EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF COURT EFFICIENCY: THE CASE OF FIRST INSTANCE COURTS IN NORTH MACEDONIA

The article analyzes the main requirements for judges and the peculiarities of their activities in the regional courts of Galicia (1850–1918). It is noted that regional (district) courts acted as courts of second instance for the appeals against decisions of district courts as well as courts of first instance in a specified district when considering criminal and civil cases, the value of the subject matter of which was more than 1,000 crowns. Regional courts in Galicia, as courts of first instance, considered: civil cases (family disputes, guardianship cases, cases of restoration of rights, adoption, inheritance according to wills); criminal cases – cases of violation of state laws, anti-government activities, organization of illegal associations, murder, robbery, arson, cases of insulting the honor and dignity of the emperor or his family. Disputes of a mining, commercial and promissory nature, regardless of the price of the subject matter of the dispute, were considered by special senates of only a few regional/district courts in Galicia. In the proceedings of regional courts in Galicia, civil cases related to property and land disputes prevailed, and among criminal cases – the cases of political crimes, theft, forgery of money and documents, as well as infliction of bodily harm. Regional courts in Galicia acted as collegial judicial bodies and considered civil cases with three judges, and criminal cases with four judges. The judge of the regional court could be a person with a legal education who had to pass the relevant professional exams and complete a mandatory internship. At first, three state exams were to be passed: legal-historical, judicial and political. For their reception, a special commission was created in each higher educational institution by order of the Minister of Religions and Education. It had to determine the level of the candidate's legal training, i.e. whether the graduate has legal insight, whether he can conduct legal proceedings independently, or whether he has a good command of legal terminology. The subject of the legal history exam was Roman, church and German law, as well as the history of the Austrian state, judicial – Austrian civil, commercial and promissory law, civil procedure, Austrian criminal law and procedure. During the political exam, candidates demonstrated their knowledge of Austrian administrative law, science and policy of social economy, and financial legislation of the empire. The first exam was taken three times a year – in winter, summer and autumn, the other two – at any time during the year, except for holidays. Exams were held orally and publicly. Graduates were able to choose the language of the exam. The final grade was determined by the voting of the commission members. With a negative result, it was possible to retake the exam within the time limits set by the commission. The next step in the career of a lawyer was a mandatory free one-year judicial practice in the regional (district) court. One-year judicial practice was a mandatory condition for admission to the position of a judge, but its term was changed specifically for judicial candidates. From 1885, the internship period was extended to two years, and from October 1896 – to three years. After completing such practice, graduates of law faculties were usually appointed as auditors in a certain district court. The minimum requirement for admission to this position was the presence of a certificate of successful completion of legal history and judicial state exams. It was possible to get the position of a judge only after passing the qualifying judge exam. It was conducted by a special commission, which was created every year by order of the Minister of Justice at the High Regional Court. It included university law professors and practicing judges, usually from the same tribunal. The exam consisted of written and oral parts and aimed to reveal knowledge of civil and criminal law, process and procedures. The first part lasted two days, during which the candidates had to complete two tasks – to compile excerpts from acts with court decisions in civil and criminal court cases. Two hours were allotted for the oral exam, during which the applicant was examined in all areas of civil and criminal legislation. In addition, he had to know perfectly the system of functioning of the Austrian judiciary. Keywords: court, regional court, judiciary, Galicia, Austrian Empire.

This paper examines some aspects of the Greek courts. We use as an indirect measure for the time needed to dispense justice the ratio of cases remaining at the end of the year to total cases introduced. We document over time a steady increase in the time needed to dispense justice. Furthermore, it is examined if staffing with respect to caseload, and especially the lack of sufficient staffing for a given caseload, is a factor that contributes to the slow termination of cases in Greek courts. The analysis of the data suggests that the ratio of staff to total cases is a factor that does affect the time needed to terminate cases in appeals courts and higher civil courts of first instance, but not in administrative courts of first instance and lower civil courts of first instance. Therefore, the recommendation of the existing literature, following from the analysis mainly of first instance courts, to emphasize measures that simplify procedures and lead to an increase in accountability and competition should be adopted, at least for courts of first instance. For appeals courts, our results suggest that the improvement of the staff to case ratio may be paired with such measures, while the improvement of the quality of first instance rulings should also reduce the appeals rate. Finally, other measures of the quality of justice dispensing mechanism are examined. We document a steady increase in the appeals rate, which in turn suggests a decline in the quality of the decisions of the courts of first instance.

