Sprendimas už akių – ar rastas kompromisas?

Direct Link:
Collection:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Straipsnis / Article
Language:
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Title:
Sprendimas už akių – ar rastas kompromisas?
Alternative Title:
Judgement in default – was the compromise finally found?
In the Journal:
Teisė. 2017, t. 104, p. 28-36
Keywords:
LT
Sprendimas už akių.
EN
Judgement in default.
Summary / Abstract:

ENUpon the entry into force of the new CCP, the judgement in default became a trigger for a number of disputes related to the question of what the optimal scope of the abovementioned procedure should be. Numerous scientific articles on the efficiency of the judgement in default have been written, while the procedure itself has been drastically changed twice since 2003. The first amendement adopted by law on June 11, 2011 was caused by the necessity to harmonise some provisions of the CCP with the doctrine of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, adopted on Septemeber 21, 2006. In the latter decision the Consitutional Court has found the provision of CCP regulating the procedure of judgement in default (namely restricted ability to review judgement in default, the rules on the readoption of the judgement in default) to be anti-constitutional. The second amendment of CCP related to the judgement in default was adopted by law on November 8, 2016 and will enter into force July 1, 2017. The second amendment was caused by the need to improve some totaly unfortunate ‘improvements’ of CCP in 2011. The article is intended to cover the newest innovations of regulation of the judgement in default. It is concentrated on the revised and extended conditions which should be met for the judgement in default to be adopted, as well as another novelty according to which the court can refuse to adopt a judgement in default if the evidence provided by the active party raises some serious concerns to the court. The article also covers the abandonment of the indicative list of reasons that should not be considered as important when evaluating the importance of the reasons why the party was not present during the hearing of the case. In the light of recent amendments the author comes to a conclusion that they should be recognised as positive and able to facilitate the application of the judgement in default in the case law of Lithuanian courts.

ISSN:
1392-1274; 2424-6050
Subject:
Related Publications:
Permalink:
https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/68234
Updated:
2019-12-06 15:02:03
Metrics:
Views: 50    Downloads: 1
Export: