure is of great importance. The implementation of the transboundary EIA has led to a degree of misunderstanding and disagreement between these neighbouring countries, with the issue being escalated to the Espoo Convention's Implementation Committee. The proceedings between Lithuania and Belarus have revealed the peculiarities and limitations of any practical implementation of an EIA.

Šiandien jau niekam nekyla abejonių, jog demokratijos atsparumas grėsmėms nebėra savaime suprantamas – demokratiją puoselėti, palaikyti, už ją kovoti reikia kasdien, o konstituciniai teismai šiame procese atlieka ypatingą vaidmenį. Svariai argumentuoti konstitucinių teismų sprendimai, ypač visuomenei jautriose bylose, yra viena iš svarbiausių priemonių, neleidžiančių peržengi raudonųjų linijų. Argumentavimo kokybė ir įtikinamumas lemia ne tik priimto sprendimo autoritetą, bet ir visuomenės pasitikėjimą konstitucinės justicijos institucija, demokratinėmis vertybėmis ir valstybe apskritai. Straipsnyje analizuojama, kaip konstituciniai teismai, remdamiesi užsienio valstybių konstitucinių teismų jurisprudencija ir tarptautinių institucijų, visų pirma Venecijos komisijos, nuomonėmis, stiprina savo sprendimų argumentaciją. Tokie šaltiniai bylose pasitelkiami ne mechaniškai pasiskolinant problemos sprendimo idėją ar techniškai nusirašant, o tikslingai vystant teisminį dialogą, liudijantį, kad demokratinės vertybės yra visuotinai pripažintos ir ginamos. Tai kartu siunčia aiškią žinutę sprendimų priėmėjams: demokratijos šalininkų yra daug, jie palaiko vieni kitus ir remiasi bendrais standartais. Remiantis Lietuvos Konstitucinio Teismo jurisprudencijos pavyzdžiais, straipsnyje tiriama, kokiu mastu ir kokiais tikslais šio teismo sprendimuose remiamasi lyginamąja konstitucine jurisprudencija ir Venecijos komisijos nuomonėmis, keliamas klausimas, ar Venecijos komisijos nuomonės Konstituciniam Teismui yra tik pagalbinis interpretacinis šaltinis, ar jomis remiamasi kaip autoritetingais konstitucinės teisės standartais, turinčiais didesnę įtaką galutiniam sprendimui, ypač neramiais demokratijos silpnėjimo laikais, kai populistinės politinės partijos, naudodamosi demokratiniais instrumentais, kėsinasi į nusistovėjusią tvarką ir nesidrovi paneigti kažkada visuotinėmis ir neginčijamomis laikytų žmogaus teisių. Tad gebėjimas parodyti, kad konstitucinis sprendimas atspindi ne tik tos valstybės konstitucinio teismo valią, bet dera ir su plačios tarptautinės konstitucinės bendruomenės pozicija, didina sprendimo legitimumą ir kartu stiprina demokratijos atsparumą.

Purpose: The study aims to examine the legality of decisions adopted by the Lithuanian Migration Department concerning the change or non-extension of residence permits issued on the basis of family reunification. The analysis focuses on whether these administrative decisions comply with fundamental legal principles – namely proportionality, comprehensiveness, legality and the protection of legitimate expectations – as developed in Lithuanian constitutional doctrine, European Union law and national administrative case law. Methodology: The research applies a qualitative legal methodology combining document analysis of national and EU legal acts regulating residence permits, systematic analysis of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, and comparative assessment of administrative decisions. Supplementary methods include linguistic interpretation of legal concepts, statistical review of case outcomes and generalisation to formulate overarching conclusions regarding administrative practice and judicial review. Findings: The analysis reveals that Migration Department decisions frequently lack sufficient individualisation and rely excessively on generalised conclusions of the State Security Department, without conducting a comprehensive assessment of applicants’ personal, family, social and economic circumstances. Case law demonstrates that where courts genuinely apply the principles of proportionality, comprehensiveness and legality, decisions tend to be more favourable to applicants. Conversely, formalistic or declarative references to legal principles correlate with the dismissal of complaints. The principle of legitimate expectations remains largely absent from judicial reasoning and, in some cases, is explicitly rejected as irrelevant in permit modification procedures. Value: The study contributes to administrative and migration law scholarship by systematically linking abstract legal principles with concrete judicial outcomes in family reunification cases. It highlights structural deficiencies in administrative decision-making and underscores the need for a more substantive application of legal principles to ensure effective protection of fundamental rights, legal certainty and public trust in migration governance.

