Teisingumo įgyvendinimas atkuriant nuosavybės teises Lietuvoje

Abstract

It is stated in the article that this happened because of the fact that while deciding the case, one did not take account of the polysemy of the principle of justice. While seeking to prove this statement, the author analyzes the concept of the principle of Constitutional justice in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. From this analysis, the conclusion is to be drawn that in the cases on the restoration of the rights of ownership, one had first of all to refer to the concept of the principle of justice, as the "right response to the gross violations of the legal good". Referring to this concept, the Constitutional Court, as a judicial institution, would have specified that justice, first of all, requires returning the property to its owners. In addition, the Constitutional Court could refer also to the concept of the principle of justice as a "balance of interests". By referring to this concept, it would have been able to specify that the legislator, seeking to defend the interests of the owners, has the right to restrict the restoration of the rights of ownership to the whole extent. In the article, the conclusion is drawn that in this case, justice requires to restore the rights of ownership for the owners while at the same time establishing certain guarantees for the tenants (for example, by creating the programme of housing and by limiting the size of the rent).