The scientific article is devoted to the characteristics and analysis of the legal force of the decisions of the court of first instance in the civil process and the legal consequences that arise. The author notes various issues that can be resolved by the decisions of the court of first instance during the consideration and resolution of a civil case, what significance this has for the participants in the process in general and the participants in the case in particular, as a result of which the problem of the legality of the decisions of the first instance court is actualized. It is argued that the rulings of the court of first instance in civil proceedings, as well as the court's decision, act as an act of justice. As a result, the analysis of the features of the legal force of the decisions of the court of first instance, compared to the decisions of the court of first instance, is carried out. It is noted that the legal force of the decisions of the court of first instance is their legal effect, which generates such legal consequences as immutability, exclusivity, obligation and prejudice. The specified legal consequences are analyzed, but in the context of the decisions of the court of first instance. It is argued that such a legal consequence as binding is most obviously manifested, since the decisions of the court of first instance must be implemented immediately from the moment they are announced or signed. For this, it is not even necessary to apply to the court for an executive document, as in the case of a court decision, since the decision of the court of first instance simultaneously acts as an executive document. On the other hand, such properties of the legal force of the court's decision as immutability, exclusivity and prejudiciality with respect to the decisions of the court of first instance in civil proceedings are manifested quite peculiarly. If for a court decision that has entered into legal force, immutability means the impossibility of appealing them, then, as a general rule, court decisions after their announcement or from the moment they are signed, that is, from the moment they entered into legal force, can be appealed to the courts of higher instances, and the last to cancel and change them or issue new ones. Exclusivity as a property of legal force is characteristic for some court decisions (for example, decisions closing proceedings in a case), but not for others. In most cases, failure to satisfy applications or petitions based on which resolutions were issued does not prevent a person from submitting identical petitions or applications again. As a rule, this is not characteristic of court decisions. If the prejudicial nature of court decisions clearly follows from the current Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, then such a property according to the decisions of the court of first instance, according to the position of the highest judicial body of Ukraine, is preserved only for those who decide the case on the merits.

