[:lt]<\/p>\n
Lietuvos teis\u0117s institutas i\u0161leido monografij\u0105 \u201eVie\u0161ojo intereso atpa\u017einimo problema Lietuvos teis\u0117je: kriterijai ir prioritetai\u201c<\/strong>, kurioje publikuojamas tyrimas atskleid\u017eiantis, kaip vie\u0161asis interesas suprantamas teism\u0173 sprendimuose, taip pat, kam teikiama pirmenyb\u0117, kai susiduria vie\u0161ieji ir privat\u016bs interesai.<\/p>\n Monografija, kuri\u0105 pareng\u0117 gausus mokslinink\u0173 b\u016brys (dr. Lina Beli\u016bnien\u0117, Milda Burnyt\u0117, Egl\u0117 Kavoli\u016bnait\u0117-Ragauskien\u0117, dr. Egidijus Krivka, Mindaugas Lankauskas, dr. R\u016bta Latvel\u0117, dr. Rita Matulionyt\u0117), skirta vie\u0161ojo intereso sampratos analizei.<\/p>\n Monografijos autori\u0173 kolektyvas siek\u0117 atrasti ir paai\u0161kinti, kas slypi po raktiniais \u017eod\u017eiais \u201evie\u0161asis interesas\u201c. Tok\u012f mokslo tyrim\u0105 paskatino pora prie\u017eas\u010di\u0173. Pirma, kad Lietuvos \u012fstatym\u0173 leid\u0117jas n\u0117ra suformulav\u0119s universalaus, visoms teisinio reguliavimo sritims tinkan\u010dio vie\u0161ojo intereso apibr\u0117\u017eimo. Ir antra, – nebuvo nuodugniau, taip pat tarpdisciplininiu po\u017ei\u016briu analizuota, kaip vie\u0161\u0105j\u012f interes\u0105 savo praktikoje identifikuoja teismai, kokie argumentai lemia, kad pirmenyb\u0117 b\u016bt\u0173 teikiama vie\u0161ajam interesui priva\u010di\u0173 interes\u0173 at\u017evilgiu arba vienam i\u0161 keli\u0173 vie\u0161\u0173j\u0173 interes\u0173.<\/p>\n Tod\u0117l \u0161io mokslo tyrimo a\u0161is yra Lietuvos teism\u0173 byl\u0173 praktikos analiz\u0117. Autoriai r\u0117m\u0117si \u012f\u017evalga, kad vie\u0161asis interesas yra daugiau socialin\u0117 negu teisin\u0117 kategorija. Teism\u0173 praktika buvo nagrin\u0117jama ne tik teisiniu, bet ir politikos, ekonomikos, sociologijos moksl\u0173 aspektu. Tyrime taip pat remiamasi dviej\u0173 atlikt\u0173 sociologini\u0173 apklaus\u0173, \u2013 Lietuvos gyventoj\u0173 ir teis\u0117s praktik\u0173, \u2013 duomenimis. Lietuvos gyventoj\u0173 apklausa patvirtino vie\u0161ojo intereso i\u0161skirtinum\u0105 i\u0161 kit\u0173 interes\u0173, nes \u012f klausim\u0105 \u201eAr, J\u016bs\u0173 nuomone, privat\u016bs ir visuomeniniai interesai yra skirtingi dalykai?\u201c, 47,2 proc. apklaust\u0173j\u0173 pripa\u017eino, kad \u0161ie interesai yra skirtingi. Penktadalis atsakiusi\u0173j\u0173 man\u0117, kad \u0161ie interesai yra da\u017eniausiai skirtingi, o beveik tiek pat j\u0173 (19,3 proc.) teig\u0117, kad \u0161ie interesai kai kuriais atvejais sutampa. Pa\u017eym\u0117tina ir tai, kad nema\u017eai apklausos dalyvi\u0173 (11,5 proc.) pripa\u017eino, jog ne\u017eino atsakymo \u012f \u0161\u012f klausim\u0105 arba neturi nuomon\u0117s.<\/p>\n I\u0161 teism\u0173 praktikos i\u0161ry\u0161k\u0117ja vie\u0161ojo intereso supratimas. Tirtos penkios sritys, kuriose pasirei\u0161kia vie\u0161asis interesas: nuosavyb\u0117s teisi\u0173 \u012f nekilnojam\u0105j\u012f turt\u0105 atk\u016brimo, nekilnojamojo kult\u016bros paveldo apsaugos, aplinkos apsaugos, teritorij\u0173 planavimo ir statyb\u0173 bei vartotoj\u0173 apsaugos.<\/p>\n Nustatyta, kad vie\u0161asis interesas patenka tarp visuomen\u0117je esan\u010di\u0173 principini\u0173 susitarim\u0173, b\u016btin\u0173 bendram egzistavimui ir kad \u0161ie susitarimai n\u0117ra visuomet matuojami naudos matu. Vie\u0161ojo intereso apibr\u0117\u017eimas orientuotas \u012f vertybes, o pa\u017eeidimai sietini ir su formali\u0105ja, ir su turining\u0105ja \u0161io intereso pus\u0117mis.