Straipsnyje analizuojamas naujasis Lietuvos alternatyviosios krašto apsaugos tarnybos teisinis reguliavimas ir jo atitiktis konstitucinei bei Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo doktrinai byloje Teliatnikov prieš Lietuvą. Nagrinėjama, ar nuo 2026 m. sausio 1 d. pagal Lietuvos Respublikos karo prievolės ir alternatyviosios krašto apsaugos tarnybos įstatymą alternatyvioji tarnyba tampa atsieta nuo karinės sistemos ir paversta tikra civiline tarnyba. Atkreipiamas dėmesys, kad priimant ar keičiant šio įstatymo įgyvendinamuosius teisės aktus, būtina užtikrinti alternatyviosios krašto apsaugos tarnybos civilinio pobūdžio administravimą ir įgyvendinimo tvarką. Suomijoje nekarinė (civilinė) tarnyba ne tik konstituciškai įtvirtinta, bet ir realiai įgyvendinama, o tai aktualu vertinant Lietuvos teisinio reguliavimo perspektyvas. Remiantis Suomijos nekarinės (civilinės) tarnybos modeliu siūloma ir Lietuvoje įsteigti nekarinės (civilinės) tarnybos centrą. Šiam centrui galėtų būti pavesta užtikrinti nekarinės tarnybos įgyvendinimą. Taip pat siūloma pagal Suomijos pavyzdį dar labiau išplėsti galimų civilinės tarnybos vietų sąrašą, be kita ko, nurodant vietas, kur tokia tarnyba negalėtų būti atliekama. Straipsnyje pateikiama siūlymų dėl teisinio reguliavimo tobulinimo, kad alternatyvioji tarnyba būtų paritetinė, o ne diskriminacinė karo tarnybos atžvilgiu. Galiausiai keliama neginkluotos krašto apsaugos tarnybos idėja, kuri galėtų padėti išlaikyti konstitucinį visuotinės gynybos principą.

Straipsnyje analizuojami teisės į sveiką ir švarią aplinką gynimo aspektai, ypač akcentuojant klimato kaitos iššūkius. Apžvelgiamos šios teisės vystymosi tendencijos tarptautiniu, nacionaliniu ir regioniniu lygmenimis, atskleidžiant konstitucinių kolektyvinių žmogaus teisių svarbą šiuolaikiniame globaliame pasaulyje, kai tam tikros problemos, tokios kaip klimato kaita, nebeapsiriboja vienos valstybės sienomis, o tampa visų valstybių ir visos žmonijos iššūkiu. Aptariami esminiai Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo doktrinos aplinkosaugos klausimais aspektai įvertinant, kokias prielaidas ji sudaro klimato kaitos byloms ateityje. Analizuojama reikšminga užsienio valstybių teismų praktika (bylos Urgenda, Leghari, Neubauer, Bushfire Survivors), įtvirtinanti valstybės teisinę pareigą įgyvendinti veiksmingas klimato apsaugos priemones. Atkreipiamas dėmesys į bylą Verein KlimaSeniorinnen ir kiti prieš Šveicariją, kurioje Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas pirmą kartą pripažino klimato kaitą tiesiogine žmogaus teisių pažeidimo priežastimi. Straipsnyje daroma išvada, kad klimato kaitos kontekste teisė į sveiką ir švarią aplinką įgauna naują dimensiją, suponuojančią valstybių pareigą ne tik saugoti, bet ir užtikrinti ateities kartų teises. Išskirtinis vaidmuo tenka nacionaliniams ir tarptautiniams teismams, kurie susiduria su sudėtinga užduotimi užtikrinti veiksmingą klimato apsaugą, atitinkamai aiškindami materialinės ir proceso teisės nuostatas šių naujų globalių reiškinių kontekste.

