Do Legal Regulation and Practical Application of Arrest as a Mean of Supervision Measure Agree With the Principle of Proportionality?

Šiame moksliniame darbe analizuojama, ar kardomosios priemonės suėmimo teisinis reguliavimas bei praktinis jo taikymas neprieštarauja proporcingumo principui, nagrinėjama viena iš fundamentalių žmogaus teisių į teisė į laisvę. Atvejai, kuomet nacionalinės teisminės institucijos skirdamos suėmimą, nesilaiko procesinių prievartos priemonių taikymo proporcingumo principo ribose, vis dar dažni ir visuomenėje kelia diskusijas, kai Lietuvos Respublikos Baudžiamojo Proceso kodekso (toliau - BPK) 119 str. numatytus tikslus, galima pasiekti pritaikius švelnesnes kardomąsias priemones. Darbe yra nagrinėjama, ar nacionaliniai teismai formuodami praktiką laikosi proporcingumo principo skirdami kardomąjį kalinimą ir atitinka formuojamą Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo (toliau - EŽTT) standartų nuostatas. Norint išsiaiškinti suėmimo skyrimo ribas, pirmiausia analizuojama proporcingumo principo reikšmė ir teisinis jo reguliavimas baudžiamajame procese. Apibrėžiama, kokia bendrai yra BPK kardomųjų priemonių paskirtis ir kokios yra numatytos jų rūšys. Darbe tiriamas tarptautinio ir nacionalinio lygmens suėmimo teisinis reglamentavimas ir praktinis jo taikymas, analizuojant teismų praktiką, taip pat remiamasi atliktais tyrimais susijusiais dėl suėmimo skyrimo problemomis, siekiant nustatyti proporcingumo principo pažeidimus, kai taikoma griežčiausia kardomoji priemonė - suėmimas neteisėtai ir nepagrįstai. Pateikiamos nepagrįsto suėmimo privalomų sąlygų ir pagrindų problematikos, kuomet nesilaikoma privalomų sąlygų reglamentavimo nuostatų ir pagrindų pagrįstumo, taip pat suėmimo trukmės atitikimas EŽTT jurisprudencijai proporcingumo principo ribose. Vertinant suėmimo skyrimo atitiktį proporcingumo principui ypač svarbu, kad suėmimas atitiktų privalomų suėmimo sąlygų ir pagrindų nuostatų reglamentavimą. Taip pat, suėmimo skyrimo trukmė Lietuvos teismuose verčia atkreipti dėmesį dėl ydingai praktikuojamo griežčiausios kardomosios priemonės - suėmimo taikymo, kadangi suėmimas yra taikomas neproporcingai - ilgai ir pažeidžiamos Europos Žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos (toliau - Konvencija) nuostatos, kai neteisėtai suvaržomos asmens teisė į laisvę, t. y. prieštaraujantis proporcingumo principui. Darbe pateikiamos suėmimo taikymo spragos, kurios prieštarauja proporcingumo principui bei rekomendacijos siekiant to išvengti. Atlikta teismų praktikos analyzė parodė, kad skiriant suėmimą ir vertinant proporcingumo principą yra prieštaringa ir nenuosekli, kad nepagrįsti suėmimo atvejai yra dėl neaiškaus proporcingumo principo turinio. Taip pat nustatyta, kad Baudžiamojo proceso kodekso reguliavimo sferoje griežčiausios kardomosios priemonės - suėmimo teisinis reguliavimas neužtikrina atitikties BPK įtvirtintam proporcingumo principui. Taip pat, suėmimo skyrimo trukmė Lietuvos teismuose verčia atkreipti dėmesį į neteisėtą asmens teisių suvaržymą į laisvę, kadangi suėmimas taikomas neproporcingai - ilgai. Atlikus teismų praktikos tyrimą prieita prie išvados, kad darbe iškelta hipotezė dalinai pasitvirtino, kad kardomosios priemonės - suėmimo teisinis reguliavimas ir praktinis jo taikymas prieštarauja proporcingumo principui.It is analysed in the present study whether the legal regulation of remand, i.e. an arrest and its practical application are not in contrary to the principle of proportionality, also one of fundamental human rights, i.e. the right to freedom is analysed. The cases when imposing the most strict remand, i.e. an arrest the national judicial authorities fail to act within the limits of the principle of proportionality of application of procedural coercive measures still are frequent and trigger debates in the society when the objectives provided in the article 119 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania can be achieved by applying less strict remands. The legal regulation of the international and national an arrest and its practical application are analysed in the study, also the accomplished studies related to the problems of imposition of an arrest are quoted in order to determine infringements of the principle of proportionality when the birth-right of the person to freedom is prevented illegally and gratuitously. It is analysed in the study whether the national courts while forming a practice act in accordance with the principle of proportionality which is governed by the article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania, when they impose a custody and whether they comply with the provisions of the standards formulated by the European Court of Human Rights. The limitations of application of an arrest which are in contrary to the principle of proportionality and recommendations how to avoid this are presented in the study. The hypothesis of the study. Legal regulation of remand, i.e. an arrest and its practical application are in contrary to the principle of proportionality. The research object of the study. Infringements of the legal regulation and practical application of imposition of the severest remand, i.e. an arrest within the limits of the principle of proportionality when a question concerning imposition of alternative remands is not considered. The objective of the study. The main objective of this study is to analyse whether the legal regulation and practical application of remand, i.e. an arrest are not in contrary to the principle of proportionality. The following tasks of the study are raised in accordance with the specified main objective: • to analyse the international and national legislation, to assess the principle of proportionality defined therein in the criminal procedure; • to define the types