SpringerLink
Log in

Legal Principles vs. Statutory Ambiguity in Criminal Justice: Lithuanian Court Experience

  • Published:
Criminal Law Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In any state where the rule of law is applied, criminal justice serves to guarantee the efficiency and legitimacy of liability and all legally sanctioned coercive measures. Its purpose is also to eliminate, insofar as is possible, any arbitrariness and dishonesty arising in the course of criminal prosecution. Thus, the rules underpinning criminal law and procedure, formulated precisely, harmonized, and based on the principles of law, are the theoretical basis for the attainment of those objectives. In reality, however, the activity of the legislator in drafting new laws and slowed progress in eliminating outdated and unjustified norms creates a situation where the wording of legal codes gradually loses their systematic and consistent character. In recent years, the phenomenon of over-criminalization and statutory ambiguity has attracted an enormous amount of research interest in criminal science. A number of legal concepts and principles are used to discipline the legislature, and thereby allow the courts to apply the law prudently and with great caution, within the limits of their constitutional powers, and in accordance with local legal traditions. This paper presents those legal principles followed by the Lithuanian courts to ensure the proportionate application of substantive criminal law and special investigative techniques, inter alia secret surveillance, thereby offsetting the impact of poorly drafted laws on human rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Kaiafa-Gbandi, “The Importance of Core Principles of Substantive Criminal Law for a European Criminal Policy Respecting Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law”, European Criminal Law Review, 1(1) (2011), 17.

  2. See: Ashworth, “Conceptions of Overcriminalization”, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 5 (2008); Smith, “Overcoming Overcriminalization”, Crim. L. & Criminology, 102 (2013); Husak, Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law (2008), (Oxford University Press, Oxford); Luna, ‘The "Overcriminalization Phenomenon"’, American University Law Review, 54 (3) (2005); Vaccari, Overcriminalization and prison overcrowding: in search for effective solutions. Doctoral thesis. Università degli Studi di Parma. Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza (2014); Stevenson, Harris, “Breaking the Thrall of Ambiguity: Simplification (of the Criminal Law) as an Emerging Human Rights Imperative”, Journal of Criminal Law, 74(6) (2010).

  3. Stuntz, “The Pathalogical Politics of Criminal Law”, Michigan Law Review, 100 (2001), 511.

  4. Snacken, “Factors of Criminalisation – A European Comparative Approach”, Crimprev info, 2bis (2007), 7.

  5. ECtHR, Grand Chamber Advisory Opinion concerning the use of the “blanket reference” or “legislation by reference” technique in the definition of an offence and the standards of comparison between the criminal law in force at the time of the commission of the offence and the amended criminal law. Requested by the Armenian Constitutional Court (Request no. P16-2019-001), para. 60. <https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-6708535-8973165%22]}> accessed 29 December 2020.

  6. ‘Article 7. The “quality of law” requirements and the principle of (non-)retrospectiveness of the criminal law under Article 7 of the Convention. Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights’ (2019), 8. <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Research_report_quality_law_requirements_criminal_law_Art_7_ENG.PDF> accessed 29 December 2020.

  7. Tomlin, “Retributivists! The Harm Principle Is Not for You!”, Ethics, 124(2) (2014), 278–283.

  8. The origin of this principle is attributed to the work of British philosopher, John S. Mill, On Liberty (1859), and to Herbert L. Hart's Law, Liberty and Morality (1963). Without reference to the harm principle, there is no fundamental study of criminal law in the countries where common law pertains.

  9. Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law (1999) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 3rd ed.,), pp. 67–68.

  10. Clarkson, C.M.V., Understanding Criminal Law (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 3d ed., 2001), p. 2.

  11. Ashworth, “Conceptions of Overcriminalization”, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 5 (2008), 408–410.

  12. Schünemann, “The System of Criminal Wrongs: The Concept of Legal Goods and Victim-based Jurisprudence as a Bridge between the General and Special Parts of the Criminal Code”, Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 7 (2004); Dubber, “Theories of Crime and Punishment in German Criminal Law”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 53(3) (2005); Lauterwein, The Limits of Criminal Law. A Comparative Analysis of Aproaches to Legal Theorizing (2010) (Farnham and London); Jareborg, “Criminalization as Last Resort (Ultima Ratio)”, Ohio State Journal Of Criminal Law, 2 (2004); Asp, “The Importance of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Coherence in the Development of EU Criminal Law”, European Criminal Law Review, 1(1) (2011); Minkkinen, ‘“If Taken in Earnest”: Criminal Law Doctrine and the Last Resort’, The Howard Journal 45(5) (2006).