This paper analyses the legal and moral tensions between religious rights and the rights of sexual minorities, focusing on two cases: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission before the United States Supreme Court and Gareth Lee v. The United Kingdom (Application no. 18860/19) before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Both cases involve Christian-owned bakeries refusing to create cakes supporting same-sex marriage or the rights of sexual minorities, citing religious beliefs. By analysing these caseswithin a broader legal and societal context, this research aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion on how courts navigate tensions between religious freedom and LGBTQ+ rights.The methods of analysis of legal acts, comparative, logical, and summarising methods were used in this article. Results of research show that courts and international bodies of human rights in thesecases must navigate complex intersections of freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and equality norms, while being mindful ofthe social and political contexts in which these disputes arise. Ultimately, the developing jurisprudence in this area suggests that no uniform solution is likely to emerge soon; instead, courts will continue to approach such conflicts on a case-by-case basis, weighing the competing rights at stake and the proportionality of any limitations imposed.

Article 21 of the Digital Services Act (DSA) introduces a novel regulatory framework for out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) in the European Union’s digital ecosystem, positioning itself as a key instrument for enhancing platform accountability and safeguarding users’ fundamental rights. This paper examines the early implementation of Article 21, with particular attention to its institutional design, emerging challenges, and potential for regulatory refinement. As the DSA transitions from legislative ambition to operational practice, understanding how its dispute resolution mechanisms function in practice is critical for assessing their effectiveness and long-term viability. Methodologically, the analysis adopts a qualitative and doctrinal approach, combining legal interpretation of Article 21 DSA with early empirical observations from the first certified ODS bodies and comparative insights drawn from Directive 2013/11/EU on consumer alternative dispute resolution. Although the limited duration of implementation constrains the availability of systematic quantitative data, preliminary evidence provides sufficient grounding to identify structural patterns, risks, and areas requiring further development. The findings indicate that Article 21 DSA establishes a hybrid governance model that balances centralised European oversight with decentralised operational autonomy. Certified ODS bodies are entrusted with resolving disputes between users and online platforms – particularly Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) – in a manner that promotes procedural fairness, transparency, and accessibility. Early implementation suggests that users value the availability of such mechanisms, particularly as an alternative to formal judicial proceedings, which may not de facto be capable of ensuring effective access to justice for disputes involving digital platforms. At the same time, the coordination of multiple independent actors within a unified regulatory framework introduces significant institutional and procedural complexity. A central concern identified in this study is the risk of replicating structural shortcomings observed in earlier EU dispute resolution frameworks, notably those under Directive 2013/11/EU. In particular, persistent power asymmetries between users and service providers, combined with the relatively low economic value of many disputes, may limit user engagement and undermine the perceived effectiveness of the system. These challenges are further compounded by the non-binding nature of ODS decisions, which raises questions regarding enforceability and platform compliance. Without adequate safeguards, such limitations may erode user trust and reduce participation, especially among individuals who perceive the process as burdensome or unlikely to yield meaningful outcomes. The analysis also highlights the importance of procedural coherence and user experience in determining the legitimacy of the ODS framework. Variations in procedural rules across different certified bodies risk producing inconsistent outcomes and fragmented user experiences. Moreover, early user feedback underscores the significance of accessibility factors, including clarity of information, ease of submission, and transparency throughout the dispute resolution process. Barriers such as complex interfaces, limited guidance, and insufficient language support may disproportionately affect vulnerable users, thereby challenging the inclusiveness of the system. In response to these findings, the paper proposes several avenues for regulatory refinement. First, the development of common procedural standards is essential to ensure consistency, interoperability, and predictability across ODS bodies, while preserving space for innovation through digital tools and user-centred design. Second, improving accessibility and user engagement should be prioritised through simplified interfaces, multilingual support, and enhanced guidance mechanisms. Third, addressing structural power imbalances requires the introduction of stronger incentive structures to encourage platform compliance, including transparency measures and reputational mechanisms. Finally, the establishment of robust monitoring and reporting systems, based on the collection of anonymised data on dispute outcomes and user satisfaction, is crucial for enabling evidence-based policy development and continuous improvement. In conclusion, the early implementation of Article 21 DSA demonstrates both the promise and the complexity of EU-regulated digital dispute settlement. While significant challenges remain, particularly in relation to enforceability, procedural fragmentation, and user engagement, the regulatory framework provides a solid foundation for future development. With targeted refinements and sustained oversight, Article 21 has the potential to evolve into a credible, accessible, and effective mechanism for resolving platform-user disputes, thereby contributing to a broader model of digital accountability within the European Union.