The Article 176 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania provides the criminal liability for employers or responsible persons who infringed the labour safety rules and regulations in case of the accident, emergency that had or could have serious consequences. Much more fatal accidents at work and particularly at the construction industry, transport, wood manufacturing happen in Lithuania than in other states of the European Union. The main reasons for the accidents are “the human factor” and poor discharge of the duties fulfilled by employers and employees. The criminal cases regarding the Article 176 of the Criminal Code mentioned above are tried in the district courts as in the first instance courts. One may submit a petition for appeal to the appeal and cassation courts due to the judgments made by the courts of first instance. There were penalties from 4 to 50 minimum standards of living imposed on the persons who committed the mentioned criminal offences by the court practice and they were analysed in the Master Thesis. These penalties are very inadequate for the suffered conseguences grievous bodily harm. The European Union and other states criminal law provide stricter and more various kinds of penalties for the criminal offences listed in the area of infringement of labour safety regulations. There is no a right and unanimous criminal policy structured in Lithuania in the respect of the criminal offences provided in the Article 176 of the Criminal Code of... [to full text]

The problem of copyrights recently is one of the most relevant, talking about legal aspects of information society. The objective risk of expropriation of sofware or various documents arises, while using communicative network, which is very popular among members of the society nowadays, without compliance with authors. This concerns the lack of legislation, which should regulate the rights of using the software, variuos files or production situated in the network. The problem of copyrights is the most relevant for data put in the net, as communicative web has become more and more popular source of information lately. Practice evidences, that protection of intellectual property only by means of civil defence of copyrights, is not possible, therefore administrative and criminal responsibility carries out an important role. Consequently, the administrative and criminal responsibility for violation of intellectual property will be analysed in the final work. The peculiarities of violation of administrative and criminal responsibily were not studied widely by any of the lithuanian authors. While improvement of information technologies is increasing, thereby it is essential to sift legal laws regulating administrative and criminal responsibility for violation of these rights, taking into consideration both theoretical and practical aspects. So, in this work the administrative and criminal responsibilty for violation of intellectual property and its pecularities applied in the... [to full text]

Santrauka Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijoje įrašytas reikalavimas gerbti privatų gyvenimą reiškia nuostatą be reikalo neapriboti asmens teisių. Egzistuojant galimybei įstatymų leidėjui pasirinkti, kurios teisės šakos normomis apibrėžti tam tikrus teisės pažeidimus ir kokias sankcijas už juos nustatyti, asmuo privatumą gali ginti pasitelkęs civilinės, administracinės ar baudžiamosios teisės normas. Galimais privataus gyvenimo pažeidimais baudžiamosios teisės kontekste laikomi nepagrįstas įsibrovimas, neteisėtas asmens susižinojimo teisės apribojimas, neleistinas faktų apie privatų asmens gyvenimą rinkimas ir paviešinimas. Tikslinga ir adekvati gynyba saugant asmens privatumą turi būti siejama su baudžiamosios atsakomybės pagrįstumu abejojant dėl jos proporcingumo už tokius pažeidimus. Kaip alternatyva galėtų būti administracinė atsakomybė, numatant Administracinių teisės pažeidimų kodekse tokią atsakomybės rūšį ne tik už tam tikrus asmens duomenų tvarkymo pažeidimus. Baudžiamoji atsakomybė turi būti taikoma tik tada, kai padaryta veika tiksliai atitinka Baudžiomojo kodekso nurodytus nusikalstamos veikos sudėties požymius. Asmuo, padaręs nusikaltimą asmens privataus gyvenimo neliečiamumui pagal Baudžiamąjį kodeksą, dažniausiai dar yra įtariamas padaręs ir kitą nusikalstamą veiką. Įstatymų bazė, iš esmės atitinkanti asmens privatumo apsaugos standartus, kartais netinkamai aiškinama ir interpretuojama, taip sukuriant tam tikras problemines situacijas. Asmens privatumo teisinės... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Summary Right to have private life defense at all criminal law points In Republic of Lithuania Constitution is a demand to respect private life. That means attitude without necessity limit person’s rights. If there is a possibility to a law publisher to make a choice, which law aspect norms define some sort of law breaches and which sanctions for them ascertain, person private defends invoke of civil, administrational or criminal law norms. Presumable private life breaches criminal law clues reputed baseless intrusion, illegal person’s communication right restraint, unallowable facts about private person’s life picking and publicity. Expedient and fidelity defense protecting person’s private must be related with criminal responsibility legitimacy when doubting about it’s proportion for such a breaches. As alternative it may be administrational responsibility , anticipating Administrational law breaches codex such a responsibility sort not for only particular person’s facts handlement breaches. Criminal responsibility must be applied only then, when done action exactly answers Criminal codex regulations criminal act composition attributes. Man, who have done crime person’s private life immunity according to Criminal codex, mostly is suspected for another criminal act. Acts base, mainly adequate person’s private safeguard standards, sometimes is not correctly explained and interpreted. It can cause some sort of problematic situations.

In the paper Legal Liability from the Point of View of Normativist and Democratic Law Concepts concept of liability is briefly described. Social liability and its kinds are analysed. Legal liability is distinguished like a separate kind from the social liability, featuring a unique obligatory legal definition sign. Its application is assured by the state. Kinds of legal liability analysed: positive and tortious (negative) legal liability. Basis for occurrence of legal liability are described. Dependence of the legal liability upon the legal system of a state is described in the paper. In the non-democratic states, where the laws become a tool for the rulers to give law to the masses, other kinds of social liability, e.g. moral liability, contradict with the legal liability. All kinds of the social liability, except the legal liability, feature no forced measures applicable upon the violator. It is stressed that the non-democratic legal systems fail to accept the positive legal liability. Unsuccessful efforts of the Soviet law theoreticians to introduce the concept of positive legal liability into the law science are mentioned. Tortious legal liability is a sequel and guarantee of the positive liability. Therefore it is the secondary and the positive liability is the primary (main) form of the legal liability. It becomes especially vivid in the democratic society, when its right ceases being repressive and implementation of the positive law is first of all assured by the... [to full text]