The Jurist 70 (2010) 270–301 270 CONFORMITY OF SENTENCES: SOMETHING OLD YET SOMETHING NEW John J. M. Foster* Where two or three tribunal officials are gathered together, the topic of first instance-second instance relationships is sure to come up sooner or later. In some cases, the first instance canonists might express frustration that, after heeding the advice of the Apostolic Signatura to use grounds other than those for incapacity found in canon 1095, their second instance courts will not accept as proven any cases but those judged on canon 1095. Conversely, second instance canonists sometimes express exasperation at seeing from their first instance courts cases decided using only the incapacity to consent to marriage validly. The following scenario illustrates some aspects of this frustration: Betsy, a twenty-year old college student living at home, has experienced a good bit of abuse from her parents the past few years. She and her boyfriend Aaron have dated since meeting during freshman orientation. Despite a rocky courtship for several months, Betsy agrees to Aaron’s proposal of marriage. Seven months after the wedding, the parties divorce . For the purpose of this illustration, the court of first instance, which Betsy approaches sometime later to clarify her status in the Church, formulates the doubt on her incapacity to consent to marriage because she suffered “from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted.”1 In rendering its affirmative decision on this ground, the tribunal states that the abuse Betsy endured at home became so intolerable that, at the time of consent, she was psychologically at her wits end and was left incapable of discerning marriage with Aaron. When the acts and sentence of the case are transmitted to the duly appointed court of second instance, the officials there do not see Betsy as having been incapable of consenting to marriage. Rather, they see three other grounds as worthy of follow up. First, if the abuse at home was directed at pressuring Betsy to marry Aaron, then force and fear (c. 1103) might be appropriate, since, believing her parents’ threats to disown her, * School of Canon Law, The Catholic University of America 1 Codex Iuris Canonici auctoritate Ioannis Pauli PP. II promulgatus (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983) c. 1095, 2°; hereafter cited as 1983 code. conformity of sentences: something old, something new 271 2 Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Instruction Dignitas connubii (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2005); hereafter this source will be cited as DC followed by the article number. she could see no other way to escape the abusive pressure than to marry. Second, perhaps Betsy viewed marriage to Aaron as the way to escape the abuse at home, in which case she chose not marriage but escape. Total simulation might be the proper ground here (c. 1101 §2). Finally, if Betsy entered the marriage with the intention that she could regain her freedom to marry after an eventual divorce, then partial simulation contra bonum sacramenti might be more appropriate (c. 1101 §2). Inasmuch as the affirmative decision rendered by the court of first instance must be “confirmed at the appellate grade either by a decree or by a second sentence” before Betsy can enter a new marriage (c. 1684 §1), the procedural options available to the second instance court are limited. The first instance decision can be ratified by decree, or the case can be admitted to an ordinary examination (c. 1682 §2). In these options, the second instance court judges the case on the same formulation of the doubt decreed by the court of first instance (see c. 1639 §1). The court of second instance, however, also has the option of admitting a new ground and adjudicating it “as if in first instance” (tamquam in prima instantia; c. 1683). Given the facts presented here, the second instance court cannot confirm the first instance sentence by decree. Thus, the case must be opened to an ordinary examination. At this point, the higher court might decide that canon 1095, 2° was simply not proven and give the case a negative decision. Betsy then would have the option of...

As a result of the reform of the Ukrainian civil procedural law in 2017, civil justice has undergone significant changes – in courts of first instance may consider civil cases in a general procedure or in a simplified order. At the same time, the simplified procedure provides for two options: ordinary proceedings with court hearings or written proceedings, in which case proceedings are conducted without summoning of parties and without a court hearings. A generalization of the court practice of the courts of first instance, as a result of the analysis of 258 court decisions of first instance courts, approved during 2018 and available for research on the Single court decisions system website, provides an opportunity to highlight the most pressing issues arising in judicial practice and to suggest ways of their solution. Consequently, the problem of differentiation and the determination by courts of grounds for the consideration of civil cases is the subject of our attention in this article. To summarize, it was noted that court decisions mentioned in this part lack references to Part 1 of Art. 11 and Part 3 of Art. 274 CPC 2017 and, therefore, have no explanation as to why the case is being considered under simplified procedure and is classified as small claim or as a case which priority is a quick resolution of the case. In particular, these are cases concerning housing rights of citizens, recovery of alimony payments for the maintenance of young children, and the determination of the place of residence of young children. Authors concluded that in the legislation of other states, cases which are considered under simplified procedure are differentiated according to the value of claim, as well as to the specific category (Civil Procedures Rules 26.6 and 27.1, any claims with a value not exceeding 10,000 pounds, with special conditions concerning claims for damages revocation and claims of a tenant of a residential property to a lessor). At the same time, when deciding on the procedure for consideration of a case, the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 11 and part 3 of Article 274 should be used based on the principle of proportionality of civil proceedings and para 2 of Part 4 of Art 19 CPC 2017. In view of this, it is considered appropriate to draw attention to motivating the courts` decisions, as well as wider application of the provisions of the principles of proportionality of civil judicial proceedings and cooperation between the parties and the court to ensure the realization of the main task - effective protection of violated claimant`s rights.

