{"id":21822,"date":"2026-04-27T06:00:24","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T06:00:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/teise.org\/?p=21822"},"modified":"2026-04-27T06:01:11","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T06:01:11","slug":"20260427-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/20260427-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The 6th International Conference on Criminal Policy Took Place"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

On 17 April 2026, the 6th international scientific\u2013practical conference \u201cTrends and Challenges in European and National Criminal Policy\u201d was held at the Ministry of Justice. For the second consecutive year, it was organized by criminal justice scholars from four Lithuanian legal research institutions: the Law Institute of the Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (LCSS), Mykolas Romeris University (MRU), the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University (hereinafter \u2013 VMU), and the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University (hereinafter \u2013 VU). This year, the main organizer of the conference was the LCSS Law Institute. The conference was opened and participants were welcomed by Vice-Minister of Justice Martynas Dobrovolskis and Director of the LCSS Law Institute, Dr Dovil\u0117 P\u016brait\u0117-Andrikien\u0117.<\/p>\n

The conference consisted of three sessions. In the first session, held in English, scholars O. Calavita from the University of Turin (Italy), C. Konopatsch from FenUni (Switzerland), and M. Kilchling from the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law (Germany), together with S. Bikelis from the LCSS Law Institute, analysed the legal regulation of confiscation of criminal assets in Italy, Austria, Germany, and Lithuania, respectively, and its compliance with the new Confiscation Directive No. 2024\/1260. S. Bikelis presented a dilemma currently faced in Lithuania: whether to implement the Directive through an improved civil asset confiscation law or to supplement the regulation within criminal legislation. The first option entails certain risks related to international cooperation. It also illustrates the fluidity of confiscation instruments between civil and criminal law. The working group addressing this issue has opted for the first approach.<\/p>\n

The second session focused mainly on issues of criminal procedure, including the immunity of politicians from criminal liability, judicial impartiality, and a range of procedural issues where practice may interpret procedural law too flexibly. It also addressed the problem of appealing against clearly misapplied legal provisions after a fine has been paid and, finally, discussed issues related to the enforcement of penalties, more specifically, conditional release from places of imprisonment.<\/p>\n

The third session, devoted to substantive criminal law issues, featured two presentations by doctoral student Liutauras Luko\u0161ius of the Law Institute: \u201cFragmentation of Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion: Is a Consolidated Solution Possible?\u201d and, together with colleagues from MRU and VDU, \u201cIssues of Compensation for Damage Due to Temporary Restrictions of Property Rights in Criminal Proceedings.\u201d<\/p>\n

In addition to these topics, the session also covered issues such as the dilemmas of criminalising unlawful collection of personal data, the indeterminacy of the offence of abuse of office, and the reform of the regulation of sexual offences, including the introduction of liability for sexual relations without consent. The latter topic sparked some of the most intense discussions during the closing part of the conference.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