<\/p>\n I\u0161skiriami keletas teism\u0173 sprendimuose pasikartojan\u010di\u0173 element\u0173: objektas (tai, kokios ginamos vertyb\u0117s saugomos), turinys (konkretaus vie\u0161ojo intereso nurodymas). Teismai, priimdami sprendimus, ne visados atsi\u017evelgia \u012f tai, kiek asmen\u0173 yra susij\u0119 su vie\u0161uoju interesu. Pavyzd\u017eiui, teismai pripa\u017e\u012fsta, kad nekilnojamojo kult\u016bros paveldo objekt\u0173 apsauga svarbi visai visuomenei, o ne atskiroms jos grup\u0117ms, o vie\u0161ojo intereso vartotoj\u0173 apsaugos srityje pabr\u0117\u017eiama vartotoj\u0173 teisi\u0173 svarba ne tik visai visuomenei, bet didelei jos daliai.<\/p>\n Nagrin\u0117jant, kaip teikiama pirmenyb\u0117 vie\u0161iesiems interesams bylose, nustatyta, kad teisinio stabilumo siekis yra tas vie\u0161asis interesas, kuris gali b\u016bti nurungtas kit\u0173 vie\u0161\u0173j\u0173 interes\u0173. Pvz., i\u0161 teritorij\u0173 planavimo ir statyb\u0173 sri\u010di\u0173 teism\u0173 sprendim\u0173 matoma tam tikra i\u0161skirtin\u0117 vertybi\u0173 hierarchija, prioritet\u0105 teikiant vertingo objekto apsaugai. Daugumoje nagrin\u0117t\u0173 vie\u0161ojo intereso sri\u010di\u0173 teism\u0173 sprendim\u0173 \u012ftvirtinta, kad b\u016btina u\u017etikrinti vertybi\u0173 pusiausvyr\u0105. Be kit\u0173 pasteb\u0117jim\u0173 autoriai daro i\u0161vad\u0105, kad teism\u0173 sprendimuose skatintinas proporcingumo kategorijos naudojimas ir juo labiau eksplicitinis jos taikymo pagrindimas.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Vis\u0105 monografijos tekst\u0105 galite rasti \u010dia<\/u>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n [:en]<\/p>\n Law Institute of Lithuania has published a monograph which is founded on an assumption, that a more definite (more precise and comprehensive) definition of the public interest in Lithuanian law is both needed and possible. This definition may be reached by formulating guidelines of identification of the public interest. For the determination thereof the researches intend to analyse the topic of public interest in two directions: direction of criteria (elements, features, making it possible to identify public interest) and direction of priorities (arguments, determining the submission of priority to the public interest). The main attention of the monograph is paid to the analysis of the case law of Lithuanian courts in the considered field, besides the research literature, legal regulation and review of best practices of other countries. Moreover, seeking to clear out the public attitudes towards the public interest a sociological survey is intended to be carried out and also a survey of judges and prosecutors. Since the public interest is not only a legal category, the case law is analysed in an interdisciplinary way, using legal, economic, political, sociological sciences\u2018 perspectives. First of all, it is important to note that researchers have analysed Lithuanian case law, using different approaches to the identification of public interest, examining the extent of certainty of public interest conception. Specifically, authors have chosen to analyse Lithuanian case law examining five different areas of public interest manifestation in Lithuanian law (i. e. sphere of the restoration of the rights of ownership to the existing real property, sphere of immovable cultural heritage, sphere of environmental protection, sphere of territorial planning and construction and sphere of consumer protection), on the basis of Lithuanian and foreign scientific doctrine and legal regulation.