Recently (2010–2011) new criminal legislation to combat illegal income and corruption was passed and publicly discussed in Lithuania. Within the list of the new legal measures, special attention should be paid to criminalisation of illicit enrichment, establishment of a model of extended property confiscation, reinforcement of responsibility for corruption-related offenses, a provision that not only property but also personal benefits may constitute a bribe. It can be seen from the explanatory letters attached to the draft laws and the political debate (...) that the new regulation is expected to achieve decisive breakthrough in the fight against corruption and illegal income. However, without any doubt as to the necessity to fight against those social evils, the author presents critical evaluation of the reform by applying the test of principles of criminal law, legal language and practical effectiveness. By making critical conclusions that the new criminal legislation deliberately lightens the prosecution’s goal of incrimination and the burden of proof, the author warns about the purposive instrumental nature of the new laws, which are balancing on the threshold of legitimacy. In the article the author reveals crucial shortcomings of the new legislation: in some aspects it lacks legal certainty, in other aspects it ignores the principles of guilt, presumption of innocence and proportionality as well as the conception of criminal law as a last resort (ultima ratio). As a result, the new legal means against illegal income and corruption leave space for applying inadequate repression beyond their intended purpose, in addition, they criminalise human conduct that is insufficiently dangerous and create preconditions for senseless criminal prosecutions and violation of human rights. (shrink)

The author tries to explore several new amendments to the penal code of Lithuania, made by the Law on 2 December 2010. The first amendment concerns article 72 of the Penal code of Lithuania (confiscation of property). Prior to the year 2003, confiscation of property implied the right of the court to confiscate any property in possession of the sentenced person. However the Penal code of 2003 set up a new concept of confiscation: just proceeds of the crime or objects (...) intended to be used in committing a crime should be confiscated. However practice was very poor. New law aimed at boosting practice of confiscation, particularly from third persons, to whom usually the offender transfers property. Previous wording of the law provided for that the property should be confiscated from the third person just in case the person knew or could know that the property that he possesses is from a crime. The law of 2010 added new alternative conditions. (shrink)

Forced expropriations of immovable property were common during the Communist era in Eastern Europe. Today, many of the former owners or their heirs are interested in regaining legal ownership of such properties, often decades after the ownership has been reallocated to others. Therefore, the conflict between old and new owners is often resolved in favour of the new owners. While this is understandable from a contemporary political perspective, this approach results in a perpetuation of the results of an earlier human (...) rights violation, thereby resulting in a new human rights violation which will have to be measured against the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if the state in question has ratified it prior to deciding how to handle the long-term effects of expropriations. Firstly, in the article we will devote ourselves to the interpretation of the right to property with an emphasis on the problem of expropriation. Above all, we will elaborate on the definition of the term “property” as well as positive and negative obligations of the Member States regarding this right. Finally, we will address the question of expropriations prior to the entry into force of the Convention and just compensation under Article 41 ECHR. Interpretation of the right to property will be supported by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. (shrink)

The principle of publicity is one of the fundamental principles of property law: property rights should be made public in order to inform third parties about the existence of the property right and its holder and thereby to foster legal certainty and efficiency. The publicity of ownership in immovable property is achieved through registration of ownership in the public register. However, the problem arises because of the unavoidable discrepancies between the data contained in the public register and the factual situation. (...) Different states choose different models to solve the practical problems arising out of the aforementioned discrepancies. On the one hand, Lithuania belongs to the group of states that implement the so-called declaratory system of registration, i.e. the transfer of ownership is based on an agreement or other legal grounds and the registration is not mandatory but provides the transfer with a third-party effect. This can be seen as a proof of priority of a factual situation over the registered data. On the other hand, Lithuanian laws provide the data of the register with some positive reliance, i.e. third parties are not only protected from claims arising out of unregistered rights (negative reliance), but they can also rely on the transcripts in the register. This is especially true in the case of bona fide transferee of immovable property which with some minor exceptions acquires ownership even from a non-owner, if the latter honestly relied on the data of the register. This regulatory framework is further adopted and transformed by the case law of the Lithuanian courts. The analysis of the latter shows that courts are inclined to rely more on the factual situation and easily deny the meaning of the registered rights. In various ways, the concept of the bona fide transferee is restricted and there are instances of positive duties ascribed to them. Besides, the existing case law demonstrates equivocal attitude towards the legal effects of registered data. Such tendencies of case law may hinder the rule of positive reliance and cause greater legal uncertainty. (shrink)

