The question of detention of asylum seekers is specific due to the special situation of detainees (persons who have experienced human rights violations and apply for asylum in receiving country) and due to peculiarities of detention itself (persons have not committed crimes, but come or stay illegally because they have been forced to do so by fleeing from human rights violations). Therefore, lately it raises many discussions at the European level. Sooner or later, discussions influence national laws, as after adopting (...) the EU directives their provisions must be properly transposed into national laws. This article describes the recent documents: the study in Lithuania, the UNHCR guidelines, the EU developments, the Lithuania judicial practice. The authors of the article discuss the latest amendments of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens (entering into force on 1 February 2012) related to detention of asylum seekers after the transposition of the provisions of the Return Directive. The practice of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania when applying the new detention-related provisions is also reviewed in the article. The authors do not agree with the position of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania that the provisions of the Return Directive are applicable to asylum seekers. The authors pay attention to the case-law of the European Court of Justice, the preamble of the Return Directive and its legal relations with the EU asylum directives. At the end, the conclusions are drawn as to the way that the provisions of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens should be interpreted in the light of the purposes and provisions of the European Union directives. In order to avoid contradictory practice and at the same time ensure the interests of public order in Lithuania, Article 113(7) of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens could be applied. (shrink)

While implementing Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third country nationals (hereinafter referred to as ‘Directive’), Lithuania supplemented the Lithuanian Criminal Code with an additional Article 292-1, entitled “Labour of illegally staying third country nationals in the Republic of Lithuania”, which came into force on 6 January 2012. The author of this article aims to find out whether the main (...) goals and objectives of the Directive regarding criminal liability of the employer have been fully transposed into national law, and by using various scientific methods and the objectives of the Directive, to reveal the objective and subjective attributes of Article 292-1 of the Criminal Code. The second aim is to discuss the criteria distinguishing criminal liability from administrative liability enshrined in Article 41-3 of the Lithuanian Code of Administrative Offences, in particular that that article was not changed at the time of establishing criminal liability. The detailed scientific analysis revealed that Lithuania has essentially transposed all the basic requirements and obligations of the Directive, even though it was somewhat late (the Member States were obliged to implement the Directive by 20 July 2011, and Article 292-1 has come into force on 6 January 2012, while the Law Prohibiting Illegal Work has not yet been enacted). In addition, only four of the five criminal offences enumerated in Article 9 of the Directive have been fully implemented. The Lithuanian legislators have not established criminal liability for an infringement committed by employer using work or services of an illegally staying third country national, with the knowledge that he or she is a victim of trafficking in human beings. This infringement is partially criminalised in Articles 147-1 and 147-2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, but in order to punish the employer one needs either to establish one of the alternative means by which the will of the third country national has been affected (e.g. coercion, force or threat, deceit or fraud, abuse of authority or abuse of a vulnerable position and etc.), which is not required by the Directive and, in the author’s opinion, makes practical application of criminal liability in this respect rather difficult. Another problem related to the implementation of the Directive is that we still do not have the respective Law and no systemic approach exists, while in the Criminal Code none of the terms used in Article 292-1 are defined and the law enforcement authorities might encounter practical difficulties in applying that Article, in particular considering that some of the definitions could be found only in the Directive itself. Possible difficulties could arise while deciding on whether criminal or administrative liability should arise in cases of continuous or persistently repeated infringements, because in the Criminal Code this feature is defined as “for business purposes”, which is rather subjective and should be established in every single case after thorough evaluation of factual data. (shrink)

On 19 May 2011, the Lithuanian Parliament adopted the Law on Temporary Agency Employment to implement the EU Directive on temporary agency work. Up to now there has been no special regulations for the so called “personnel lease”, although Lithuanian companies have been using such service since 2003. The law basically followed the recommendations of the Directive without setting additional restrictions. Temporary agency workers will be subject to the same conditions as permanent workers of employment agency clients are regarding working (...) and leisure time regime and work safety. The Law on Temporary Agency Employment will enter into force on 1 December 2011. The purpose of this article is to analyze the EU Directive on temporary agency work transfer to the Lithuanian legal system and the peculiarities of the theoretical and practical problems associated with the new regulation. Conclusions and suggestions for the improvement of the legal provisions are presented. (shrink)

The article deals with the doctrine of the returning of the powers of the Government upon the election of the President of the Republic formulated in the Constitutional Court ruling of 10 January 1998. Attention is focused on the arguments of the Constitutional Court upon which this doctrine is based–these are the arguments regarding the expression of no-confidence in the Prime Minister and the new empowerment of the Government (after more than a half of the ministers are changed). In the (...) opinion of the author, some of such arguments are subject to discussion. The constitutional regulation regarding the returning of the powers of the Government upon the election of the President of the Republic is inexhaustive and unclear. Although the wording of the provisions of the Constitution regarding the returning of the powers of the Government after the elections of the Seimas and after the elections of the President of the Republic is almost the same, there is one essential difference: the Constitution provides that after the elections of the Seimas the Government must return its powers to the President of the Republic and must resign, whereas the Constitution does not provide that the Government must resign after the elections of the President of the Republic as well. (shrink)