<\/p>\n The analysis of case law and the survey of legal practitioners have showed that the results of these surveys do not differ because public interest is understood as expressing what is important for the whole society or for the majority of it and as having ideological basis of utilitarian theories but still taking into concern the interest of minorities. The opinion expressed in the surveys should not be treated as corresponding to the particular conception of public interest: the so called conceptions of accumulation and preponderance, common interest and unitary interest. Also, the expressed opinions do not signify the will of majority, but are similar to the ideas developed in the sociology. Furthermore, the results of the surveys, which embody the formal and content-oriented dimension of public interest, are also reflected in legal argumentation of Lithuanian courts dealing with public interest issues. In legal argumentation the shell of public interest conception presented by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania become apparent. The public interest (interest of a person or a group of persons) reflects and expresses the fundamental values of society which are established and protected by the Constitution. The grounds of legal order which are based on the above mentioned system of values are the regulatory principles of the relations of organized community. These principles outline the directions of development of this order. The content of the concept of public interest is adjusted in case law by removing the values which, although are protected and defended by the Constitution, however are not objectively relevant, necessary or valuable to the society or to the part of it in the concrete case. In addition, it should be noted that the above mentioned shell of values is concerned as a ground solving the question, to what extent the normative model of public interest could be defined in Lithuanian law. As well as, this shell could be described as historically determined and relating to the contemporary approach to the state.<\/p>\n [:]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" [:lt] Lietuvos teis\u0117s institutas i\u0161leido monografij\u0105 \u201eVie\u0161ojo intereso atpa\u017einimo problema Lietuvos teis\u0117je: kriterijai ir prioritetai\u201c, kurioje publikuojamas tyrimas atskleid\u017eiantis, kaip vie\u0161asis interesas suprantamas teism\u0173 sprendimuose, taip pat, kam teikiama pirmenyb\u0117, kai susiduria vie\u0161ieji ir privat\u016bs interesai. Monografija, kuri\u0105 pareng\u0117 gausus mokslinink\u0173 b\u016brys (dr. Lina Beli\u016bnien\u0117, Milda Burnyt\u0117, Egl\u0117 Kavoli\u016bnait\u0117-Ragauskien\u0117, dr. Egidijus Krivka, Mindaugas Lankauskas, dr. R\u016bta Latvel\u0117, dr. Rita Matulionyt\u0117), skirta vie\u0161ojo intereso sampratos analizei. Monografijos autori\u0173 kolektyvas siek\u0117 atrasti ir paai\u0161kinti, kas slypi po raktiniais \u017eod\u017eiais \u201evie\u0161asis interesas\u201c. Tok\u012f mokslo tyrim\u0105 paskatino pora prie\u017eas\u010di\u0173. Pirma, kad Lietuvos \u012fstatym\u0173 leid\u0117jas n\u0117ra suformulav\u0119s universalaus, visoms teisinio reguliavimo sritims tinkan\u010dio vie\u0161ojo intereso apibr\u0117\u017eimo. Ir antra, – nebuvo nuodugniau, taip pat tarpdisciplininiu po\u017ei\u016briu analizuota, kaip vie\u0161\u0105j\u012f interes\u0105 savo praktikoje identifikuoja teismai, kokie argumentai lemia, kad pirmenyb\u0117 b\u016bt\u0173 teikiama vie\u0161ajam interesui priva\u010di\u0173 interes\u0173 at\u017evilgiu arba vienam i\u0161 keli\u0173 vie\u0161\u0173j\u0173 interes\u0173. Tod\u0117l \u0161io mokslo tyrimo a\u0161is yra Lietuvos teism\u0173 byl\u0173 praktikos analiz\u0117. Autoriai r\u0117m\u0117si \u012f\u017evalga, kad vie\u0161asis interesas yra daugiau socialin\u0117 