  13. Here are the numbers of persons authorized for criminal intelligence activities: in 2013 – 6139 persons; in 2014 – 4,573 persons; in 2015 – 4,454 persons; in 2016 – 5,150 persons; in 2017 – 4,658 persons. Report on the activities of the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Lithuania in 2017 (28 February 2018, No. 17.9.-3673). The population of the Republic of Lithuania is ca 2.8 million.

  14. According to Lithuanian constitutional jurisprudence, the courts of general jurisdiction, when adopting decisions in cases of corresponding categories, are bound by their own created precedents – decisions in the analogous cases; the courts of general jurisdiction of lower instance, when adopting decisions in the cases of corresponding categories, are bound by the decisions of the courts of general jurisdiction of higher instance – precedents in the cases of the same categories. The ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of 28 March 2006.

  15. Ažubalytė, “Privataus asmens gyvenimo ribojimas slaptomis priemonėmis: (ne)kokybiško įstatymo problema”, (Limitation of a Person’s Private Life Using Special Investigative Techniques: Problem of Poor Quality Law) Jurisprudencija, 26(2) (2019); Ažubalytė, “Baudžiamojo proceso principai: teisės spragų šalinimas”, (Principles of The Criminal Procedure: Elimination of Legal Lacuna), in Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo proceso kodeksui – 10 metų (2012) (Vilnius).

  16. Fedosiuk, “Dirbtinė kriminalizacija kaip teisinės praktikos patologija” (Artificial Criminalization as Pathology of Legal Practice), Teisės apžvalga / Law Review, 2(14) (2016); Fedosiuk, “Neformalus baudžiamojo įstatymo taikymas: poreikis, ribos, doktrinos”, (Informal Application of Criminal Law: Demand, Limits, Doctrines), Jurisprudencija, 21(4) (2014).

  17. The original wording of the principle (nullum crimen nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali) is associated with the publication (1801) of great German criminal law theorist Johann Paul Anselm Feuerbach. For the historical background of this principle, see Ambos, “Nulla Poena Sine Lege in International Criminal Law”, Haveman/Olusanya (eds.), Sentencing and Sanctioning in Supranational Criminal Law, vol. 4, (2006) (Antwerp – Oxford), 17–23.

  18. In the European Convention on Human Rights, this principle is defined in Article 7 as follows: 1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. 2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.

  19. See, supra note 5, para 60.

  20. This has been declared many times in Lithuanian constitutional jurisprudence (The Constitutional Court’s rulings of 13 December 2004, 16 January 2006, and 15 February 2013, 15 March 2017) that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law implies various requirements for the legislature, inter alia, the following: legal regulation established in laws and other legal acts must be clear, comprehensible, and coherent; the formulations in legal acts must be precise, the consistency and internal harmony of the legal system must be ensured; legal acts may not contain provisions simultaneously regulating the same social relations in a different manner; a legal regulation must be relatively stable; legal acts may not demand impossible things, etc.

  21. According to the case law of the ECtHR, it is a logical consequence of the principle that laws must be of general application that the wording of statutes is not always precise. One of the standard techniques of regulation by rules is to use general categorisations as opposed to exhaustive lists. Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice (see Kokkinakis, § 40, and Cantoni, § 31). See, supra note 5, para 60.

  22. It should be noted that the principle of mandatory prosecution is in force in the Lithuanian legal system. Pursuant to Article 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prosecutor or a pre-trial investigation officer must initiate a pre-trial investigation whenever there are signs of criminal offense.

  23. Fedosiuk, supra note 16.

  24. The Constitutional Court’s rulings of 6 December 2000, 31 January 2011, 15 March 2017.

  25. The Constitutional Court’s rulings of 13 November 1997, 10 November 2005, 15 March 2017.

  26. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of 21 September 2006.

  27. The Constitutional Court’s decision of 8 August 2006.

  28. The Constitutional Court’s rulings of 8 May 2000, 10 June 2003, 16 January 2006, 15 March 2017.

  29. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of 29 December 2004.

