Search

The aim of this article is to analyse the essence of the harmonisation of public and private interests in the public service. The necessity of the harmonisation of public and private interests in the public service is based on the following features: civil service reliability and implementation of its purpose in order to guarantee the public interest; clear, binding standards of conduct applicable to all persons employed in the public service, regardless of their duties and career development nature; aim to prevent the emergence and spread of corruption in the public service; constitutional requirements for the implementation of public service. The article reveals that there are two key elements of a conflict of interest: 1) official duties that ensure the implementation of a public interest; 2) private interest which may negatively affect the performance of official duties. It follows that if a conflict of interest in the public service is not resolved or addressed properly, sooner or later it turns into corruption, and cause significant damage to the state itself. It is therefore very important timely identification, removal and management of the conflict of interest.

The article analyses an in-house procurement concept in the contexts of scientific doctrine, substantive law and legal practice. The Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC is discussed in the part of provisions regulating cases where a public contract between public entities is not a subject to public procurement procedures. In addition, statistical data of in-house procurements in Lithuania are presented and threats of in-house procurement concept application as well as possibilities of improvement thereof are assessed.

The aim of this article is to analyse the administrative and official (disciplinary) responsibility for violations of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the Civil Service. It is shown that the regulatory failures preconditions to abuse with apply the law norms defining the administrative and official (disciplinary) responsibility for violations of the requirements of that law or altogether avoid this responsibility. This argument is supported by the analysis of the said law norms in the context of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania official constitutional doctrine, the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania and the Chief Official Ethics Commission practices. In order to ensure implementation of the principle of inevitability of administrative responsibility, it is advisable to do the following: to set the obligation for the COEC to apply to the court for administrative penalties for persons who violate the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the Civil Service; to unify terms of imposition of administrative penalties and ivestigation of possible conflicts of interests; to determine the administrative responsibility of the COEC for failure to comply with legal requirements. For tThe purposes of official (disciplinary) responsibility is often the substance of the procedural irregularities that may have a decisive influence on official inspection results and the legitimacy of the penalties. In order to ensure the control of the self-regulatory mechanism of the implementation of that law, the rational use of material, human resources, avoid duplication of functions, it is advisable to set the state and municipal institutions and agencies to pursue independently (at no additional investigation of COEC) and apply official responsibility for said law violations. Official (disciplinary) responsibility directly impacts the frame of the civil service, improves the image and gives people’s trust. Taking into account the above stated, it is advisable to set the obligation for the COEC to offer a collegial state or local authority, state or municipal agency, or the head of a superior state or municipal institution or agency to apply official (disciplinary) sanctions for persons who violate the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the Civil Service.

Straipsnyje atskleidžiama, kad dabartinis teisinis reguliavimas, nustatantis apribojimus ir draudimus asmenims, pažeidusiems Viešųjų ir privačių interesų derinimo valstybinėje tarnyboje įstatymo reikalavimus, kai kuriais svarbiais aspektais stokoja konstitucinio pagrindimo, aiškumo ir vidinės darnos. Tai sudaro prielaidas nevienodai aiškinti ir taikyti teisės normas, nustatančias apribojimus ir draudimus už minėto įstatymo reikalavimų pažeidimus. Šie teiginiai pagrindžiami analizuojant su tyrimo objektu susijusias teisės normas Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo oficialiosios konstitucinės doktrinos, Lietuvos vyriausiojo administracinio teismo jurisprudencijos ir Vyriausiosios tarnybinės etikos komisijos veiklos praktikos kontekste. The aim of this article is to analyse restrictions and prohibitions for violations of Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the Civil Service. The article reveals that the current legal regulation imposing restrictions and prohibitions on persons who violate Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the Civil Service in some important aspects is not constitutionally based, uncertain and unsustainable. It is shown that the regulatory failures preconditions differently interpret and apply the law norms defining the restrictions and prohibitions for violations of the requirements of the mentioned law. This argument is supported by the analysis of the said law norms in the context of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania official constitutional doctrine, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania and the Chief Official Ethics Commission practices.