MULTIPLE LEGAL STATUSES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: LIMITATIONS AND CONFLICTS

Abstract

The article analyses the essence of the possibility of the multiplicity of legal positions (statuses) of a person in criminal proceedings and the essence of limitations (prohibitions), as well as their causality. Using various methods of research, i.e. systematic analysis, comparative analysis, induction, logical-linguistic, content interpretation and other equally important methods, the question is raised whether the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter – CPC), which prohibit certain procedural subjects of the Republic of Lithuania from acquiring and exercising a different status in the same criminal proceedings, are properly interpreted and applied in the judicial practice. It was established that the judicial practice in criminal matters is much more flexible in interpreting the multiplicity of a person's legal position in criminal proceedings. However, this is not just.. In particular, with regard to the impossibility for an expert and a specialist to participate in the proceedings if he or she is, inter alia, a civil plaintiff or a civil defendant in the case (Art. 57(2) of the CPC), the case-law nevertheless finds a niche for an exception to the mentioned prohibition. The author argues that this practice not only distorts the systematic nature of the provisions of the CPC, but is also inconsistent with the principled provisions of criminal procedure law. This distorts the harmony of procedural functions and creates an internal contradiction (conflict) when it comes to reconciling and implementing the interests of the subject of special knowledge and the interests of the civil plaintiff/defendant in a particular criminal proceeding.

The article thus sets out the reasons why the interests (procedural and substantive) of the above-mentioned procedural subjects in the same criminal proceedings cannot be reconciled, the difference between the status of the subject of the special knowledge and that of the plaintiff or the defendant, and the harm that may be caused despite the prohibition in Article 57(2) of the CPC. At the same time, the article points out that the evolving case law on the issue may be due to an inadequate interpretation of legal clarity and legal certainty as constitutional principles of legal regulation. It is very important to understand the harmonisation between the provisions of the CPC and other legal acts, the interpretation of conflicts of norms, and the ways of resolving these conflicts through legal principles. It must be emphasised that in Lithuania, the procedure of criminal proceedings is exclusively governed by the criminal procedure laws in force at the time of the proceedings. Meanwhile, the use of other legal acts in criminal proceedings is only allowed in one case – if it is expressly provided for in the CPC itself.