Lietuvos ir Vokietijos teisės aktų, reglamentuojančių darbuotojų materialinę atsakomybę, lyginamoji analizė. Daugeliui žmonių darbas yra vienintelis pragyvenimo šaltinis, todėl darbuotojo materialinės atsakomybės praktiniai aspektai yra svarbus ne tik vieno konkretaus darbuotojo taikymo atžvilgiu, bet ir įtakoja socialines taikos visuomenėje užtikrinimą, dėl to labai svarbu, kad reglamentavimas būtų teisingas ir atitiktų ne tik darbuotojo arba darbdavio interesus, tačiau abiejų šalių interesus Pagrindinis darbo lyginamosios analizės objektas yra darbuotojo materialinės atsakomybės institutas ir jo reglamentavimas Lietuvos ir Vokietijos teisėje, teoriniai ir praktiniai taikymo aspektai, teismų praktika. Darbe apžvelgiama teoriniu ir praktiniu aspektu Lietuvos ir Vokietijos darbuotojo materialinės atsakomybės instituto panašumai ir skirtumai, jų reglamentacijos ypatumai darbo teisėje ir civilinėje teisėje. Taip pat lyginami Lietuvos ir Vokietijos teisės aktų, reglamentuojančių darbuotojų materialinę atsakomybę, privalumai ir trūkumai. / A Comparative Analysis of the Lithuanian and N EU Member State’s Legislation Governing Pecuniary Liability of Employees. Emploeeyment working relationship is the main and the only source of living for lots of people. Therefore pecuniary liability has a significant impact not only on a single employee but also on the whole society. It is of primary importance to have such a regulation that is towards both employee and employer. The main subject of the comparative analysis performed is regulation of pecuniary liability in Lithuania and Germany. The paper deals with employees pecuniary liability as it regulated in Lithuanian labour law and german civil law. The law systems of both countries are compared.

The Presidential institution is described in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania (1992) as a reflection of the choise made between two types of governing systems: parliamentary democracy and presidential democracy. In the Fundamental Law of Germany (1949) the Federal President is described as a polician in a parliamentary republic. Although two different forms of goverment in both states disclose the differences of presidential institution, the similarities are also obvious. Presidential authority, established by legal acts, and its implementation into a political reality gives basis for discussions in the siciety and attempts to decide upon the role of the President of the Republic of Lithuania and the Federal President of Germany. Both formal and real roles are discussed in judicial and scientific literature. This double character of formal and real authority of both Lithuanian and German presidents forms inadequate understanding of the President as a state institution. Also there exists a problem of a judicial position of both presidents as well as aproblem of strengthening it and making it more effective. In Lithuania there are only few authors dealing with the topic of Federal President of the Federal Republic of Germany and its judicial position. There is no doubt that its historic experience and the development of constitutionalism is important to many states of Eastern Europe. For this reason so much attention in judicial and scientific literature is paid... [to full text]