The establishment of the Common European Asylum System by 2012 remains a key policy objective for the European Union. According to the Council of the European Union, the development of a Common Asylum Policy should be based on a full and inclusive application of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and other relevant international treaties. In the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum attention is brought to the persistence of wide disparities amongst Member States in the (...) granting of protection and the form of protection granted. This is seen as one of the main problems to be addressed in building the CEAS. It is fairly obvious that existing divergences in policy have a substantial impact upon the aims of the CEAS. It can be assumed that the difference in governmental practices involving recognizing asylum seekers on refugee grounds or subsidiary protection grounds may be a substantial factor in the decision-making process on where to apply for international protection. The European Commission stressed the importance, during the second phase of the CEAS, of paying particular attention to subsidiary and other forms of protection. (shrink)

In 2012 there are 76 countries of the world still criminalising same-sex sexual acts between consenting adults. In seven of those countries homosexual acts are punishable with death penalty (i. e., Mauritania, Sudan, the northern states of Nigeria, the southern parts of Somalia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen). Homophobic (transphobic) attitudes are also frequent in many societies. However, the LGBT asylum seekers are frequently left outside the refugee definition due to many refugee qualification and procedural problems in LGBT cases. Criminalisation, (...) state protection against non-state persecution, concealment of sexual or gender identity, internal protection were discussed in the previous article ‘The Refugee Qualification Problems in LGBT Asylum Cases’ by Laurynas Biekša2. In this article the authors aim to describe the main procedural problems in LGBT asylum cases (i. e., credibility assessment, late disclosure, country of origin information and reception) and propose their solutions. Guiding European and international standards are laid down in the Reception Directive3, Qualification Directive4, Procedures Directive5 and UNHCR Guidance Note6. Today these standards should serve as a starting point for identifying the problems LGBT asylum seekers may have during their asylum procedures and for finding possible solutions. (shrink)

The 6th of February 2005 marks the deadline of transposition of the EU Council Directive No. 2003/9/EC (Reception Conditions‘ Directive) into national legislation. This article is the second in a series of articles on transposition of the European Union Asylum Directives in Lithuania and remaining concerns. It analyses the transposition of the Reception Conditions Directive in the country, the impact of the directive‘s provisions on the development of the Lithuanian asylum law and draws attention to the remaining concerns in relation (...) to implementation of this directive in Lithuania. The authors illustrate the remaining concerns with practical and live examples/stories from Lithuania. (shrink)

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees embody fundamental provisions of refugee law. However, since the adoption of these documents the world has changed dramatically and the laws are not developing fast enough in order to catch up with dynamically changing contemporary situations. The application and interpretation of definition of a refugee was developed through traditional practice of Western states, which was influenced by two world wars and the (...) Cold War, when refugees from Africa or Asia were uncommon. The Qualification Directive specifically aims at ensuring that the member states apply common qualification criteria for persons who need international protection in line with the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The author supports the statement that the Qualification Directive in principle aims at bringing back under the definition of refugee those, who have been left outside of its scope during the last decades as a result of the restrictive interpretation and application of the definition of refugee. (shrink)

In 2011 there are 76 countries of the world still criminalising same-sex sexual acts between consenting adults. In seven of those countries homosexual acts are punishable with death penalty (i.e., Mauritania, Sudan, the northern states of Nigeria, the southern parts of Somalia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen). Homophobic (transphobic) attitudes are also frequent in many societies. However, the LGBT asylum seekers are frequently left outside the refugee definition due to many refugee qualification problems in LGBT cases. Therefore, in this article the (...) author aims to describe the main refugee qualification problems in LGBT asylum cases (i.e., criminalisation; state protection against non-state persecution; concealment of sexual or gender identity; internal protection) and propose their solutions. Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 has several important provisions including LGBT asylum seekers into otherwise gender-neutral refugee definition. Today these provisions need to be correctly interpreted and transposed into practice of the Member States. (shrink)

Internal protection alternative (further—IPA) as the element of refugee definition is interpreted very differently in the practice of the State Parties to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (further—Geneva Convention). Thus it is important to regulate this concept clearly in the EC directive 2004/83/EB (further—Qualification directive) and its coming amendments. The definition of the IPA concept does not contain adequate criteria for assessing the level and effectiveness of protection required, in line with the (...) Geneva Convention and the ECHR, thus allowing Member States to reject claims and return applicants to their country of origin despite the lack of effective protection. Moreover, this concept is defined in a broad and vague manner which creates a risk of diverse recognition practices. (shrink)

Article deals with the situation of enforcement of intellectual property rights in Lithuania after the implementation of 2004 Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. First, the authors outline the importance of the proportionality principle which is embedded in the text of the directive, but sometimes may be overlooked because of the rhetoric openly orientated to right holders. Then, the legislative changes in Lithuania’s intellectual property laws (...) and tendencies in case law are analyzed. The main findings of the research show that despite considerable changes in Lithuanian laws, the situation in case law was not in fact influenced. (shrink)