The purpose of this article is to analyse the main provisions of the European private company not limited by the provisions as presented by the European Commission in its Proposal for a Council Regulation on the statute for European private company, but also including amendments introduced by the European Parliament and taking into account the negotiations in the Council of the European Union. This article analyses the development of the European private company and explains why such legal form of a (...) company is needed. It provides the analysis of the main provisions of the proposal for the Regulation, the assessment of advantages and drawbacks of the alternatives introduced by the European Parliament and considered in the Council of the European Union, evaluation of the response of these provisions to the specific needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. The article also presents conclusions and suggestions for the improvement of the legal provisions. (shrink)

The main goal of concentration control and basic legal tests applied worldwide for the evaluation of concentrations, such as “dominance”, “significant impediment of competition” and “substantial lessening of competition” are analysed in this article. Every control, whatever its nature, is implemented in order to reach certain goals. In the first part of this article we analyse the goals of concentration control in different jurisdictions – mostly in the European Union, the USA and Lithuania. Four basic market security standards are excluded: (...) economic efficiency, protection of consumers, protection of competitors and protection of effective market competition. At the end we make a conclusion that the same standard, namely that of consumer protection, is applied in all those jurisdictions and that more attention should be paid for the protection of competitors and competition as a whole. Secondly, “dominance” test, applied in the EU under Regulation 4064/89, is analysed in detail. Moreover, the article discusses the meaning of a “dominant position”. We uphold the clarification of “dominance” provided by the Court of Justice, according to which dominance means the ability “to act to a considerable extent independently of their competitors, their customers and, ultimately, of consumers”. It is argued that “dominance” test is not sufficient for contemporary economics. The main disadvantage of this rule is that it is inapplicable for concentrations that do not create or strengthen dominant position. Furthermore, the new European Union rule of “significant impediment of competition” can be named as a smart European decision that tackled several problems: the practice of the Court of Justice remained applicable for future cases, because no serious changes to the wording of the rule were made. The detection of “dominant position” became only an alternative means to impede competition. In addition to this, the USA, the UK rule of “substantial lessening of competition” is compared to the two rules referred above. The concept of “monopoly” used in the wording of the rule, as well as the practice of the USA courts concerning the evaluation of market concentrations is analysed. We conclude that literally the phrases “significant impediment of competition” and “substantial lessening of competition” are different, but the content of these rules is the same. Different decisions taken in the same or similar cases on both sides of the Atlantic depend not on a certain rule but on the means of its application and some other circumstances (social, political factors, etc.). Finally, it is argued that practice of the evaluation of concentrations in the Republic of Lithuania is extremely poor. According to the present findings of the Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania, it is hard to say the kind of approach the Council follows or, in other words, what kind of a rule the Council applies. Despite the fact that competition law in Lithuania was updated in conformity with the changes made in the EU competition law, we state that the test of “dominance” is further applied in certain concentration cases. (shrink)

The article presents a geographic position of the Arctic. Legal regimes of the Arctic and the Antarctic are compared. In a geographical terms, the Arctic is part of the ocean that is covered by ice, and Antarctic is a continent covered by ice which is surrounded by an ocean. It follows that Arctic should be considered a part of the world’s ocean, which is governed by 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Currently, a sectoral regime is established (...) in the Arctic. The article analyzes the views of international law scholars on the issue and shares an opinion of those who criticize sectoral regime of the Arctic as incompatible with international law. Yet, what principles should underpin legal regime of the Arctic? Recent scholarly writings have considered a concept of common heritage of mankind. The article discusses the concept of common heritage of mankind. In the view of the author, this concept can be applied only to specific maritime areas but not to Arctic in its entirety. The article further thoroughly discusses Russia’s practice as regards its claims regarding the continental shelf of the Arctic. Furthermore, it evaluates the grounds of Russia’s policy in the Arctic until 2020 and also examines Russia’s application for extension of continental shelf in the Arctic and the Pacific Oceans. The article ends with conclusions. (shrink)

The paper analyses the relevant issue of the relationship of international law and European Union law. Therefore, independent systems of law exist, which inevitably arise the issue of relationship and interaction of these systems. Legal literature analyses the question of the relationship of these two systems of law on the basis of various aspects. The author has chosen the following structure of the paper: first, the general problem of the relationship of international and European Union law is discussed. While describing (...) the problem, the nature of the European Union and international law, as well as the distinguishing features of these systems of law, is analysed. The paper also provides a discussion about the decisions of the Strasbourg court and the Court of Justice of the European Union, which provide the basis of solving the problem of the relationship of these systems of law. In the second part of this paper, the main theories are analysed: the monistic, dualistic and coordination theories, which can be used to answer the issue of interaction of the two systems of law – international law and European Union law. (shrink)

The article deals with the question how transnational corporations can bear direct responsibility for human rights abuses they commit by analysing the deficiencies of the current international legal background with respect to human rights and transnational corporations, and the solutions offered by national and regional legal tools. By establishing that current international law is incapable of reducing or compensating for governance gaps, the case law analysis shows that the litigation system under the Alien Tort Claims Act in the United States (...) and ATCA-like litigation possibility in the European Union present a feasible alternative to international law in the field of human rights protection when abuses are committed by transnational corporations. (shrink)

The United Nations has shown recurrent inability to respond to international threats caused by severe human rights violations and thus failed to perform one of its main function—preservation of international peace and security in the world. This evidenced gaps in the United Nations, caused mainly by the veto right in the voting system within the Security Council and limited powers of the General Assembly. The international community gave a twofold answer to this problem: radical humanitarian intervention and the recent concept (...) of the responsibility to protect. The main problem with regard to humanitarian intervention is its legality—its compliance with the prohibition of the use of force. The responsibility to protect does not clash with the prohibition of the use of force, but its legal implications are rather vague—being intensively discussed in the international forum, the responsibility to protect has not yet appeared in any legally binding international document. This article discusses the legal significance of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect, and aims to determine how they affect, if at all, the regulation of the use of force in the international relations, as well as how they respond to the issue of large scale atrocities in the world. (shrink)

The study analyses the issues of protection of national minorities from the perspective of international law. The study consists of three parts. In the first part, the author reveals the understanding of a national minority on the basis of objective and subjective features. This part focuses on such problematic issues as national minorities and citizenship, non-dominant position of a national minority. The second part of the study concentrates on international minorities as subjects of international law. The author analyses international legal (...) subjectivity of national minorities. A question is raised whether the rights of national minorities are individual or collective rights. The third part of the study focuses on the analysis of normative basis for the protection of national minorities. The author notes that the monist system exists in the Republic of Lithuania regarding the relation of international and national law. Under this system, the international treaties ratified by the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) are seen as an indivisible part of the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania. Therefore, the Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is an international treaty that is directly applicable in the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania. The fourth part of the study focuses on the question whether Lithuania should become a party to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Although this issue is complex and includes the problems of political, economic, legal and other nature, the author focuses on the legal analysis of the problems related to the participation in the Charter. It is emphasised that the Charter is not the only document that ensures the linguistic rights of national minorities. Under the Law on International Treaties of the Republic of Lithuania, while considering participation in the Charter, the right of treaty initiative should be implemented, and the question of efficiency of the treaty must also be solved. (shrink)

This article presents the review of the cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights against Lithuania during 2010. Authors provide the summary of relevant cases so that the potential reader is updated with the latest developments of human rights protection concerning Lithuania. Among other cases, this article reviews the case Cudak v. Lithuania decided by the Grand Chamber, which clarified the issues of restrictive principle of State immunity in employment disputes.