Конституционный суд
28 мая 2008 года
Facts
The case was initiated by the District Court of Rokiškis, which asked to examine whether the provision of the Code of Administrative Offences, which stipulates that in the trial of administrative offences, evidence is also collected and, if necessary, an expert or specialist is appointed by the courts as the bodies (officials) examining administrative offences, is not in contradiction with the Constitution.
Complaint
The applicant's request was based on the fact that, in administrative offence proceedings, the courts, in the administration of justice, should not be involved in the investigation phase of cases, in controlling the investigation and in supporting the prosecution. In the administration of justice, the court should deal with a case that has already been prepared and where the relevant data have already been collected to establish the truth in the case, and under the Code, the court is involved in establishing the facts of the case. In the applicant's view, by correcting errors in the investigation of the authority which drew up the administrative offence report and by collecting the missing evidence, the court plays the role of an accuser, thus introducing elements which are not characteristic of the administration of justice and violating the principles of separation of powers and independence. According to the applicant, the contested provision of the Code creates the precondition for the court to side with one party and, together with that party, to start collecting evidence against the other party. The court thus becomes biased.
Court‘s ruling
The Court found that the Code does not deviate from the requirements of the Constitution. The court (judge), when examining a case of administrative offence, is obliged to objectively and impartially examine, verify and evaluate the evidence of the administrative offence contained in the case and to make a correct decision on the guilt of the person accused. The Court noted that situations may arise where, during the trial, circumstances which are relevant for the adoption of a correct decision, but which have not been established by the person who drew up the administrative offence report, or where the material submitted to the court is insufficient for the adoption of a correct decision. In such a case, the court (judge) has the power to carry out the necessary procedural steps itself to investigate objectively and thoroughly all the circumstances of the case and to establish the truth in the case, since the administration of justice cannot depend solely on the material submitted to the court. At the same time, it is emphasised that, in the conduct of its proceedings, the court must act in such a way as to avoid any appearance of bias or dependence.
The power of the court (judge) to gather evidence in an administrative offence case does not mean that the persons drawing up the administrative offence report are exempted from the obligation to gather evidence. The Court noted that, although the legal regulation, where similar powers to collect evidence are granted to both institutions (officials) exercising executive power and courts administering justice, is legally flawed, this alone does not constitute a ground for declaring the contested provision unconstitutional. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court found that the provision of the Code is not contrary to the Constitution.