[1. “Apklausa parodė kaip ir kokių profesijų teisininkais pasitikima” (The survey showed what legal profession is trusted the most). delfi.lt (2013) // http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/law/apklausa-parode-kaip-ir-kokiu-profesiju-teisininkais-pasitikima.d?id=63581460.]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Berkmanas, Tomas. “Doing Sanctions with Words: Legacy, Scope, Fairness and Future (?) of a Reprimand.” International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse 6 (2016): 25–36.]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Buišienė, Ona. “Valstybės valdžių ir valstybės institucijų sistemų konstituciniai pagrindai” (The Constitutional Grounds of the State Government and the State Institutions): 521–539. In: Toma Birmontienė and Arūnas Baublys, eds. Lietuvos Konstitucinė teisė (Lithuanian Constitutional Law). Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2012.]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Council of the European Union. “Summary on a question-by-question basis from the answers given by the Member States to the questionnaire on case law” (2005) // http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2014577%202005%20INIT.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Deviatnikovienė, Ieva. Administracinė teisė: kategorijos, apibrėžimai, užduotys (Administrative Law: Categories, Definitions, Tasks). Vilnius: Justitia, 2009.]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Dobryninas, Aleksandras, and Anna Drakšienė, eds. Pasitikėjimo Lietuvos teisėsauga profiliai (Trust in Lithuanian law enforcement profiles). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2012.]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Eotvos Karoly Institute. “Publicity in the Administration of Justice and the Disclosure of the Court Decisions.” (2009) // http://www.right2info.org/resources/publications/publications/EKINT%20-%20Publicity%20in%20the%20Administration%20of%20Justice_2009.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Greer, Steven. “The exceptions to Articles 8 to 11 and of the European Convention on Human Rights.” Human Rights Files 15 (1997): 5–59.]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Gruodytė, Eita, and Saulė Milčiuvienė. “Ar Lietuvoje taikomas teismų procesinių sprendimų nuasmeninimas nepažeidžia visuomenės informavimo principo?” (Does anonymization of judicial decisions in Lithuania comply with the principle of freedom to receive information). Studijos šiuolaikinėje visuomenėje 7 (1) (2016): 184–196.]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Kiršienė, Julija, and Charles F. Szymanski. “Vertybinių nuostatų ugdymo, rengiant teisininkus universitete, galimybės” (A Value-Based Approach to Teaching Legal Ethics). Jurisprudencija 19 (4) (2012): 1327–1342.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Kiršienė, Julija. “Trimatė teisininko profesijos krizės problema” (The crisis of legal profession as three-dimensional problem). Jurisprudencija 22(2) (2015): 191–205.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Lankauskas, Mindaugas. “Balansavimas tarp teisės į privatumą ir saviraiškos laisvės Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo jurisprudencijoje” (Balancing the Right to Privacy from the Freedom of Expression According to the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights). Teisės problemos 2 (56) (2007): 103–131.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. “Noteikumi par tiesu informācijas publicēšanu mājaslapā internetā un tiesu nolēmumu apstrādi pirms to izsniegšanas” (Rules of court publication of information on the Internet homepage and judicial decisions on treatment prior to their issue) // http://likumi.lv/doc.php?id=187832.]Search in Google Scholar
[14. “Report on Access to Judicial Information. Open society.” Justice initiatives (March 2009) // http://www.right2info.org/resources/publications/publications/Access%20to%20Judicial%20Information%20Report%20R-G%203.09.DOC.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Šindeikis, Algimantas. “Teismų procesinių sprendimų nuasmeninimo konstitucingumo problemos” (Constitutional problems of depersonalizing judicial procedural decisions). Jurisprudencija 3 (117) (2009): 41–58.]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Sinkevičius, Vytautas. “The Law and the Substatutory Act in the Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court”: 322–376. In: Egidijus Jarašiūnas and Egidijus Kūris, eds. Constitutional Justice in Lithuania. Vilnius: The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, 2003.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. “Support to the Kazakh authorities in improving the quality and efficiency of the Kazakh justice system. Report on the Accessibility to Judicial Decisions through Publication Standards.” Joint Programme between the European Union and the Council of Europe (2015) // https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/cdcj/co-operation_projects/criminal_justice_reform_kazakhstan/Press-Release-18-01-2016/EN_CoE%20%20Kazakhstan%20Report_11%2001%202016.pdf.]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Versmissen, Koen. Expert Report on Access to Court Decisions and Protection of Personal Data in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Skopje: OSCE Mission to Skopje, 2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[19. “Visuomenė labiausiai pasitiki notarais, mažiausiai antstoliais” (Society trust most in notaries, least – in bailiffs). delfi.lt (2015) // http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/visuomene-labiausiai-pasitiki-notarais-maziausiai-antstoliais.d?id=69835478.]Search in Google Scholar
[1. Campbell v. the United Kingdom. The European Court of Human Rights, 1992, no. 13590/88.]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Lietuvos Aidas, 1992, no.33-1014.]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Huvig v. France. The European Court of Human Rights, 1990, no. 11105/84.]Search in Google Scholar
[4. K.B. v. National Health Service Pensions Agency and Secretary of State for Health. The Court of Justice of the European Union, 2004, C-117/01.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Kruslin v. France. The European Court of Human Rights, 1990, no. 11801/85.]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 1994, no. 46-851.]Search in Google Scholar
[7. P v. S and Cornwall County Council. The Court of Justice of the European Union, 1996, C-13/94.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Resolution No. 13P-378 On the Publishing of Judicial Decisions, Judgments, Rulings on the Internet. Judicial Council (September 9, 2005) // www.teismai.lt/data/public/uploads/2005/09/20050909-378.doc.]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Resolution of the Judicial Council On the Publishing of Judicial Procedural Decisions and Decisions of Judges Disciplinary Matters. TAR, 2015, no. 2015-19002.]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of December 19, 1996. Official Gazette, 1996, no. 126-2962.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of December 21, 1999. Official Gazette, 1999, no. 109-3192.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of March 15, 2000. Official Gazette, 2000, no. 23-585.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of May 9, 2006. Official Gazette, 2006, no. 51-1894.]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of October 26, 1995. Official Gazette, 1995, no. 89-2007.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of September 19, 2005. Official Gazette, 2005, no. 113-4131.]Search in Google Scholar
