Įrodinėjimo administracinių teisės pažeidimų bylose problemos

Abstract

There are made about half a million administrative violations of law in Lithuania, and this means that an administrative case is proceeded and investigated on each event, and the judgment is passed. There is no doubt that a lot of residents of the state face the cases proceeding administrative violations of law, however if not looking into the importance of proceeding in society life, there is given insufficient attention to it. Both Lithuanian and foreign scientists devote only a few pages for this topic in their works, they limit themselves to generalization of laws in force. They do not look deeper into their correspondence with general administrative process principles ant the changing needs of democratic society. In my opinion, that is the reason why there are many law rules inactive and incongruous with current social relations spirit in Code of Administrative Violations of Law of the Republic of Lithuania. To the contrary there are many important procedural legal relations which are not experienced, and this gives problems in applying law in practice.
In scientific literature attention is often paid to that the proceeding effectiveness of cases of administrative violations of law depends on the effectiveness of procedural averment. There are researched the content of averment elements in this article, theoretical basics of procedural averment in cases of administrative violations of law, imperfections and shortages of legal experience of averment, and there is evaluated the practice of state institutions and courts. There are compared peculiarities of procedural averment in cases of administrative violations of law, criminal and civil cases.
The author comes to the conclusion that averment in cases of administrative violations of law are in process both in stage investigation of administrative violation of law and stage of case examination; however, officers that investigate and examine have different possibilities of averment. This is because the law acknowledges the evidence which appeared in the stage of case examination of administrative violation of law whereas the administrative investigation is completely forgotten.
It can be seen that the inconsistence of legislation in regulating evidence matters determined the abundance of contradictory legal rules. On the other side, regulation limitations are obvious, when important questions rising during the averment process are not solved and left gaps create preconditions to violate the rights of process participants (for example, there is no institution of the officer who investigates and examines the case self-suspension or suspension, absolute application of process publicity, superficial regulation of evidence collection, fixing and usage in the process, etc.). The averment cannot be effective, also the problems cannot be solved effectively of proceeding cases of administrative violation of law because of these reasons.