Legal remedies applied in the proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union have some distinctive features as compared to the legal remedies used in the national judicial systems. At first, the communitarian justice system originally did not envisage the possibility of filing an appeal with this Court as a regular legal remedy but there were other remedies that could be pursued in respect of the judgments issued by the Court. After the establishment of the Court of First Instance, the Procedural Law of the European Union introduced the possibility of filing an appeal with the Court of Justice against the judgments of the Court of First Instance. Later, the Court of First Instance became competent to decide on appeals against the judgments rendered by the judicial panels, which were established in the meantime. The Court of First Instance and judicial panels reserved the possibility of using other legal remedies against the final decisions rendered by these judicial authorities. In this respect, the Lisbon Treaty did not bring any significant changes, except that the Court of First Instance was renamed into the General Court whereas the judicial panels were designated as specialized courts. Taking into account the system of legal remedies recognized by the Procedural Law of the European Union, the first part of the paper deals with appeals as a regular legal instrument for bringing the case before a higher instance court which is to review the judgment of a lower instance court, including appeals against the decisions of the General Court and specialized courts. In the second part of the paper, the authors focus on the legal remedies which are awarded by the same court that issued the judgment. This category includes the application of a third party and revision, which may be considered as extraordinary legal remedies, as well as the objection against the judgment by default, judgment interpretation, judgment rectification and supplementing the judgment, which are considered to be extraordinary procedural remedies.

ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ЗДІЙСНЕННЯ КОНТРОЛЮ КРАЙОВИМИ СУДАМИ У ГАЛИЧИНІ В СФЕРІ СУДОЧИНСТВА (1855-1918 рр.) Ковальчук І.В., доктор філософії у галузі права, старший викладач кафедри суспільно-політичних наук Вінницького національного технічного університету.

The article deals with the experience of the Austrian regional courts in Galicia, which was applied to form the district courts of the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic. It is noted that as a result of the reform of Austrian justice in the middle of the 19 th century a tripartite court system was created, where the regional courts were the courts of first instance (acting as courts of first instance in separate civil and complex criminal cases). In Galicia, as part of the Austrian Empire, the regional courts began their activities in 1855, in particular in L’viv, Krakow and Chernivtsi, while the rest were called district (first, also the border), and their number varied from 9 to 15 years at different times. The regional courts in Galicia were headed by the presidents and structurally each regional court was divided into civil and criminal departments (senates). In addition, they comprised a court chancellery, a division of civil-court deposits, a prison, a department in commercial affairs. It was shown that the regional court served as a court of first and second instance. He decided on complaints about the decisions of district courts, complaints about the image of a person in the state of the defendant, appeal to the sentences. In addition, he supervised the activities of the county courts, was a disciplinary court for court officials in his judicial district, who decided to admit to the lawyer’s oath. The district courts had the right of judicial review of administrative orders. At the same time, the right of judicial review was extended to all types of norms, which were called orders: from ministries to local self-government bodies. The judge had the right to declare invalid an order that contravened one of the laws or did not have a proper form of disclosure (for example, a police order). It was noted that the organization of the ZUNR judicial system, in particular of the district courts, was based on the experience of the former Austrian system in Galicia. An important factor in the implementation of Austrian law and the organization of the judiciary of the ZUNR was that the national political leadership was presented, first of all, by lawyers (K. Levytskyi, S. Dnistryanskyi, E. Petrushevych, etc.), who owned not only theoretical knowledge in a particular field, but as well had the experience of practical application of specific legal requirements. Keywords: district court, regional court, judicial system, judiciary, ZUNR.