negu teisin\u0117 kategorija. Teism\u0173 praktika buvo nagrin\u0117jama ne tik teisiniu, bet ir politikos, ekonomikos, sociologijos moksl\u0173 aspektu. Tyrime taip pat remiamasi dviej\u0173 atlikt\u0173 sociologini\u0173 apklaus\u0173, \u2013 Lietuvos gyventoj\u0173 ir teis\u0117s praktik\u0173, \u2013 duomenimis. Lietuvos gyventoj\u0173 apklausa patvirtino vie\u0161ojo intereso i\u0161skirtinum\u0105 i\u0161 kit\u0173 interes\u0173, nes \u012f klausim\u0105 \u201eAr, J\u016bs\u0173 nuomone, privat\u016bs ir visuomeniniai interesai yra skirtingi dalykai?\u201c, 47,2 proc. apklaust\u0173j\u0173 pripa\u017eino, kad \u0161ie interesai yra skirtingi. Penktadalis atsakiusi\u0173j\u0173 man\u0117, kad \u0161ie interesai yra da\u017eniausiai skirtingi, o beveik tiek pat j\u0173 (19,3 proc.) teig\u0117, kad \u0161ie interesai kai kuriais atvejais sutampa. Pa\u017eym\u0117tina ir tai, kad nema\u017eai apklausos dalyvi\u0173 (11,5 proc.) pripa\u017eino, jog ne\u017eino atsakymo \u012f \u0161\u012f klausim\u0105 arba neturi nuomon\u0117s. I\u0161 teism\u0173 praktikos i\u0161ry\u0161k\u0117ja vie\u0161ojo intereso supratimas. Tirtos penkios sritys, kuriose pasirei\u0161kia vie\u0161asis interesas: nuosavyb\u0117s teisi\u0173 \u012f nekilnojam\u0105j\u012f turt\u0105 atk\u016brimo, nekilnojamojo kult\u016bros paveldo apsaugos, aplinkos apsaugos, teritorij\u0173 planavimo ir statyb\u0173 bei vartotoj\u0173 apsaugos. Nustatyta, kad vie\u0161asis interesas patenka tarp visuomen\u0117je esan\u010di\u0173 principini\u0173 susitarim\u0173, b\u016btin\u0173 bendram egzistavimui ir kad \u0161ie susitarimai n\u0117ra visuomet matuojami naudos matu. Vie\u0161ojo intereso apibr\u0117\u017eimas orientuotas \u012f vertybes, o pa\u017eeidimai sietini ir su formali\u0105ja, ir su turining\u0105ja \u0161io intereso pus\u0117mis. I\u0161skiriami keletas teism\u0173 sprendimuose pasikartojan\u010di\u0173 element\u0173: objektas (tai, kokios ginamos vertyb\u0117s saugomos), turinys (konkretaus vie\u0161ojo intereso nurodymas). Teismai, priimdami sprendimus, ne visados atsi\u017evelgia \u012f tai, kiek asmen\u0173 yra susij\u0119 su vie\u0161uoju interesu. Pavyzd\u017eiui, teismai pripa\u017e\u012fsta, kad nekilnojamojo kult\u016bros paveldo objekt\u0173 apsauga svarbi visai visuomenei, o ne atskiroms jos grup\u0117ms, o vie\u0161ojo intereso vartotoj\u0173 apsaugos srityje pabr\u0117\u017eiama vartotoj\u0173 teisi\u0173 svarba ne tik visai visuomenei, bet didelei jos daliai. Nagrin\u0117jant, kaip teikiama pirmenyb\u0117 vie\u0161iesiems interesams bylose, nustatyta, kad teisinio stabilumo siekis yra tas vie\u0161asis interesas, kuris gali b\u016bti nurungtas kit\u0173 vie\u0161\u0173j\u0173 interes\u0173. Pvz., i\u0161 teritorij\u0173 planavimo ir statyb\u0173 sri\u010di\u0173 teism\u0173 sprendim\u0173 matoma tam tikra i\u0161skirtin\u0117 vertybi\u0173 hierarchija, prioritet\u0105 teikiant vertingo objekto apsaugai. Daugumoje nagrin\u0117t\u0173 vie\u0161ojo intereso sri\u010di\u0173 teism\u0173 sprendim\u0173 \u012ftvirtinta, kad b\u016btina u\u017etikrinti vertybi\u0173 pusiausvyr\u0105. Be kit\u0173 pasteb\u0117jim\u0173 autoriai daro i\u0161vad\u0105, kad teism\u0173 sprendimuose skatintinas proporcingumo kategorijos naudojimas ir juo labiau eksplicitinis jos taikymo pagrindimas. \u00a0 Vis\u0105 monografijos tekst\u0105 galite rasti \u010dia. \u00a0 \u00a0 [:en] Law Institute of Lithuania has published a monograph which is founded on an assumption, that a more definite (more precise and comprehensive) definition of the public interest in Lithuanian law is both needed and possible. This definition may be reached by formulating guidelines