Sagatienė, Dovilė

Memory laws pose a set of distinct challenges for modern democracies, including in the realm of human rights law. In four conducted studies during the MEMOCRACY project (2021-2025), we took stock of the dynamics, trade-offs, and effects of legal governance of historical memory in a region ridden with mnemonic conflicts. The reports collect and categorise legislative outputs concerning the historical past in Germany, the three Baltic States, Hungary and Poland, Russia and Ukraine, and situate this legislation in the context of the respective domestic memory politics. The common effort also sheds light on the question of the compatibility of these countries’ memory laws with human rights law standards enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the law of the European Union (EU). In this post, we distil the most interesting comparative findings of the reports, namely the fact that the countries’ own and foreign experiences with totalitarianism are legally and politically approached very differently (1). On this basis, we sketch the consequences and challenges of these fundamental differences, both for the establishment of a “European memory” (2) and the various states’ approaches to modern geopolitics (3). Our analysis demonstrates that, at the moment, there is a disharmonious myriad of understandings of the past in the official discourse of the European countries, reflected in various legal measures. It varies too greatly to serve as a common basis for a European memory. Rather, to some extent, a diversity of memories should be recognised, and historical dialogue seems better suited than laws to foster mutual understanding of history.

The compendium Criminalizing Holocaust Denial in the EU collects, translates to English and provides an overview on the current state of criminal Holocaust denial legislation of all 27 EU Member States. Being the first endeavor of this kind, the compendium pursues primarily four goals: first, it aims to provide an EU-wide comprehensive empirical basis for further comparative research on Holocaust denial bans and memory laws1 more generally. The compendium is therefore kept deliberately descriptive. Second, it seeks to inform policy makers at the national and EU level about the existing rules in (other) EU Member States and their application. This is particularly relevant since Article 1 (1) (d) of the EU Framework Decision on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by Means of Criminal law (2008/913/JHA) [‘EU FD 2008’] obliges Member States to criminalise, under certain conditions, the condoning, denial or gross trivialisation of the Holocaust. Thus, the compendium serves as a source of inspiration for national policy regarding possible regulatory techniques of denial bans. It also helps EU policy makers to assess to what extent states have implemented the EU FD 2008 regarding Holocaust denial. Thirdly, it seeks to broaden legal practitioners’ and the general public’s knowledge about Holocaust denial legislation, which is crucial for a critical and informed 10 | INTRODUCTION discourse about memory politics and law within the EU space.2 With its linkage to public education about the Holocaust as such, the compendium finally aims to contribute to providing a basis for a world in which memory laws such as Holocaust denial bans may no longer be necessary. Holocaust denial bans have been selected as comparative material as they are the earliest and clearest examples of modern memory laws and have served as a blueprint for other forms of mnemonic governance. Moreover, they exist, even if not always explicitly codified as a separate crime, in all Member States and are usually clearly identifiable as such. Still, the country entries also include references to denial bans regarding other crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes where they are intrinsically linked to the Holocaust denial provision. The country entries are structured as follows: they contain the source where the relevant criminal Holocaust denial provision can be found, the text of the provision in English and in the original language, a short summary of the most relevant specificities of the country (“key points”), the background of the provision, its application in the case law, the controversies surrounding the legislation and selected references for further reading.

Mokslinių tyrimų ir eksperimentinės plėtros projektų paraiškų finansavimo, atrankos ir vertinimo teisinio reguliavimo raida Lietuvoje 2004–2025 m. rodo nuoseklias, tačiau ne visada pakankamai efektyvias pastangas kurti konkurencingą, skaidrią ir tarptautinius standartus atitinkančią mokslo finansavimo sis- temą. Lietuvos mokslo taryba, pagrindinė mokslo finansavimo institucija, per šį laikotarpį įgyvendino daugybę reformų, siekdama optimizuoti paraiškų atrankos ir vertinimo procesus, tačiau sistemoje vis dar lieka administracinių iššūkių, nepakankamas teisinis aiškumas ir vertinimo subjektyvumo rizika. Šioje studijoje, pasitelkus lyginamąją teisinę analizę ir dokumentų peržiūrą, išnagrinėta, kaip keitėsi paraiškų teikimo, atrankos ir vertinimo kriterijai, kokie pokyčiai padėjo gerinti finansavimo sistemos efektyvumą ir su kokiomis problemomis susiduria tiek mokslininkai, tiek vertintojai. Nustatyta, kad konkursinis finansavimas, nors ir leidžia efektyviau paskirstyti išteklius, dažnai tampa pernelyg biurokratizuotas, o paraiškų rengėjai susiduria su nevienodais reikalavimais skirtingose finansavimo programose. Be to, vertinimo kriterijų nevienalytiškumas gali lemti skirtingus sprendimus dėl to paties projekto finansavimo priklausomai nuo programos, o tai mažina sistemos patikimumą. Pastebėta, kad priimant administracinius pokyčius dažnai nepakankamai atsižvelgiama į realius mokslininkų poreikius, todėl reikalaujama paraiškų forma ir turinys gali būti neproporcingai sudėtingi, palyginti su realiai prieinamais finansavimo ištekliais. Siekiant gerinti mokslinių tyrimų finansavimo mechanizmus, studijoje siūloma stiprinti mišrią (kiekybinę ir kokybinę) vertinimo sistemą, didinti vertintojų kompetencijos standartizavimą, aiškiau apibrėžti paraiškų vertinimo kriterijus ir užtikrinti mokslininkų įtraukimą į sprendimų priėmimo procesus. Taip pat akcentuojama, kad būtina mažinti perteklinę administracinę naštą ir optimizuoti vertinimo procedūras, siekiant išvengti nereikalingo biurokratinio barjero aukštos kokybės moksliniams tyrimams. Studijos rezultatai parodė, kad nors Lietuvos projektų finansavimo sistema nuosekliai tobulinama, išlieka esminių iššūkių, susijusių su teisinio reguliavimo lankstumo stoka, nevienodais vertinimo standartais ir nepakankamu grįžtamuoju ryšiu tarp paraiškų rengėjų ir finansuojančiųjų institucijų. Studijoje pateikiamos rekomendacijos gali padėti formuoti efektyvesnę, skaidresnę ir labiau į rezultatus orientuotą mokslinių tyrimų finansavimo politiką, kuri užtikrintų konkurencingumą ne tik nacionaliniu, bet ir tarptautiniu lygmeniu.

