Teismo sprendimų įvykdymo atgręžimas.
In civil procedure judgements of lower courts, that can be heretofore executed, are quite often reversed as a result of use by parties of means of recourse against judgements - appeal, cassation or reopening of proceedings. In other words, after the execution of a judgement it may emerge that the judgement was illegal and must therefore be quashed by the appellate or cassation court by passing a new judgement to reject a claim, ruling to discontinue civil proceedings or leave the claim untried. It is recognized that realisation of the court judgement which was afterwards reversed is also illegal, and means the violation of rights and legitimate interests of the defendant, as opposed to the restoration of violated substantive rights or protection of legitimate interests of the plaintiff. In this case the institution of reversal of execution of judgements should be applied in order to restore justice. The purpose of the mentioned institution is to re-establish the status of the substantive legal relations between the parties that had existed prior to the execution of the judgement, which was afterwards reversed by the court of higher instance by deciding a case differently than it was done by the reversed judgement (restoration restoration of status quo ante). Application of the institution of reversal of execution of judgements is based on the principle ex iniuria ius non oritur or, in other words, on the idea that illegality of a judgement makes the execution of this particular judgement also illegal; consequently the parties must be returned to the situation that had existed before the illegal judgement was adopted (executed). Reversal of execution of judgement is interrelated with the deprivation of executed judgement of the legal significance. Legal significance of such a judgement terminates after the appellate court, cassation court or the court hearing the case in reopened proceedings passes the new judgement (ruling).
- Articles / Straipsniai