of identification of the public interest. For the determination thereof the researches intend to analyse the topic of public interest in two directions: direction of criteria (elements, features, making it possible to identify public interest) and direction of priorities (arguments, determining the submission of priority to the public interest). The main attention of the monograph is paid to the analysis of the case law of Lithuanian courts in the considered field, besides the research literature, legal regulation and review of best practices of other countries. Moreover, seeking to clear out the public attitudes towards the public interest a sociological survey is intended to be carried out and also a survey of judges and prosecutors. Since the public interest is not only a legal category, the case law is analysed in an interdisciplinary way, using legal, economic, political, sociological sciences\u2018 perspectives. First of all, it is important to note that researchers have analysed Lithuanian case law, using different approaches to the identification of public interest, examining the extent of certainty of public interest conception. Specifically, authors have chosen to analyse Lithuanian case law examining five different areas of public interest manifestation in Lithuanian law (i. e. sphere of the restoration of the rights of ownership to the existing real property, sphere of immovable cultural heritage, sphere of environmental protection, sphere of territorial planning and construction and sphere of consumer protection), on the basis of Lithuanian and foreign scientific doctrine and legal regulation. The analysis of case law and the survey of legal practitioners have showed that the results of these surveys do not differ because public interest is understood as expressing what is important for the whole society or for the majority of it and as having ideological basis of utilitarian theories but still taking into concern the interest of minorities. The opinion expressed in the surveys should not be treated as corresponding to the particular conception of public interest: the so called conceptions of accumulation and preponderance, common interest and unitary interest. Also, the expressed opinions do not signify the will of majority, but are similar to the ideas developed in the sociology. Furthermore, the results of the surveys, which embody the formal and content-oriented dimension of public interest, are also reflected in legal argumentation of Lithuanian courts dealing with public interest issues. In legal argumentation the shell of public interest conception presented by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania become apparent. The public interest (interest of a person or a group of persons) reflects and expresses the fundamental values of society which are established and protected by the Constitution. The grounds of legal order which are based on the above mentioned system of values are the regulatory principles of the relations of organized community. These principles outline the directions of development of this<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,259],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-473","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-naujienos","category-2016-naujienu-irasu-metai"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/473","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=473"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/473\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6955,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/473\/revisions\/6955"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}