Introduction. The increase in citizens’ complaints about the provision of medical care of inadequate quality, associated with the delayed transfer of patients from/to the ICU, necessitates monitoring of actual legal practice.The objective was to analyze materials of judicial practice – decisions of the courts of first instance, verdicts, appellate and cassation rulings, etc., in the text of which there was an indication of the delayed transfer of patients from/to the ICU.Materials and methods. Of 2103 materials of judicial practice from June 2013 to January 2025, the study included 43 court decisions, in the text of which there was an indication of the delayed transfer of patients from/to the ICU. Statistical processing was performed in Microsoft Excel and Jamovi (version 2.3.28).Results. The study included 35 court decisions that had been adopted based on the results of civil cases; the texts of 5 court decisions issued based on the results of civil cases substantiated information on the initiation of criminal cases on the same factual circumstances; 3 judicial act were made based on the results of criminal cases. The number of court orders containing information about delayed transfer of patients from/to the ICU increased by two every three years. The defendants were 44 medical organizations in 33 subjects of the Russian Federation. In civil cases, city and district hospitals were more likely to be defendants and co-defendants than university clinics and regional hospitals. A more common cause of deficiencies/defects in the provision of inadequate quality medical care in criminal cases was insufficient qualifications of employees compared to civil cases. In criminal cases, the defendants were mainly anesthesiologists and pediatricians, and the victim of the crime was a child under 18 years of age. Nine doctors were convicted, six of whom were serving sentences, three of them anesthesiologists. The actions of anesthesiologists were qualified under Articles 109, 293 and 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.Conclusion. An increase in the number of court orders related to the delayed transfer of patients from/to the ICU was revealed. City and district hospitals were mainly involved as defendants and co-defendants in civil cases, while the subjects of criminal liability were anesthesiologists and pediatricians.

Reopening of civil proceedings is an exclusive procedural measure, which helps to ensure a right to court. Its 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 mentioned 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 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. Meanwhile, about half European states“™ laws, which were analyzed 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 penalized 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, 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, in this work I 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 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. Other effective way to tackle this problem is preliminary constitutional control. Although, it would not 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.

This paper focuses on the institute of conciliation in criminal proceedings in first instance courts of the Russian Federation. The research aims to examine the unique aspects of the reconciliation institution in criminal proceedings used to resolve criminal cases through justice in first instance courts. The author employed various research methods, including formal legal analysis, comparative legal methods, and a systemic approach to achieve this aim. The use of formal legal analysis allowed for the definition of special procedures for making a court judgment in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Comparative legal analysis enabled the identification of the unique aspects of the reconciliation institution in criminal proceedings, which significantly differ from conciliation procedures in civil and arbitration proceedings. Applying a systemic approach to analyzing these features of reconciliation allowed for its consideration as a component of the system of special measures employed by the first instance court in criminal proceedings. It is concluded that differentiating the criminal procedural form preserves the guarantees necessary for achieving the objectives of the proceedings while maintaining its unity. All procedural features should be systematized and summarized in a special section of criminal procedure law. The court should be granted discretionary powers to integrate various features in a single case reasonably.

The main purpose of the article is to demonstrate on the matter of empirical material the importance of judges’ assessment of legally significant circumstances of the case for Russian civil and administrative proceedings. The subject of the research is the norms of the current procedural Russian legislation, the texts of the appellate rulings on cancellation of the decisions of the courts of first instance in civil and administrative cases of the Kaliningrad region, which entered into force in the period from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2020, and the data of judicial statistics of the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for 2017-2019. The author uses sociological and mathematical methods, as well as methods of content analysis of the texts of appeal rulings on the cancellation of decisions of the courts of first instance in civil and administrative cases. The novelty of the study is due to the fact that nobody has previously collected and analyzed statistical data on specific grounds for the complete cancellation of decisions of the courts of first instance in appeal order in civil and administrative cases in the Kaliningrad region. As a result of the analysis of specific empirical material, the author establishes that the judges' assessment of legally significant circumstances plays a key role for contemporary Russian legal proceedings. This is especially true for civil proceedings. This conclusion follows from the fact that every 25th decision of the court of first instance in civil proceedings is subject to complete cancellation. In 80% of such cases, the court's incorrect assessment of the legally significant circumstances of the case is the only or one of several grounds for cancellation.