2026\u00a0m. baland\u017eio 17\u00a0d. Teisingumo ministerijos sal\u0117je \u012fvyko jau 6-oji tarptautin\u0117 mokslin\u0117-praktin\u0117 konferencija \u201eEuropin\u0117s ir nacionalin\u0117s baud\u017eiamosios politikos tendencijos ir i\u0161\u0161\u016bkiai\u201c. Antrus metus i\u0161 eil\u0117s j\u0105 organizavo baud\u017eiamosios justicijos akademikai net i\u0161 keturi\u0173 Lietuvos teis\u0117s mokslo institucij\u0173\u00a0\u2013 LSMC Teis\u0117s instituto, Mykolo Romerio universiteto (MRU), Vytauto Did\u017eiojo universiteto (toliau\u00a0\u2013 VDU) Teis\u0117s fakulteto ir Vilniaus universiteto (toliau\u00a0\u2013 VU) Teis\u0117s fakulteto. \u0160iemet pagrindiniai konferencijos organizatoriai buvo LSMC Teis\u0117s institutas. Konferencij\u0105 atidar\u0117 ir dalyvius pasveikino teisingumo viceministras Martynas Dobrovolskis ir LSMC Teis\u0117s instituto vadov\u0117 dr. Dovil\u0117 P\u016brait\u0117-Andrikien\u0117. Konferencij\u0105 sudar\u0117 trys sesijos. Pirmojoje, vykusioje angl\u0173 kalba, mokslininkai O.\u00a0Calavita i\u0161 Turino universiteto (Italija), C.\u00a0Konopatsch i\u0161 FenUni (\u0160veicarija) ir M.\u00a0Kilchling i\u0161 Max-Plank saugumo, nusikaltim\u0173 ir teis\u0117s tyrim\u0173 instituto (Vokietija) kartu su LSMC Teis\u0117s instituto mokslininku S.\u00a0Bikeliu analizavo atitinkamai Italijos, Austrijos, Vokietijos ir Lietuvos teisin\u012f reguliavim\u0105 nusikaltimais gauto turto konfiskavimo srityje ir jo atitikt\u012f naujajai konfiskavimo Direktyvai Nr.\u00a02024\/1260. S.\u00a0Bikelis pristat\u0117 Lietuvoje sprend\u017eiam\u0105 dilem\u0105: ar min\u0117t\u0105 direktyv\u0105 verta m\u0117ginti \u012fgyvendinti remiantis patobulintu civilinio turto konfiskavimo \u012fstatymu, ar reik\u0117t\u0173 papildyti reguliavim\u0105 baud\u017eiamuosiuose \u012fstatymuose. Pirmasis variantas turi tam tikr\u0173 rizik\u0173, susijusi\u0173 su tarptautiniu bendradarbiavimu. Jis taip pat iliustruoja konfiskavimo instrument\u0173 paslankum\u0105 tarp civilin\u0117s ir baud\u017eiamosios sri\u010di\u0173. Ties \u0161iuo klausimu dirbanti darbo grup\u0117 yra pasirinkusi b\u016btent pirm\u0105j\u012f variant\u0105. Antroji sesija buvo skirta daugiausia baud\u017eiamojo proceso klausimams, tarp j\u0173\u00a0\u2013 politik\u0173 imuniteto nuo baud\u017eiamosios atsakomyb\u0117s, teismo ne\u0161ali\u0161kumo, taip pat buvo aptartas spektras procesini\u0173 klausim\u0173, kai praktika gal pernelyg lanks\u010diai interpretuoja procesinius \u012fstatymus, analizuota ai\u0161kiai netinkamai pritaikyto \u012fstatymo pritaikymo apskundimo termin\u0173 problematika po baudos sumok\u0117jimo ir, galiausiai, aptarti bausmi\u0173 vykdymo, o konkre\u010diau\u00a0\u2013 lygtinio paleidimo i\u0161 laisv\u0117s at\u0117mimo viet\u0173 probleminiai klausimai. Tre\u010diojoje sesijoje, skirtoje materialiosios baud\u017eiamosios teis\u0117s problemoms, Teis\u0117s instituto doktorantas Liutauras Luko\u0161ius skait\u0117 net du prane\u0161imus\u00a0\u2013 \u201eBaud\u017eiamosios atsakomyb\u0117s u\u017e mokes\u010di\u0173 sl\u0117pim\u0105 fragmentacija: ar galimas konsoliduotas sprendimas?\u201c ir kartu su koleg\u0117mis i\u0161 MRU ir VDU\u00a0\u2013 \u201e\u017dalos atlyginimo d\u0117l laikinojo nuosavyb\u0117s teisi\u0173 ribojimo baud\u017eiamosiose bylose problematika\u201c. Be \u0161i\u0173 tem\u0173, sesijoje pristatyti klausimai apie neteis\u0117to asmens duomen\u0173 rinkimo kriminalizavimo dilemas, piktnaud\u017eiavimo nusikaltimo neapibr\u0117\u017etum\u0105, seksualini\u0173 nusikaltim\u0173 reguliavimo reform\u0105, numatant atsakomyb\u0119 u\u017e seksualinius santykius be sutikimo. Pastaroji tema konferencijos baigiamojoje dalyje sulauk\u0117 bene kar\u0161\u010diausi\u0173 diskusij\u0173.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":21824,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,268],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-naujienos","category-268"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21822","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21822"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21822\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21828,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21822\/revisions\/21828"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/21824"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}