Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/124307
Type of publication: master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law (S001)
Author(s): Raščiukevičius, Osvaldas
Supervisor: Kargaudienė, Aušra
Title: Teisės akto, kuriuo pagrįstas teismo sprendimas, pripažinimas antikonstituciniu kaip pagrindas atnaujinti civilinį procesą
Other Title: Legal act, which was the basis for a judicial decision, declared as unconstitutional as the basis to reopen civil proceedings
Extent: 49 p.
Date: 6-Jun-2014
Keywords: civilinio proceso atnaujinimas;antikonstitucinis teisės aktas;Konstitucinis teismas;reopening of civil proceedings;unconstitutional legal act;Constitutional court
Abstract: Civilinio proceso atnaujinimas yra išimtinė procesinė priemonė, padedanti užtikrinti žmogaus teisę į teismą. Jo tikslas yra pašalinti galimai neteisėtą teismo sprendimą, taip įvykdant teisingumą ir išvengiant tokio sprendimo pasekmių. Tačiau pažvelgus į LR Civilinio proceso kodeksą, matome, jog Lietuvoje nėra įtvirtinta galimybė atnaujinti procesą, kuomet LR Konstitucinis Teismas pripažįsta teisės aktą, kuriuo teismas rėmėsi priimdamas sprendimą civilinėje byloje, prieštaraujančiu LR Konstitucijai. Suformuota LR teismų praktika draudžia proceso atnaujinimą civilinėse bylose šiuo pagrindu, kadangi būtų pažeistas teisinių santykių stabilumo bei teisinių santykių subjektų teisių ir pareigų apibrėžtumo principai. Tačiau priešingai nei civilinėse bylose, administracinėse bylose proceso atnaujinimas šiuo pagrindu yra leidžiamas. Panagrinėję užsienio valstybių teisinį reguliavimą, matome, jog apie pusė Europos valstybių leidžia proceso atnaujinimą šiuo pagrindu civilinėse bylose bylose, o baudžiamosiose bylose – beveik visos nagrinėtos valstybės. Žmogaus teisių užtikrinimo svarbą civilinėse bylose pabrėžia Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas. Nors EŽTT laikosi nuomonės, jog proceso atnaujinimą riboja teisinio tikrumo principas, tačiau tam tikrais atvejais proceso atnaujinimas gali būti efektyviausia priemone atstatant teisingumą, kuris buvo paneigtas pažeidus žmogaus teises. Tuo tarpu LR Konstitucinis Teismas laikosi pozicijos, jog proceso atnaujinimas nagrinėjamu pagrindu yra konstitucinių asmens teisių gynimo priemonė. Neleidus atnaujinti proceso minėtu pagrindu, Lietuvos teisės sistemoje liktų antikonstitucinio teisės akto sukeltos antikonstitucinės pasekmės, kurios sudarytų prielaidas pažeisti eilę LR Konstitucijoje įtvirtintų principų bei vertybių, dėl ko būtų rizikuojama sugriauti Lietuvos valstybės pamatą. Dar daugiau – proceso atnaujinimas padėtų įgyvendinti asmenų teisę į teisminę gynybą. Kad būtų išspręsta nagrinėjama problemą, siūlytini keli jos sprendimo būdai: kreipimasis į LR Konstitucinį Teismą dėl CPK 366 straipsnio konstitucingumo bei išankstinės konstitucinės kontrolės įvedimas. Bet kuris iš šių problemos sprendimo būdų padėtų užtikrinti LR Konstitucijoje įtvirtintus principus bei žmonių teises.
Reopening of civil proceedings is an exclusive procedural measure, which helps to ensure a right to court. It‘s aim is to remove possibly unlawful court decision, thus delivering justice and avoiding consequences of such decision. Therefore, reopening of civil proceedings seeks to protect not only interests of private parties, but also public interest. However, if we look to Code of Civil procedure of the Republic of Lithuania, we can see a lack of possibility in Lithuania to reopen proceedings, when Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania declares that law applied in a specific case is in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Lithuanian case law does not allow reopening of proceedings in civil cases based on mentioned ground, because otherwise principles of stability of legal relations and certainty of rights and duties of subjects‘ legal relations would be breached. Contrary to civil cases, administrative cases may be reopened based on mantioned grounds. Moreover, administrative courts examine cases regarding damages, incurred due to unlawful actions of public administration bodies, and these cases may also be reopened based on mentioned ground, though they are civil cases. Therefore, administrative courts case law and general competence courts case law differs on the question regarding reopening of proceedings in civil cases, when Constituional Court of the Republic of Lithuania declares that law applied in a specific case is in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Meanwhile, about half European states‘ laws, which were analysed in this work allows to reopen civil proceedings on mentioned grounds, and almost all states allow to reopen proceedings on mentioned ground in criminal cases. Such differentiation between civil and criminal cases is explained by the principle of lex benignor retro agit: if law, which was basis in criminal or administrative case, is declared void, such law has retroactive validity, if person‘s, who was penalised in such case, situation may be improved. Meanwhile, improving situation of one party in civil case, may worsen other party‘s situation. However, it must be noted, that in such situation other party‘s situation does not always worsen. Importance of violations of human rights in civil cases is underlined by European Court of Human Rights. Even though ECHR‘s view is that reopening of proceedings is limited by principle of legal certainty, in certain cases it may be the most effective way of restoring justice, which was denied by breaching human rights. Therefore, reopening of proceedings, when Constitutional Court declares act applied in a specific case is in conflict with Constitution, is justifiable in cases of violation of human rights. Meanwhile Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania deems that reopening of proceedings on examined ground is defensive measure meant to protect constitutional human rights. Lack of possibility to reopen proceedings on examined grounds would not allow to remove unconstitutional consequences induced by unconstitutional act from Lithuanian legal system, which in turn would create preconditions to violate numerous principles and values, including independence, democracy and innate nature of human rights and freedom, established in Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and therefore a risk to ruin foundations of the State of Lithuania, as the common good of the entire society which is consolidated in the Constitution. Moreover, reopening of proceedings would allow to accomplish person’s right to court. By not allowing to reopen proceedings on examined grounds persons, who go to court demanding to protect their breached rights before Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania deems law as unconstitutional and persons, who go to court after deeming law as unconstitutional, are treated unequally. Because current Lithuanian case law and laws related to examined problem are in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, this problem should be fixed. Therefore, we provide several different ways how to tackle this problem. The most logical one is to apply petition to Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania to examine constitutionality of article 366 of Civil procedure code of the Republic of Lithuania, arguing for the lack of ground to reopen proceedings in civil cases when when Constituional Court of the Republic of Lithuania declares that law applied in a specific case is in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. If Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania would decide that mentioned article is in conflict of Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, legislator would be obliged to change article 366 of Civil procedure code of the Republic of Lithuania, so it would allow to reopen proceedings on ground, examined in this work. Other effective way to tackle this problem is preliminary constitutional control. Although, it wouldn’t be possible to examine all laws, before they come into force, but it would prevent a significant part of unconstitutional laws from entering Lithuanian legal system and would ensure persons’ right to court. Any of these measures would allow to ensure principles, set in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and human rights.
Internet: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/124307
Appears in Collections:VDU, ASU ir LEU iki / until 2018

Files in This Item:
Show full item record
Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats
Export to Other Non-XML Formats


CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

6
checked on Jun 6, 2021

Download(s)

2
checked on Jun 6, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.