Aruandes antakse kompaktne ülevaade ajaloolise mälu seadusloome erinevatest mustritest Balti riikides, sealhulgas riiklikust ja rahvusvahelisest kohtupraktikast, sellega seotud vastuoludest ja Balti riikide mäluseaduste taustast. Käesoleva aruande empiirilise kokkuvõtte tegemise lõppkuupäev on 1. august 2023.

This report provides an overview of the memory laws that codify the remembrance of the Nazi and Soviet eras in the three Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The report summarizes the distinct patterns of mnemonic legal regulation in the Baltic states, including national and international case law, the related controversies and the background of memory legislation in a compact format. Memory laws generally presume certain past events to be more significant for a society than others, either because they are seen as a danger to vital societal and political principles the government wants to defend or as a form of official truth that should be protected from scrutiny.1 Legislation validating specific narratives about the past2 is frequently linked to security concerns.3 The Council of Europe (CoE) defines ‘memory laws’ as norms that ‘enshrine state-approved interpretations of crucial historical events and promote certain narratives about the past, by banning, for example, the propagation of totalitarian ideologies or criminalizing expressions which deny, grossly minimize, approve or justify acts constituting genocide or crimes against humanity, as defined by international law’.4 Uladzislau Belavusau and Aleksandra Gliszczy´nska-Grabias describe them more broadly as acts that enshrine state-approved interpretations of crucial historical events. As the field of memory laws is constantly evolving, there are many genre typologies.6 ‘The hard core of memory laws’ are so-called punitive memory laws, since they penalize certain categories of speech about the past.7 Such laws are the most controversial form of state intervention, as they deliberately restrict the possible scope for negotiation and debate on matters of the past.8 This report does not intend to provide a theoretical background for potentially new classifications of various ‘memory laws’. It proceeds from an understanding of memory laws as legislations that regulate social memory and convey a certain interpretation about the past. The pertinent Baltic legislation is contextualised against the backdrop of the relevant European standards, largely set before the Baltic states became part of the European Union (EU) in 2004. Memory laws in the Baltic states were adopted in the course of dealing not only with their past during the Nazi German occupation (1941-1944), but also with the two Soviet occupations (1940-1941 and 1944-1990, respectively). Whereas the ruling Nazi party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) was held accountable for their crimes, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union never assumed any responsibility, and attempts at a ‘Russian Nuremberg’ failed in 1992.9 The Baltic accounts are further complicated by the domestic collaboration with the Nazi destruction of the local and European Jewry (especially in Latvia and Lithuania) and the role of local communist parties during the Soviet occupations of the Baltic states. The legacy of communism continues to shape politics and society in this region to this day. The report distinguishes between a) punitive memory laws, b) non-punitive memory laws and c) quasi-memory laws. The most important punitive memory law – relating to specific historical events in the Baltic countries – is the offence of Holocaust denial, approval or downplaying – which was adjusted to the Baltic realities, and thus also includes the denial of Soviet crimes during the two Soviet occupations. Domestic regulations following the formulations suggested by the ‘Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by Means of Criminal Law’ (FD 2008)11 were introduced in the 2010s,12 after years of attempts since 1990 to include the Baltic experiences in the European narrative, mainly focused on the remembrance of the Holocaust. [...].

The report summarises the distinct patterns of legislating historical memory in the Baltic states, including national and international case law, the related controversies and the background of Baltic memory laws in a compact format. The cut-off point of the empirical stock-taking of this report is 1 August 2023.

Tyrimo ataskaitoje glaustai apibendrinami esminiai istorinės atminties teisėkūros modeliai Baltijos šalyse, įskaitant nacionalinę ir tarptautinę teismų praktiką bei su tuo susijusią polemiką ir Baltijos šalių istorinės atminties teisinio reguliavimo pagrindus. Šioje ataskaitoje aptariami duomenys, rinkti iki 2023 m. rugpjūčio 1 d.