Suchergebnisse

Z dniem 1 lipca bieżącego roku weszła w życie trzecia wersja rozporządzenia dotyczącego doręczania dokumentów sądowych i pozasądowych (pierwsza wersja — rozporządzenie nr 1348/2000, druga — 1393/2007 i najnowsza — 2020/1784). Najnowsza wersja ma na celu rozwiązanie niektórych z najważniejszych problemów związanych z doręczaniem dokumentów sądowych i pozasądowych w państwach członkowskich Unii Europejskiej. Pierwszy problem dotyczy ustalenia miejsca zamieszkania adresata. W pierwotnej wersji rozporządzenia określono, że nie może ono mieć zastosowania w przypadku, gdy miejsce zamieszkania adresata jest nieznane. Znowelizowane rozporządzenie wprowadza po raz pierwszy system pomocy nadawcy w ustaleniu miejsca zamieszkania adresata. Powinno to znacznie rozszerzyć zakres stosowania rozporządzenia. Druga nowość dotyczy rozszerzenia stosowania technologii elektronicznych w komunikacji między jednostkami przekazującymi i przyjmującymi. System doręczeń ustanowiony rozporządzeniem staje się obowiązkowy, a państwa członkowskie tracą możliwość ograniczenia jego stosowania. Wreszcie w państwie członkowskim pojawia się nowy sposób doręczania dokumentów procesowych: doręczenie elektroniczne. W artykule omówiono te i kilka innych pomniejszych innowacji. Z analizy znowelizowanego rozporządzenia wynika, że wprowadzone poprawki powinny przyczynić się do usprawnienia procedury doręczania dokumentów w unijnym postępowaniu cywilnym oraz do znacznie aktywniejszego stosowania rozporządzenia w praktyce.

Since Lithuania's membership in the European Union on 1 May 2004, EU legal acts are directly applied in Lithuania. One of them is Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. Another international legal act regulating taking of evidence in the foreign countries in civil and commercial matters is The Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters adopted by the Lithuanian Parliament on 13 April 2004. In any case, it is important to pay attention to fact, that the regulation is the first EU legal act directly regulating process of taking of evidence in association among EU legal members, except of Denmark, to which the regulation is not adjusted. The article describes the reasons stipulated adoption of the regulation and its relation and advantages in regard to Hague Convention. the regulation sets two possibilities of taking of evidence in another member state, i.e. taking of evidence applying procedure of passive and active requisition. Both of these methods are equivalent therefore they are considering in the article. The important breakthrough was incorporation of taking of evidence applying procedure of passive requisition in to the regulation, despite of application is limited by voluntariness and based on permission from the state in which the evidence should be taken. The article in details considers all proceedings of taking of evidence defined in the regulation, provides ways to solve controversial issues and reviews the main foreign sources related to this subject.

Since Lithuania's membership in the European Union on 1 May 2004, EU legal acts are directly applied in Lithuania. One of them is Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. Another international legal act regulating taking of evidence in the foreign countries in civil and commercial matters is The Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters adopted by the Lithuanian Parliament on 13 April 2004. In any case, it is important to pay attention to fact, that the regulation is the first EU legal act directly regulating process of taking of evidence in association among EU legal members, except of Denmark, to which the regulation is not adjusted. The article describes the reasons stipulated adoption of the regulation and its relation and advantages in regard to Hague Convention. the regulation sets two possibilities of taking of evidence in another member state, i.e. taking of evidence applying procedure of passive and active requisition. Both of these methods are equivalent therefore they are considering in the article. The important breakthrough was incorporation of taking of evidence applying procedure of passive requisition in to the regulation, despite of application is limited by voluntariness and based on permission from the state in which the evidence should be taken. The article in details considers all proceedings of taking of evidence defined in the regulation, provides ways to solve controversial issues and reviews the main foreign sources related to this subject.

Since Lithuania's membership in the European Union on 1 May 2004, EU legal acts are directly applied in Lithuania. One of them is Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. Another international legal act regulating taking of evidence in the foreign countries in civil and commercial matters is The Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters adopted by the Lithuanian Parliament on 13 April 2004. In any case, it is important to pay attention to fact, that the regulation is the first EU legal act directly regulating process of taking of evidence in association among EU legal members, except of Denmark, to which the regulation is not adjusted. The article describes the reasons stipulated adoption of the regulation and its relation and advantages in regard to Hague Convention. the regulation sets two possibilities of taking of evidence in another member state, i.e. taking of evidence applying procedure of passive and active requisition. Both of these methods are equivalent therefore they are considering in the article. The important breakthrough was incorporation of taking of evidence applying procedure of passive requisition in to the regulation, despite of application is limited by voluntariness and based on permission from the state in which the evidence should be taken. The article in details considers all proceedings of taking of evidence defined in the regulation, provides ways to solve controversial issues and reviews the main foreign sources related to this subject.

