Teisės akto, kuriuo pagrįstas teismo sprendimas, pripažinimas antikonstituciniu kaip pagrindas atnaujinti civilinį procesą

Abstract

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.