  30. The Supreme Court’s rulings in criminal cases nos 2K-263/2010, 2K-559/2011, 2K-161/2012, 2K-7-251/2013.

  31. The Supreme Court’s rulings in criminal cases nos 2K-107/2006, 2K-108/2006.

  32. The Supreme Court’s ruling in criminal case no 2K-7-60/2015.

  33. Romantz, “Reconstructing the Rule of Lenity”, Cardozo Law Review, 40 (2018), 524.

  34. Rabb, “The Appellate Rule of Lenity”, Harvard Law Review Forum, 131(8) (2018), 181.

  35. Ambos, Treatise on International Criminal Law, vol. I, ch. III, Imputation and General Structure of Crime in International Criminal Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford), (2021), 143–147.

  36. The retrospective application of the extended concept of genocide to the detriment of the accused led to a judgment of the ECtHR finding a violation of Article 7 of the Convention (Vasiliauskas vs. Lithuania, Appl. No 35343/05, 20 October 2015). For a detailed analysis of this case in the light of the principle of legality see: Ambos, “The Crime of Genocide and the Principle of Legality under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights” Human Rights Law Review, 2017(17), 175–186.

  37. The Supreme Court’s rulings in criminal cases nos 2K-389/2013, 2K-509/2014, 2K-44-788/2019.

  38. See, “Guide on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights Freedom of expression. Updated – 31 August 2020”. <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_10_ENG.pdf> accessed 29 December 2020.

  39. ECtHR, Lingens v. Austria, ECtHR Judgment (8 July 1986) Appl. No. 9815/82; ECtHR, Oberschlick v. Austria, ECtHR Judgment (23 May 1991) Appl. No.11662/85; ECtHR, Mladina D. D. Ljubljana v. Slovenia, ECtHR Judgment (17 April 2014) Appl. No.20981/10.

  40. The Supreme Court’s rulings in criminal cases nos 2K-295/2005, 2K-7-545/2005, 2A-3/2012.

  41. The Supreme Court’s rulings in criminal cases no 2K-677/2012, 2K-86-648/2016.

  42. ECtHR, Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], ECtHR Judgment (5 February 2008) Appl. No. 74420/01, para 51; The Supreme Court’s ruling in criminal case no 2K-7-22-699/2017.

  43. The Supreme Court’s rulings in criminal cases nos 2K-P-94-2015, 2K-7-85-696/2016, 2K-123-788/2018.

  44. The Constitutional Court’s rulings of 18 April 2019, 9 May 2014, 21 June 2011, 26 January 2004.

  45. Merkevičius, Baudžiamasis procesas: įtariamojo samprata (2008) (Criminal Proceedings: The Concept of a Suspect), (Registrų centras, Vilnius), p. 87; Merkevičius, Baudžiamojo proceso enciklopedija. I knyga. Baudžiamojo proceso samprata, tipai, tikslai, stadijos ir šaltiniai (2018) (Encyclopedia of Criminal Procedure. Book I. Concept, Types, Aims, Stages and Sources of Criminal Proceedings) (Registrų centras, Vilnius), p. 417.

  46. Article 8 of the ECHR states that: 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

  47. ECtHR, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], ECtHR Judgment (4 May 2000) Appl. No 28341/95, para 52; ECtHR, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], ECtHR Judgment (4 December 2008) Appl. nos 30562/04 and 30566/04, para 95; ECtHR, Roman Zakharov v. Russia, ECtHR Judgment (4 December 2015) Appl. No 47143/06, para 228.

  48. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of 18 April 2019.

  49. The Supreme Court’s rulings in criminal cases nos 2K-168-139/2015, 2K-P-94-895/2015.

  50. According to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (ruling of 15 November 2013), “the court cannot be understood as a passive observer of the process of cases, and the administration of justice cannot depend only upon the material submitted to the court; seeking to investigate all circumstances of the case objectively and comprehensively and to establish the truth in the case, a court enjoys the powers either to perform respective procedural actions by itself, or to commission certain institutions (officials), inter alia, the prosecutors, that they perform corresponding actions; when performing procedural actions, the court shall be impartial and act so that it should not create any preconditions to think that it is partial or dependent on anyone or anything”.

