Ieškinio senaties normų taikymas bendrosios kompetencijos teismuose, kai ginčo nagrinėjimas yra susijęs su individualaus administracinio akto ginčijimu

LTStraipsnyje analizuojama ginčų nagrinėjimo bendrosios kompetencijos teismuose problematika, kai ginčo teismingumas bendrosios kompetencijos teismams yra priskiriamas remiantis galiojusioje Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio proceso kodekso 26 straipsnio 2 dalyje įtvirtintu absorbcijos principu (2002-02-28 įstatymo Nr. IX-743 redakcija) arba remiantis šį principą pakeitusia Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio proceso kodekso 36 straipsnio 2 dalyje įtvirtinta rūšinio teismingumo nustatymo taisykle (2011-06-21 įstatymo Nr. XI-1480 redakcija) ir kai bendrosios kompetencijos teismams greta ieškinio senatį reglamentuojančių normų reikia taikyti ir normas, nustatančias individualių administracinių aktų apskundimo terminus. Straipsnyje yra siekiama įvertinti, kokią reikšmę taikant ieškinio senaties normas turi individualaus administracinio akto apskundimo termino praleidimas, įvertinant tai, kad tokie individualūs administraciniai aktai buvo vienas iš civilinės subjektinės teisės atsiradimo pagrindų.

ENStudy is devoted to the analysis of the validity of the individual administrative act, a question which must be resolved in the common competence courts when the issues of the protection of the civil rights are decided upon. The main question which is being discussed in this article is the pertaining of the protection of the civil rights to the annulment of the related individual administrative act. The author of the article states that the case-law of Lithuanian courts in the subject of his research is divergent and inconsistent. also the attention is paid to the problem of the confusion of jurisdiction: the court which has the right to resolve the dispute – the common competence court or the administrative competence court –, and the law which must be applicable to the dispute. The main problem that presently is observed in Lithuanian case-law is endowing too much significance to individual administrative acts. This leads to formal settlement of disputes instead of pursuing justice in individual cases. The author of the article arrives at a conclusion that a distinction should be made between two types of cases: the cases when the enactment of individual administrative acts does not cause the conflict between the interests of the holders of the civil rights; and the case when the individual administrative act interferes into relationships of two subjects of civil law. This finding is supported by several arguments.Firstly, a person holding a civil right that is being infringed should not be dependent on the relations between some other person and certain state institution, and on the decisions taken by such institution with respect to such other person. such civil right holder does not take part in the procedure carried out by the state institution, as a rule such person is not even informed on the fact that such procedure is taking place. Moreover, when the question of rendering certain rights to a certain subject is being decided under administrative rules, the aim of such procedure is other than to achieve the objective of settlement a dispute with other persons, whose related rights could be infringed. Finalising the research, the author draws the following conclusion – an administrative dispute with a public institution has a separate aim, thus the result of this dispute cannot influence the relationships of subjects of the civil law. It is important to note that a problem which arises when deciding upon this question is the application of the term for appealing against individual administrative acts. Ensuring stability in legal relations is an important objective, however it cannot override the necessity to ensure the possibility of a holder of certain right to duly defend such right. The fact that an individual administrative act has been enacted with respect of one of the involved parties is not a sufficient ground to shorten the term for protection of rights from ten years to merely one month. The term for defending one‘s rights should be realistic, and the enactment of an administrative act should not artificially curtail it.