State liability: the problem of subject determination and its responsibility for damages compensation
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The main aim of this article is to present the fundamentals of public liability and it provides an overview of state liability law in Lithuania.
It is unquestioned that a person whose rights are violated by the unlawful activities of a public authority in a public law relationship may claim compensation for damage caused to this person – injured party. But issue of state liability is a problematic one. The implementation’s problems of the principle of authority’s service to people, while claiming compensation for (material, non-pecuniary) damages in the courts of general jurisdiction and in the administrative courts, have been discussed. The main issue arrises: who is (who was, who should be) – the state or the public authority – the main respondent and defendant in these cases. The problem of subject determination and its responsibility for damages compensations – the main issue of this article.
The article has been prepared following these methods: comparative method, method of document analysis, historic al.
The norms of administrative law of Latvia and Estonia (analysing the legal norms of public liability) have been chosen for the comparative analysis – ex. the norms of The States Liability Act (Estonia), which provides the bases of and procedure for the protection and restoration of rights violated upon the exercise of powers of public authority and performance of other public duties and compensation for damage caused were discussed.
The article is devided into five parts. The main part of this article is the analysis of the orders made by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania and the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania in the cases of such nature.
European Court‘s judgement in Francovich case is represented in the fifth part of this article. Since state liability is enforced through national courts, the European Court of Justice postulated that national procedures should determine how state liability should be enforced. The outlook of state liability under Francovich case provides a more penetrative inducement for Member States to comply with directives, and Lithuanian‘s public authority is not an exception.
It is unquestioned that a person whose rights are violated by the unlawful activities of a public authority in a public law relationship may claim compensation for damage caused to this person – injured party. But issue of state liability is a problematic one. The implementation’s problems of the principle of authority’s service to people, while claiming compensation for (material, non-pecuniary) damages in the courts of general jurisdiction and in the administrative courts, have been discussed. The main issue arrises: who is (who was, who should be) – the state or the public authority – the main respondent and defendant in these cases. The problem of subject determination and its responsibility for damages compensations – the main issue of this article.
The article has been prepared following these methods: comparative method, method of document analysis, historic al.
The norms of administrative law of Latvia and Estonia (analysing the legal norms of public liability) have been chosen for the comparative analysis – ex. the norms of The States Liability Act (Estonia), which provides the bases of and procedure for the protection and restoration of rights violated upon the exercise of powers of public authority and performance of other public duties and compensation for damage caused were discussed.
The article is devided into five parts. The main part of this article is the analysis of the orders made by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania and the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania in the cases of such nature.
European Court‘s judgement in Francovich case is represented in the fifth part of this article. Since state liability is enforced through national courts, the European Court of Justice postulated that national procedures should determine how state liability should be enforced. The outlook of state liability under Francovich case provides a more penetrative inducement for Member States to comply with directives, and Lithuanian‘s public authority is not an exception.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
