Search

Twenty-two EU member states, including Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, oblige some lay participation (lay judges/jury) in the administration of justice. However, the models of this institute differ among countries. Based on the analysis of lay participation models in Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, this article aims to point out and describe their advantages and disadvantages. To achieve this aim, qualitative research was carried out. The methods employed for data collection included thematic analysis and document selection. Document content analysis (i.e., the analysis of research papers, scientific literature on the topic, the Constitutions of Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, and other international and national legislation) was applied for data processing, and the methods of a dogmatic and comparative analysis were employed for data analysis. The findings of the research disclose that lay judges and jurors are ordinary citizens who work together with legal judges to decide several different types of criminal cases in the Danish and Swedish district and regional courts. Meanwhile, Sweden also has this institute in civil and administrative cases. Finland has only lay judges in criminal cases. This article is divided into four sections: the first section discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the Danish model; the second outlines the Swedish model; and the third describes the Finnish model. The last section compares these models and provides a discussion on the issue. Finally, the article provides conclusions based on the analysis of scientific sources and documents, and the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the introduction of the institute of individual constitutional complaint in the Lithuanian legal system, an additional opportunity arose for individuals to defend violated constitutional rights or freedoms, disputing the constitutionality of the legal regulation of criminal proceedings. Analyzing the practice of individual constitutional complaints regarding the constitutionality of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter – CCP) formed by the Constitutional Court, various reasons for their non-acceptance become apparent. Complaints are usually rejected on the grounds that the petitioners misinterpret the disputed legal regulation, raise the issue of its application rather than constitutionality, or associate the violation of their constitutional rights or freedoms with decisions that are not adopted on the basis of the disputed legal regulation or are not final. This article focuses on the requirement to use all the means of protection of one’s constitutional rights or freedoms established by law before applying to the Constitutional Court. Taking into account that, according to the CCP, certain decisions of a court or pre-trial investigation judge are final and not subject to appeal, this paper seeks to establish whether they are considered as such in the context of constitutional disputes. Although a person is not required to exercise the possibility of reopening a criminal case before filing an individual constitutional complaint, in certain cases decisions adopted in accordance with the legal regulation regulating it must be considered final within the meaning of Law on the Constitutional Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]