of remands and their significance; • to assess the issues of the legal regulation and practical application of the remand, i.e. an arrest in comparison with the European Court of Human Rights. The research methods of the study: • the comparative method ñ this method has been used in order to compare compliance of the case law of the national courts of imposition of remand, i.e. an arrest to the principle of proportionality and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. • the systematic method ñ the relationship between the analysed legal norms and principles is analysed using this method. • analytical - critical method ñ this method has been used in order to define the conception of the principle of proportionality in the criminal procedure and purpose and types of remands and on purpose to review the limitations of the legal regulation and its implementation of remand, i.e. an arrest, as objection to the principle of proportionality and the issues of compliance of grounds and conditions of an arrest to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the insights of the isues of reasonableness and duration of imposition of an arrest. • the summarizing method ñ this method has been used while summarizing a whole study and presenting findings and recommendations. In order to find out the limits of imposition of an arrest the conception and significance of the principle of proportionality and its legal regulation in the criminal process are analysed in the first part of the study. This principle is the main benchmark while solving the issue concerning restriction of personal rights by assessing each time a strictness of remand and considering the objective pursued and the future result. This principle does not give preference to anything since it is intended to assess the balance between restrictions of personal rights and implementation of the objectives of criminal process in accordance with the legality. In terms of assessment of regulation of the principle of proportionality it is abstract . The limitations of the conditions of this principle are ambiguous and this prevents verification whether there are infringements concerning the procedure of compliance to this principle and this raises doubts about legality of restraints when only formal definition of this principle is used and its content is not revealed in essence. The general purpose of the remands of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania and their provided types are defined in the second part of the study by giving the biggest emphasis on the conception, development and essence of the severest remand, i.e. an arrest. Although the national legislation clearly regulates application of procedural coercive measures at the beginning of pre-trial investigation each time considering individually the subject of proof and by selecting an appropriate alternative remand, but the judicial authorities have a sufficiently broad right of discretion concerning imposition of remands which restrict the human rights, freedoms and legitimate interests. An arrest should be applied only in cases of ultima ratio. However each time the issue whether it is necessary to apply such remand in accordance with the regulation of part 4 of the article 121 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania has to be addressed and the principle of proportionality provided in the article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania has to be followed. The problems of the legal regulation of an arrest when there is a failure to comply with the regulation of mandatory conditions provided in parts 7 and 8 of the article 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania and the grounds provided in parts 1-5 of the article 122 of the same when the arrest imposed on grounds provided is precarious are analysed in the third part of the study. While assessing compliance of imposition of arrest with the principle of proportionality it is especially important that arrest would comply to the regulation of mandatory conditions of arrest and provisions of grounds. While imposing arrest and assessing the principle of proportionality there is a contradictory and inconsistent regulation that precarious cases of arrest occur due to the content of the principle of proportionality, although judicial authorities unanimously define the principle of proportionality, however fail to comply with it. The problems of practical application of arrest when arrest is imposed gratuitously and compliance of the duration of arrest to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights within the limits of the principle of proportionality when an arrest is applied for disproportionately long period are analysed in the fourth section of the study. Currently there is the regulatory objection to the principle of proportionality and infringement while imposing an arrest in the case law. Compliances to the case law mean that it is necessary to assess everything in a complex manner: the suspectís resume, the facts of the case and other circumstances. Also the duration of an arrest imposition in the Lithuanian courts draws attention to perversely practiced application of the severest remand, i.e. an arrest, since an arrest is applied disproportionately, i.e. for a long period and in violation of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights when a person's right to freedom is restricted illicitly. After accomplishment of the case law study it was concluded that the hypothesis of the study has been proven to be partially truth, i.e. the legal regulation and practical application of remand, i.e. an arrest are in contrary to the principle of proportionality. Recommendations are presented at the end of the study.Teisės fakultetasVytauto Didžiojo universiteta