Dilemmas of law retroactivity: a case of civil confiscation.

Straipsnyje keliami tiek fundamentalūs įstatymo taikymo laiko atžvilgiu klausimai, tiek labai konkretus klausimas – ar būtų pagrįsta taikyti atgal civilinio turto konfiskavimo nuostatas. Autoriai analizuoja, kaip vertybiškai grindžiamas draudimas taikyti įstatymą atgal, ar pagrįsta formuluoti universalią įstatymo taikymo taisyklę tiek baudžiamiesiems, tiek reguliaciniams santykiams, kiek tokios taisyklės turėtų būti kategoriškos ir kokios išimtys iš jų leistinos. Konkrečiu civilinio turto konfiskavimo atveju autoriai prieina prie išvados, kad šio teisinio instrumento taikymas atgal (turtui, įgytam po 2010 m. gruodžio 11 d., kai nepaaiškintos kilmės turto turi ar jį kontroliuoja su sunkiais, korupciniais ar organizuotais nusikaltimais susiję asmenys) tenkintų proporcingumo ir numatomumo reikalavimus.The article focuses both on general issues of law reatroactivity and on specific issue of retroactive application of the law on civil confiscation. The latter law currently (Fall of 2019) is in the drafting process at the Parliament of Lithuania. The authors discuss the idea, presented in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania, that issues of retroactivity may be approached uniformly, following the same (strict) formula both in penal and other matters. This attitude differs from the jurisprudence of European courts (both ECHR and ECJ) and of German and Latvian Constitutional courts where different approach to penal matters and other (regulatory) matters prevail. The authors note, that unilateral restrictive approach to the issue of law retroactivity in some cases may harm exceptionally important public interests. It might be the case of civil confiscation. If future law on civil confiscation would face challenge in the Lithuanian Constitutional Court regarding retroactivity and the Court would follow its precedents, public interest in public security from corruption and organized crime might be neglected. The paper also discusses the criteria of reasonable retroactive application of the law that were developed in the jurisprudence of the European courts. The authors point out that the obligations and legal consequences that are provided in the draft law on civil confiscation, have already been provided in the law that introduced extended confiscation in the end of 2010. Therefore the criteria of foreseeability would be met as far as the affected assets are acquired after the end of 2010. Furthermore, criteria of proportionality in case of civil confiscation seem plausible as far as this measure is provided for the unexplained property that is controlled by the persons who are related to the serious, organized crime or corruption. The findings of the ECHR in the case Gogitidze v. Georgia and in other cases support these assumptions