Since Lithuania's membership in the European Union on 1 May 2004, EU legal acts are directly applied in Lithuania. One of them is Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters. Another international legal act regulating taking of evidence in the foreign countries in civil and commercial matters is The Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters adopted by the Lithuanian Parliament on 13 April 2004. In any case, it is important to pay attention to fact, that the regulation is the first EU legal act directly regulating process of taking of evidence in association among EU legal members, except of Denmark, to which the regulation is not adjusted. The article describes the reasons stipulated adoption of the regulation and its relation and advantages in regard to Hague Convention. the regulation sets two possibilities of taking of evidence in another member state, i.e. taking of evidence applying procedure of passive and active requisition. Both of these methods are equivalent therefore they are considering in the article. The important breakthrough was incorporation of taking of evidence applying procedure of passive requisition in to the regulation, despite of application is limited by voluntariness and based on permission from the state in which the evidence should be taken. The article in details considers all proceedings of taking of evidence defined in the regulation, provides ways to solve controversial issues and reviews the main foreign sources related to this subject.

The article aims to assess whether the procedural innovations introduced by the reform of the civil procedure law of the Republic of Lithuania have brought changes in judges' behaviour, which the reform intended to achieve. The study analyses the driving reason behind the reform of the civil procedure law, its objectives, and the ways the five innovations brought about by the reform changed the behaviour of the judges. The analysis of the legal sources and the empirical study show that some of the innovations introduced by the Civil Procedure Code have not yet been properly assimilated and that the code, which has been in force for twenty years, is still not fully operational and understood.

In this article the citizenship as the criterion justifying jurisdiction in divorce cases under the European Union law is analysed. Within the European Union the main instrument for hearing such cases is Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (abbreviated as Brussels II a regulation). `e authors seek to answer the question whether the institute of citizenship can be a suXcient criterion to justify the jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State of the European Union in divorce matters. Analyzing the case law of the Republic of Lithuania, identifying the main problems arising from the examination of divorce cases, which have an element of the European Union, ways for their solution are proposed. Firstly, the authors describe main legal instruments which are applicable in the European Union divorce cases. Secondly, brief introduction to the international and Lithuanian legal acts which regulate the international divorce is given. `irdly, the criterion of the spouses' citizenship and its signiHcance is described based on the abovementioned legal acts and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Republic of Lithuania. Lastly, the authors give examples on the application of citizenship criterion in the Lithuanian case-law, enshrine the problems arising from such cases and give the proposals how to solve such problems.

In this article the citizenship as the criterion justifying jurisdiction in divorce cases under the European Union law is analysed. Within the European Union the main instrument for hearing such cases is Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (abbreviated as Brussels II a regulation). `e authors seek to answer the question whether the institute of citizenship can be a suXcient criterion to justify the jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State of the European Union in divorce matters. Analyzing the case law of the Republic of Lithuania, identifying the main problems arising from the examination of divorce cases, which have an element of the European Union, ways for their solution are proposed. Firstly, the authors describe main legal instruments which are applicable in the European Union divorce cases. Secondly, brief introduction to the international and Lithuanian legal acts which regulate the international divorce is given. `irdly, the criterion of the spouses' citizenship and its signiHcance is described based on the abovementioned legal acts and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Republic of Lithuania. Lastly, the authors give examples on the application of citizenship criterion in the Lithuanian case-law, enshrine the problems arising from such cases and give the proposals how to solve such problems.

In this article, the authors study potential of novelty of Lithuanian civil procedure as of 2015 – the group claim institute – to speed up Lithuanian civil process and some problems related to implementation of such potential.After evaluation of aims to implement group claim institute in Lithuanian civil procedure, the authors recognize that it is justifiable to indicate as a separate aim ensuring of more speedy resolution of mass claims. Nevertheless, practice of submission of group claims to Lithuanian courts is developing slowly. Therefore, currently it is not possible to perform empirical study to what extent the aim to speed up Lithuanian civil process by analysed type of claims is realised in reality.After analysis of different models of groups claims, the authors recognize that opt-out system may ensure better concentration and expedition of process, if compared to opt-in system, which is being implemented in Lithuania and in many other European states.As results of the survey several suggestions for improvement of Code of Civil Procedure of Lithuania are introduced, namely, to foresee mandatory aggregation of all group claims and individual claims of the same type and to define more concise and more reasonable correlation between group claims and individual claims examined under general rules of optional joinder of parties. ; Šiame straipsnyje autoriai tiria grupės ieškinio instituto potencialą spartinti Lietuvos civilinį procesą ir kai kurias jo įgyvendinimo problemas.