E. Kuris
Judge of the Constitutional Court
of Lithuania

The problems of judiciary in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania

Summary

The author pays attention to the fundamental problem, that is status of judiciary, its relations with political authorities, the autonomy of judicial system and the guarantees of the independence of judges. First of all the reporter considers, that the court itself is a power, but not an institution serving for the power, and the second, the power is not united, all the more, it is not sole, i.e. it can be told about a valuable judiciary only in the presence of the principle of the separation of powers.

The author assures that the doctrine of the separation of powers is applicable to the constitutional reality of Lithuania, according to which "the authorities of the power are restricted by the Constitution" (Part 2, Article 5). This principle is revealed in detail on the basis of the systematic interpretation of the Constitution. As regard to the autonomy of the judiciary, it is guaranteed by the mechanism of self-government, as well as by the constitutional provision of social guarantees of the independence of judges; these social guarantees cannot be diminished.

It is noted that during its eight-year activity the Constitutional Court of the Lithuania has interpreted mentioned provision of the Constitution. Especially, it should note the decision of the Constitutional Court on recognition of the Government's decision unconstitutional, according to which the Government had the right to affirm the size of prizes of the President of the Supreme Court, and the Minister of Justice had the right to affirm the size of prizes of president and judges of other courts. In just that very decision (as well as in the decision of 21.12. 99 and 12.07 01) the doctrine of the independence of judges and courts was revealed.

E. Kuris supposes that the Constitutional Court indicates correctly that the independence of judges and courts includes two aspects - the procedural independence in the solution of concrete cases and the institutional independence of the judiciary, embracing inter alia its organizational and financial self-dependency.