The article analyses, in a comparative perspective, the phenomenon of the evolution of the protection of surviving spouse’s inheritance rights in France and Lithuania, the two legal systems historically having some points of interaction. The protection of the surviving spouse is one of the major preoccupations of married couples of today, the couple occupying a central role within the contemporary family. Comparative analysis reveals certain points of convergence between these two legal systems inasmuch the surviving spouse is considered by both (...) legislations as an heir ab intestat and whose protection over the years has been considerably strengthened. The surviving spouse is called to inherit alongside with the heirs of the first or second order and is entitled to the proportions in assets that have not ceased to increase. Lithuanian law seems to have been innovative at an earlier stage than French law, as it is only in the beginning of the 21st century that significant reforms were carried out in this area of law in France. Analysis has also revealed apparent differences in the scope of protection of the surviving spouse, both in regards to the protection provided by law (statutory protection), as well as protection organised by the will of the spouses (voluntary protection). In some respects the statutory protection is more extensive in France (for example, complementary statutory rights of the spouse in regards to the dwelling place or the quality of héritier réservataire) and the instruments of this protection seem to be more varied (for example, the possibility for the spouses to organise their matrimonial regime by inserting specific clauses into the nuptial contract, mechanisms outside the nuptial contracts, such as donations, wills or life insurance contracts). However, this protection might appear to be more extensive under Lithuanian law as far as the voluntary protection is concerned taking into account the introduction, by the new Lithuanian Civil Code of 2000, of the joint will of spouses under which the whole property of the deceased spouse shall be inherited by the surviving spouse (except the mandatory share of succession). The article raises some doubts as to the desirability or even feasibility of aligning the two models of protection given the fact that each of the two countries has its own history and traditions. Nevertheless, a proposition resurges from the analysis in regard to the possible improvement of the protection of the rights to the dwelling place of the surviving spouse under Lithuanian law. Some elements from the existing French model could be transposed given that the dwelling place is an essential family element providing some stability for the surviving spouse. (shrink)

Under the Lithuanian legislation, current and future spouses are allowed to sign marital agreements by which their property rights and obligations are set. However, it underlines that in some cases the court may declare the whole agreement or some of its terms unenforceable. The legislator does not specify which particular terms may be declared unenforceable. Therefore, the implementation of the spouses’ right to choose the terms they want is put under doubt. As a result, it is very important to find (...) out the circumstances and the criteria that should be evaluated before a marital agreement or some of its terms are declared unenforceable. Under the Lithuanian legislation, the validity of a marital agreement is considered only at the moment it is signed. However, it is not the case in other countries. For instance, many courts of the United States in deciding on the validity of a marital agreement take into account all the circumstances and conditions both at the time a marital agreement is signed and at the time of divorce. Some courts analyse if an agreement was executed voluntarily, without any pressure or fraud, and if both parties provided fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations as well as what were their bargaining powers and expectations. Other courts attempt to establish the effect an agreement will have on the parties after the termination of their marriage. Currently, Lithuanian courts have no practice in declaring a marital agreement unenforceable. However, due to the particularities of marital agreements and the state’s aim to defend the public interest, the means to evaluate the validity of a marital agreement become unclear. (shrink)

Taxation of residential property is difficult to be implemented in many jurisdictions and in this respect Lithuania is not an exception. Many taxpayers do not comprehend why property should be levied by the government. Indeed, any owner of real estate would usually resist to any attempts to increase this tax burden. However, even when the threshold is once overstepped and a new unpopular statutory framework is introduced, the government still faces new dilemmas regarding the administration of this tax. Sometimes weak (...) tax administration but not the tax itself undermines the credibility of the public. Commercial premises as well as land have been continuously levied in the Republic of Lithuania since 1990. Thus, the taxes paid by enterprises and the land tax were not a big issue of public debate in Lithuania. The burden of this tax was not very significant in the light of all taxes paid by enterprises or land owners. The most problematic issue remains the taxation of residential property. (shrink)

The application of the state immunity doctrine with regard to the guarantee of access to court in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has been proved to be a complicated issue. In the ECHR’s case-law before the case Cudak v. Lithuania, the application of the state immunity doctrine had been considered as a proportionate restriction of the right of access to court even in cases of the realization of the protection of the jus cogens norm which was (...) very much criticized by the scholars of international law. Thus, the referral of the case Cudak v. Lithuania to the Grand Chamber could or should change the ECHR’s case-law in this sphere or at least develop certain criteria which would afford ground for a more effective protection to the right of access to court in cases of the application of the state immunity doctrine despite the fact that this right is not absolute. However, the case Cudak v. Lithuania has not fully satisfied these aims. Contrary, the case Cudak v. Lithuania left much obscurity, giving a strong indication that, what regards the realization of the right of access to court, the state immunity doctrine is more a material than a procedural ban, since the argumentation given by the ECHR in this case does not guarantee practical protection of this right. (shrink)