At the constitutional level, the human right to receive information is established by Article 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. According to this Article, a person shall not be prevented from seeking, receiving and disseminating information (para. 2); the freedom to receive and disseminate information shall not be restricted except by law, if necessary to protect a person's health, honour and dignity, private life, morals or to defend the constitutional order (para. 3); a citizen shall have the right to receive, in accordance with the procedure laid down by law, the information about him or her that is in the possession of the State bodies (para. 5). These provisions are inseparable from the general principle enshrined in the Constitution that public authorities serve the people (Article 5(3) of the Constitution). The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, interpreting the above-mentioned constitutional provisions, has consistently stated that the constitutional freedom to seek, receive and disseminate information unhindered is one of the foundations of an open, just, harmonious civil society and a democratic state, and that the Constitution guarantees and protects the public's interest to be informed (see the Constitutional Court's Opinion of 23 October 2002 on the Constitution, No, The Constitutional Court's decision of 23 October 2002, the Constitutional Court's decision of 4 March 2003, the Constitutional Court's decision of 26 January 2004, the Constitutional Court's decision of 8 July 2005, the Constitutional Court's decision of 19 September 2005, the Constitutional Court's decision of 29 September 2005, the Constitutional Court's decision of 21 December 2006, and the Constitutional Court's decision of 17 November 2011) The constitutional right to access information is an important prerequisite for the exercise of various personal rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of 21 December 2006). The Constitutional Court has noted that the exercise of human rights and freedoms and the safeguarding of other constitutional values depend to a large extent on the access to and use of information from various sources (Resolution of 29 September 2005). The Constitutional Court has repeatedly stated in its acts that the freedom of information is not absolute, and that the Constitution does not allow for the establishment of a legal regulation which, by establishing guarantees for the implementation of the freedom of information by law, would create preconditions for the violation of other constitutional values and their balance (e.g., Resolution of the Constitutional Court dated 15 May 2007). The Constitution provides for the possibility to restrict the freedom of information if it is necessary to protect human health, honour and dignity, private life, morality or to defend the constitutional order, i.e. if the restrictions on the freedom of information are aimed at protecting, defending the values referred to in Article 25(3) of the Constitution, the list of which (contained in the Article 25(3) of the Constitution) as in its 2005 The list of constitutional values listed in Article 25(3) of the Constitution, as stated by the Constitutional Court in its rulings of 19 September 2005 and 29 September 2005, cannot be regarded as exhaustive, and therefore does not allow for the restriction of the freedom to receive and disseminate information where it is necessary to protect other constitutional values not expressly mentioned in Article 25(3) of the Constitution. The Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Right to Obtain Information from State and Municipal Institutions and Bodies regulates in detail the legal relations concerning the right of a person to obtain information from state and municipal institutions and bodies. Article 1(1) of this Law stipulates that this Law guarantees the right of persons to obtain information from state and municipal institutions and bodies, establishes the procedure for the exercise of this right, and regulates the actions of state and municipal institutions and bodies in the provision of information to persons. The Law on the Right to Information implements both the right to obtain information on a person held by public bodies in relation to the performance of public administration functions, as laid down in Article 25(5) of the Constitution, and aims to create favourable conditions for persons to obtain information held by state and municipal institutions and bodies and to use it for commercial or non-commercial purposes. Article 3(1) of the Law on Access to Information stipulates that institutions are obliged to provide information to applicants. Refusal to provide information may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Law. In addition, this Law implements Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information.
The Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania proclaims the aspiration for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and the rule of law (inter alia, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, 9 December 1998, 18 October 2000). The Constitutional Court has repeatedly stated that the constitutional principle of the rule of law is a universal principle which underpins the entire Lithuanian legal system and the Constitution itself. The constitutional principle of the rule of law implies, among other things, that human rights and freedoms must be guaranteed, that all State authorities and other State institutions exercising State power must act in accordance with the law and in obedience to the law, that the Constitution has the supreme legal force, and that laws, government resolutions and other legal acts must comply with the Constitution (inter alia, the Constitutional Court's Resolution of 23 February 2000). Inherent in the constitutional principle of the rule of law are also the imperatives, enshrined in Article 5 of the Constitution, that the powers of the authorities are limited by the Constitution and that the authorities are at the service of the people, as well as the constitutional principle of responsible government, which implies that state institutions and officials must exercise their functions in accordance with the Constitution and the law, in the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, and in the proper exercise of the powers granted to them by the Constitution and the law (inter alia, the finding of the Constitutional Court on 26 October 2012). These fundamental constitutional imperatives and the various requirements they imply for legislative acts are also applicable to public administrations when they carry out administrative regulation. When adopting normative administrative acts, public administrative authorities must act within the limits of the competence defined in the legal acts governing their activities, respect the hierarchy of legal acts, the procedures for adopting and promulgating a legal act, and ensure that normative administrative acts comply with the Constitution and the principles and other requirements laid down in the Constitution and in the laws (inter alia, the Law on Public Administration). The legality of legal acts is one of the conditions for a person's confidence in the State and the law. Laws may not contradict the Constitution, and by-laws may not contradict the Constitution and laws. The principle of the legality of regulatory administrative acts is implemented through the institution of administrative justice. The Law on Administrative Proceedings of the Republic of Lithuania establishes the competence of administrative courts to hear normative administrative cases, i.e. to investigate the conformity of a specific normative administrative act (or part of a normative administrative act) with a higher-ranking legal act (or part of a legal act). After the legality review, the administrative court may declare that the examined normative administrative act (or a part thereof) is lawful or declare that it is contrary to the law or a normative legal act of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (Article 117(1) of the Law on Administrative Proceedings). An important consequence of the declaration of unlawfulness of a normative administrative act is that the normative administrative act (or part thereof) may not, generally, be applied as from the date on which the final decision of the administrative court declaring the normative administrative act (or part thereof) to be unlawful has been published officially (Article 118(1) of the Law on Administrative Proceedings).
4. The current Lithuanian administrative law system in terms of the content of the values of democracy and the rule of law, trust in public administration and respect for citizens' rights
Across Europe, the demand for justice is growing, increasing the workload of the judiciary and necessitating a constant re-engineering of working methods in an often-difficult budgetary environment. The development of e-Justice is one of the most important aspects of the modernisation of judicial systems. The introduction of information and communication technologies in the administration of the judiciary provides an opportunity to find ways to improve the functioning of the justice system, rationalise legal procedures and reduce costs. The development of information dissemination processes using modern electronic means is undoubtedly important for law enforcement and the judicial system. The European e-Justice Strategy is designed to create a European judicial area using information and communication technologies. The main objective of e-Justice is to make justice across Europe more efficient and more useful for citizens. From a technical point of view, e-Justice is aligned with the broader e-Government system. The European e-Justice system is implemented in the European e-Justice portal (
https://e-justice.europa.eu/).
The fair and efficient resolution of disputes arising in the field of public administration is usually ensured by specialised courts, namely administrative district courts and the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. The procedure for handling disputes before these courts is regulated by the Law on Administrative Proceedings of the Republic of Lithuania (the APL). It should be noted that the Administrative Court decides on disputes concerning law in the field of public administration. The court does not assess the contested administrative act and action (or inaction) from the point of view of political or economic expediency, but only determines whether in a particular case a law or other legal act has been violated, whether the administrative entity has not exceeded its competence, and whether the act (action) is in accordance with the objectives and tasks for which the institution was established and for which it was given the relevant powers (Art. 3 of the APL).
Each entity of the public administration system, in carrying out the functions assigned to it, is guided not only by the general Law on Public Administration but also by the special laws regulating the sphere of public administration in which it has been given the competence to carry out public administration, as well as by the sub-statutory acts related to the implementation of these laws (such as, for example, the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Local Self-government, the Law on the State Civil Service; Law on tax administration of the Republic of Lithuania; the Law on State Environmental Control of the Republic of Lithuania; the Competition Law of the Republic of Lithuania etc.).
The case law of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania shows that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is of particular relevance when dealing with issues relating to European Union law in the field of public administration, freedoms and principles, inter alia, the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter (see, e.g. Judgment of 29 March 2012 in Administrative Case No A822-2220/2012; Judgment of 7 July 2015 in Administrative Case No eA-2266-858/2015; Judgment of 8 December 2010 of the Extended Chamber of Judges in Administrative Case No A756-686/2010, Bulletin of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, Bulletin of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania No 20, 2010). The Court of Justice of the European Union has recognised the right to good administration as a general principle of law in its case law.
