Teismų kreipimasis į Konstitucinį Teismą kaip darbo teisės konstitucionalizacijos prielaida
Mykolo Romerio universitetas |
| Date |
|---|
2013 |
Straipsnyje analizuojamos sąsajos tarp konstitucinės teismų teisės (pareigos) kreiptis į Konstitucinį Teismą ir darbo teisės konstitucionalizavimo. Atskleidžiamas šios konstitucinės teismų teisės (pareigos) turinys, išryškinami jos realizavimo metu iškylantys probleminiai aspektai. Straipsnyje nagrinėjamas kai kurių eksplicitiškai įtvirtintų darbo teisės normų taikymas teismų praktikoje, taip pat darbo teisės teorijos klasika tapęs nekonkuravimo susitarimų ir darbo sutarčių su administracijos vadovais jurisprudencinis teisinis reguliavimas. Daroma išvada, kad šiuo metu teismai vis dar nepakankamai efektyviai išnaudoja kreipimosi į Konstitucinį Teismą galimybes.
Among other things, it is argued that the courts’ position, due to whatever reasons (inter alia, prolonged time limits of case consideration) not to apply to the Constitutional Court, when doubts arise with regard to the constitutionality of a legal act applied in the case being considered by them, has balanced on the verge of lawfulness, and that the judges adopting such a position face the risk of administering formal justice. Taking a look at the practice of courts, the article examines the application of some explicitly consolidated norms of labour law, including the jurisprudential legal regulation of non-compete agreements and employment contracts concluded with heads of administration, which has become a classical part of the theory of labour law. The assumption is made that the jurisprudential legal regulation of non-compete agreements and employment contracts concluded with heads of administration, as legitimised in the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, indicates that, in individual cases, in the practice of courts, a gap in a legal regulation is not only filled in in an ad hoc manner, but that the practice of courts may also produce a rather authentic system of rules of legal regulation, which, while taking account of the scope of such jurisprudential legal regulation, the duration of its validity, and its links with the limitation of certain constitutional labour rights, is hardly compatible with the constitutional requirement of legal certainty. It is noted that in the latter situations courts are made law-making subjects, first of all, through the inaction (insufficient action) of lawmaking subjects themselves.