[ad_1]
1 photoVenckienė syringe. Photo by Elta.
At the Neringa Venckienė hearing that took place today at the Panevėžys Regional Court, the Court was asked to demand evidence that in 2012. May 17, the invasion of the judge’s house by the police and the sheriff and the The application of physical coercion and other restrictions against it took place in accordance with the law, that is, after the immunity of the judge in force at the time was waived.
In addition, the request alleges that, pursuant to Article 47 (2) of the Judicial Law in force at that time, it was prohibited to enter the residence or office of a judge, search it, search it or confiscate it in the private or official car of a judge or other means of personal transportation, or examination or registration of the person of a judge, examination or seizure of objects and documents belonging to him, except in cases established by law.
Article 47 of the Courts Act details paragraph 2 of article 114 of the Constitution, which contains a provision that, without the Seimas or between its sessions without the consent of the President, “a judge cannot be prosecuted, arrested or deprived of your freedom. “
During the assault, the intrusion of a judge established in paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 47 of the Courts Act prohibited the intrusion of the police into the judge’s homes and other restrictions on the judge’s freedom. However, on May 17, 2012, she entered Judge Neringa Venckien’s living room and the judge’s freedom was restricted: her arms were broken and she was injured.
After becoming familiar with the criminal case, Neringa Venckienė did not find the consent of either Seimas or President Dalia Grybauskaitė to carry out such actions, although this was established by the current Courts Act.
According to Judge Neringa Venckienė, it is necessary to discover this important circumstance, because without the special consent established by law, the sheriff and the police officers could not begin to enforce the judicial decision regarding the application of procedural coercion against the judge. If the consent of the Seimas or the President has not been obtained, it is not Neringa Venckienė who is responsible for the alleged non-execution of the judicial decision, but the bailiff and the police officers should be responsible for the possible illegal execution of the decision. judicial.
Neringa Venckienė asked the court to demand information from the bailiff S. Vaicekauskienė if the consent of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania had been obtained, and between sessions of the Seimas, the consent of the President of the Republic of Lithuania in 2012. May 17 to enter the house of Judge N. Venckienė, to restrict his freedom when he requested the consent of the Seimas or the President of the Republic of Lithuania, or requested the Office of the Attorney General to request such consent, which was the response. If S.Vaicekauskienė refuses to provide the data, the court is asked to directly demand from Seimas and the President of the Republic of Lithuania if a request has been received in those institutions to obtain permission to enter the judge’s house, to restrict your freedom.
[ad_2]