According to the definition set out in the LPA, public administration is the activities of public administration entities regulated by law and intended to implement legislation: administrative regulation, adoption of administrative decisions, supervision of the implementation of legislation and administrative decisions, provision of administrative services, and administration of public service provision. Public administration comprises five main areas in which public administration entity’s function, namely:
administrative decision-making.
monitoring the implementation of laws and administrative decisions.
the provision of administrative services.
the administration of the provision of public services.
internal administration of the public administration entity.
The jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania emphasises the obligation of public administration entities to comply with the principles of law (see, e.g., the ruling of 1 March 2012 in administrative case No A502-1605/2012, the decision of 28 June 2012 in administrative case No A492-2045/2012, and the decision of 3 April 2014 in administrative case No A492-801/2014).
Good public administration is based on the principles laid down in Article 3 of the Law on Public Administration (see in this respect the judgment of 30 April 2012 in administrative case No A492-1978/2012). Proper, responsible management, as repeatedly emphasised in the practice of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, is inseparable from the requirements of good administration (see the decision of the Extended Chamber of Judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania of 21 December 2015 in administrative case No I-7-552/2015).
In the case law of the European Union, the principle of good administration is treated as part of the general principles of law (in this respect, see the judgment of 23 September 2014 in administrative case No A858-47/2014 and the case-law of the CJEU cited therein).
The origins and scope of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) are closely linked to the international human rights protection mechanism. The concept of NHRIs is formulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 48/134 of 1993, which encourages Member States to establish NHRIs and emphasises the need for such institutions to adhere to the principles defining their status, guidelines for their operation, and basic requirements, known as the Paris Principles. UN Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions, 23 March 2017. The Parliamentary Ombudsman's Office was accredited as an NHRI (level A) in line with the Paris Principles. In 2017, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania adopted the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Law on the Seimas Ombudsmen of the Republic of Lithuania, which defined new areas of competence of the Seimas Ombudsmen in the performance of the functions of a national human rights institution.
The mission of the Seimas Ombudsmen is to pay attention to and assist each individual by protecting and respecting human rights and freedoms, promoting dialogue between individuals and the government, and ensuring that government institutions serve the people well. The implementation of social and economic rights remains a very topical issue: the Constitution of Lithuania enshrines the State's obligation to ensure the protection and defence of human dignity. This means that state institutions and officials must respect human dignity as a special value.
The crucial role of the NHRI in systematically analysing and synthesising information for reports, conducting investigations on substantive human rights issues, conducting assessments of national legislation in terms of its compliance with universally accepted human rights principles and standards, suggesting conditions for redressing possible human rights violations etc.
In terms of issues, 31% of all complaints received by the Seimas Ombudsmen in 2022 were related to the handling of complaints by individuals in state and municipal institutions, 30% were related to the restriction of liberty, 8% were related to the environment, and 6% were related to property issues. In 2022, the group of complaints concerning the rights of foreigners stood out compared to the previous year (3% of all complaints examined). This relates to ensuring the rights of war refugees from Ukraine and persons who have crossed the Lithuanian-Belarusian border into the Republic of Lithuania. The percentage of complaints on other issues remained similar. The provisions of the Law on the Seimas Ombudsmen give the Seimas Ombudsmen the right to make suggestions (recommendations) which must be examined by an institution and body or official and to inform the Seimas Ombudsmen of the results of the examination. In 2022, the Seimas Ombudsmen made a total of 1741 recommendations. The largest number of recommendations made by the Seimas Ombudsmen is in relation to the Ministries of Justice (501), Interior (206), Environment (156), Agriculture (140) and Social Security and Labour (66) and the bodies under their management.
The State Audit Office is the supreme audit institution, which monitors the legal management and use of state funds and assets and the implementation of the state budget. It is the only institution in the European Union that simultaneously performs the functions of three bodies: the Supreme Audit Institution (SAI), the European Union Investment Audit Institution (EUIAI), and the Budget Monitoring Authority (BMA). The State Audit Office carries out public audits as part of its tasks. A state audit is an independent and objective assessment carried out by the Supreme Audit Institution on audited entities.