  51. Under Par. 2 of Article 110 of the Constitution of Lithuania, in cases when there are grounds to believe that the law or another legal act applicable in a concrete case is in conflict with the Constitution, the judge shall suspend the consideration of the case and shall apply to the Constitutional Court requesting that it decides whether the law or another legal act in question follows the Constitution.

  52. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of 18 April 2019.

  53. The Constitutional Court’s rulings of 26 June 2017 and 18 April 2019.

  54. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of 29 November 2010.

  55. ECtHR, Amuur v. France, ECtHR Judgment (25 June 1996), Appl. No 19776/92, para 50; ECtHR, Mooren v Germany, ECtHR Judgment (9 July 2009) Appl. No. 11364/03, para 76.

  56. ECtHR, Klass and others v. Germany, ECtHR Judgment (6 September 1978), Appl. No. 5029/71, para 54.

  57. Mikelėnienė, Mikelėnas, Teismo procesas: teisės aiškinimo ir taikymo aspektai (1999) (Litigation: Aspects of the Interpretation and Application of Law) (Justitia, Vilnius), pp. 258–259.

  58. Ažubalytė (2012), supra note 15, pp. 13–34; Lastauskienė, “Turiningasis teisinio teksto aiškinimas – panacėja ar pavojus?”, (Thoughtful Disquisition of Legal Text – Panacea or Risk?) Jurisprudencija, 8(86) (2006), 67–68.

  59. The Supreme Court’s ruling in criminal case no 2K-7-85-696/2016.

  60. The ECtHR also distinguishes between two stages in verifying that secret surveillance complied with the requirements of the Convention: authorizing the surveillance and the actual carrying out of the surveillance. See ECtHR, Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, ECtHR Judgment (28 June 2007) Appl. No. 62540/00, para 84; ECtHR, Iordachi and others v. Moldova, ECtHR Judgment (10 February 2009) Appl. No. 25198/02, para 42.

  61. Tropina, “Comparative analysis”, Sieber, Mühlen (eds.), Access to Telecommunication Data in Criminal Justice. A Comparative Analysis of European Legal Orders (2016), (Duncker & Humblot, Berlin), pp. 67–68.

  62. Judgment in Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 of 8 April 2014; Judgment in Joined Cases C-203/15 and C-698/15 of 21 December 2016.

  63. ECtHR, Iordachi and others v. Moldova, ECtHR Judgment (10 February 2009) Appl. No. 25198/02, para 43–44; ECtHR, Zakharov v. Russia, ECtHR Judgment (4 December 2015) Appl. No 47143/06, para 244.

  64. Order of the Vilnius Regional Court in the pre-trial investigation case no 1S-182-1020/2016.

  65. This principle is sometimes referred to in literature as the principle of subsidiarity and is interpreted as follows: “The application of this principle requires that the judge considers whether other, less intrusive, means of investigation were first tried unsuccessfully or considered unlikely to be successful” (Sieber and Mühlen, 2016).

  66. According to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania (ruling of 23 October 2002), “there are such areas of private life (for example, intimate life) the information about which may neither be collected nor published without the consent of the person, unless (and only inasmuch as) this helps to detect a crime committed by the person”.

  67. The Supreme Court’s ruling in criminal case no 2K-285-976/2018.

  68. Judgment of the Court of Appeal no 1A-17-202/2016.

  69. The Supreme Court’s ruling in criminal cases nos 2K-7-85-696/2016, 2K-7-8-788/2018.

  70. The Supreme Court’s ruling in criminal cases nos 2K-7-86/2011, 2K-57-696/2017.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, Law School, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Rima Ažubalytė & Oleg Fedosiuk

Authors
  1. Rima Ažubalytė
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oleg Fedosiuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rima Ažubalytė.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rima Ažubalytė and Oleg Fedosiuk, Department of Criminal Law and Procedure, Law School, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania. E-mails: rima.azubalyte@mruni.eu; olfed@mruni.eu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ažubalytė, R., Fedosiuk, O. Legal Principles vs. Statutory Ambiguity in Criminal Justice: Lithuanian Court Experience. Crim Law Forum 32, 435–457 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-021-09421-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-021-09421-5

Search

Navigation