Lietuvos Respublikos administracinių bylų teisenos įstatymo 3 straipsnio 2 dalis ekonominio tikslingumo požiūriu (The 2nd Part of the Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Proceedings of the Republic of Lithuania from the Point of View of Economic Expediency)

Tradicinės ekonomikos mokslo ribos pleciasi ir vis labiau jis skverbiasi į kitas mokslo sakas. Ekonomistai tiria ir tokius socialinius reiskinius, kaip politika, santuoka ar savižudybės. Taciau ryskiausiai matoma siuolaikinio ekonomikos mokslo plėtra (kartu ir įtaka) yra orientuota į teise, kuri laikoma įrankiu visuomenės gerovei pasiekti. Lietuvos teisės diskurse taip pat pripažįstama, jog socialinės normos gali sėkmingai egzistuoti ilgą laiką, jei jų teikiama nauda yra didesnė nei sąnaudos joms sukurti ar palaikyti, t. y. jog teisingumas ir efektyvumas daugeliu atvejų sutampa.Neatsižvelgiant į minėtąją natūralią teisės ir ekonomikos simbioze, Lietuvos Respublikos administracinių bylų teisenos įstatymo (ABTĮ) 3 straipsnio 2 dalyje įtvirtinta, kad teismas nevertina gincijamo administracinio akto bei veiksmų (ar neveikimo) politinio ar ekonominio tikslingumo požiūriu. Todėl vienas is sio darbo tikslų yra atsakyti į klausimą, ar ekonominio tikslingumo požiūriu ABTĮ 3 straipsnio 2 dalis gali būti taikoma sprendžiant gincus dėl administracinių aktų teisėtumo. Antra, siuo darbu siekiama paskatinti tarpdisciplinine diskusiją tarp Lietuvos teisės ir ekonomikos tyrėjų bei praktikų. Kaip ir bet kuri teisinė analizė, sis darbas taip pat pradedamas pirmiausiai nuo Konstitucijos ir požiūrio į jos 46 straipsnio 1 dalį. Antrojoje darbo dalyje isreiskiama nuomonė dėl Lietuvos teismo gebėjimų analizuoti teise ekonominio tikslingumo požiūriu, o treciojoje – apžvelgiama su ABTĮ 3 straipsnio 2 dalimi susijusi praktika. Ketvirtojoje dalyje dėstomas požiūris į ekonominius santykius, o isvadų dalyje ekonominio tikslingumo požiūriu įvertinama ABTĮ 3 straipsnio 2 dalis.The 2nd part of the article 3 of the law on Administrative Proceedings (LAP) obliges the administrative court to disassociate from the assessment of the circumstances significant for the case with regard to economic expedience. This rule is often used formally in the case law as the pretext to avoid the data analysis of the economic character. Of course, LAP article 3(2) guarantees the implementation of the right of discretion of the administrative authority; however the discretion has legal limits and thus it the object of judicial control.All the authorities have to create such organization rules of economic activity, which would secure the implementation of the economic system determined in the 1st part of the article 46 of the Constitution. Accordingly, all the authorities have to assess the future consequences of legal regulation on the Lithuanian economy, while the main criterion should be considered to be the economic effectiveness. The right of discretion protects only such voluntary choice of the politician, which was made following the maximal attempts to determine the alternatives, and thus the most effective solution was selected. It is evident that it is necessary to have the analytical methods of economic relations chosen and used properly for such an assessment.One of the possible methods to analyze the economic relations was developed in the theory of transaction costs. The costs of transactions are the costs of the operation of whole economic system, which are caused by the risk of non-implementation of promises (personal or State’s). Accordingly, the objective of all the authorities is to achieve as low costs of transactions as possible. For this purpose it is necessary to create such an institutional environment, where the costs caused by non-implementation of the promise would exceed the benefit of non-implementation and, what is most important, would be unavoidable.However, some of the administrative acts are characterized by the immunity to law consolidated in the LAP article 3(2), which is applied especially formally in the case law. When at least one participant in the market is present, who uses this immunity for opportunistic purposes, the risk of non-implementation of promises will be very high. There should also be noted that neither participant in the market can cause the damage equal to the opportunism of the State authority. Therefore the fundamental task of the law is to protect the individual from unfair economic subjects or ineffective actions of the government in all the stages of legal activity.It is evident that this goal can be achieved only when the administrative act is assessed with regard to economic validity, effectiveness and expedience. Thus as: (i) the courts have all the means and abilities to perform the economic analysis of law; (ii) the government’s opportunism can cause the major damage for the constitutional system of economy; and (iii) the immunity to law only increases the risk of damage appearance, the LAT article 3(2) should be assessed negatively with regard to economic expedience.