This article examines the highly debated topic among sociologists, legal scholars and policy makers regarding the differential admissibility of expert evidence in criminal and civil cases. The U.S. standards and principles of the admission of scientific and non-scientific expert testimony has been greatly influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and concurrent cases commonly referred to as the Daubert trilogy. These cases have produced substantial legal commentary and some empirical research examining their effect on case outcomes and judicial behavior. Anecdotal evidence based on experience and case studies report a differential treatment of expert evidence in criminal and civil cases. In criminal cases, legal scholars complain that admissibility standards are applied too leniently favoring the admission of the prosecution’s experts over criminal defendants, suggesting a pro-government bias. Conversely, under the same admissibility standards, in civil cases, legal scholars complain that the standards are applied more strictly than in criminal cases and that expert evidence proffered by plaintiffs are scrutinized more rigorously than those proffered by civil defendants, suggesting an anti-plaintiff bias. Despite the perceived consensus among legal and socio-legal scholars about this bias, there has been little empirical research testing this phenomenon. The current study quantifies and systematically records the frequencies of the admissibility of a single form of expert evidence, cause and origin of fire experts, as proffered by prosecutors, criminal defendants, plaintiffs and civil defendants in criminal and civil cases. By holding the type of expert evidence constant between the types of cases and legal actors, we can empirically test the proposed pro-government/anti-plaintiff bias that has been conventionally accepted in the socio-legal literature based largely on anecdotal evidence.

This article examines a relatively new institute of Lithuanian civil proceedings – legal restrictions on the late submission of evidence in both first instance and appellate courts. These restrictions were first established in the new Civil Procedure Code (CPC) which was adopted by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on 28 February 2002 (entered into force on 1 January 2003). Until then such restrictions in Lithuanian civil procedure law were not known from the time of famous Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Therefore, it seems natural that this innovation has paved the way for its real application in the courts for more than a decade. This article provides a consistent analysis of the case law (starting with the rulings of the Supreme Court of Lithuania in which the restrictions established in the law were practically denied, and up to the rulings of the last year, which already recognized the right of the courts in certain cases to refuse to accept evidence which was submitted too late). This article also reveals the aims of the CPC authors which were aimed at establishing the first instance court’s right to refuse to accept evidence which was submitted too late and system of limited appeal which establishes a general prohibition (with certain exceptions) to present evidence that was not examined in the court of first instance. One of the most important aims is the concentration of the proceedings, the prevention of abuse of procedural rights and the establishment of the first instance as the main judicial instance. The appeal procedure in the new CPC is already regarded not as a repetition or continuation of the proceedings at first instance, but as a review of the legality and validity of an existing, albeit unenforced, decision of the court of first instance. The author acknowledges that although it took a long time for the relevant provisions of the law to be actually applied in the case law, today their application is already noticeable in the daily work of courts. This leads to the conclusion that Lithuanian courts have adapted to the new CPC system and its philosophy.

This research is a scholarly and practical analysis of the Twelfth Arbitration Court of Appeals’ 2019–2021 consideration of enforcement law disputes and includes selected scholarly judgments based on law enforcement practice. According to statistics, between 2019 and 6 months of 2021, a total of 30,641 cases were heard by the Twelfth Arbitration Court of Appeals, of which disputes related to the application of legislation on enforcement proceedings – 425 cases, which amounted to 1.4% of all cases heard by the court. In 2019, the court considered 14,880 cases, of which disputes related to the application of the legislation on enforcement proceedings – 177 cases, or 1.2% of all cases considered by the court. As for the cases of this category, 25 judicial acts of the courts of first instance were cancelled (changed) by way of appeal, which amounted to 14.1% of the cases of this category. In 2020, the court considered 10,931 cases, including 172 disputes related to application of the legislation on enforcement proceedings, or 1.6% of all cases considered by the court. As for the cases of this category, 18 judicial acts of the first instance courts were cancelled (changed) by way of appeal, which amounted to 10.5% of all cases of this category. In the first half-year of 2021 the court considered 4,830 cases, of which 76 cases (1.6% of all cases considered by the court) were disputes concerning application of the legislation on enforcement proceedings. As for the cases of this category, 12 judicial acts of the courts of first instance were cancelled (changed) by way of appeal, which amounted to 15.8% of all cases of this category.