Baudžiamojo proceso atnaujinimas: samprata ir pagrindinės rūšys

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjama Lietuvos moksle dar netirta tema. Negalima teigti, kad baudžiamojo proceso atnaujinimas yra pati aktualiausia nagrinėjimo sritis nūdienos mokslininkams, tačiau ir ši teismų sprendimų pagrįstumo ir teisėtumo kontrolės forma turi būti teoriškai pagrįsta. Baudžiamojo proceso atnaujinimas teismų sprendimų kontrolės formų sistemoje veikia kaip paskutinė galimybė atkurti baudžiamojoje byloje teisingumą. Tikrinamas ir teismo sprendimo pagrįstumas, ir jo teisėtumas, tikrinami įsiteisėję galutiniai sprendimai. Teismų praktikoje baudžiamosios bylos nėra atnaujinamos labai dažnai. Tai nėra blogai - baudžiamasis procesas turi būti stabilus. Baudžiamojo proceso atnaujinimas yra išimtinė galimybė, nors pažymėtina, kad dėl aiškiai netinkamo baudžiamojo įstatymo pritaikymo Lietuvoje per metus peržiūrima daugiau kaip šimtas teismų sprendimų. Straipsnyje teigiama, kad baudžiamojo proceso atnaujinimas yra išimtinė baudžiamojo proceso stadija, taip išsklaidant visus neaiškumus dėl šio instituto vietos procese. Suformuluojami baudžiamojo proceso atnaujinimo požymiai, iš naujo išskiriamos baudžiamojo proceso atnaujinimo rūšys, atsižvelgiant į proceso atnaujinimo pagrindus bei procedūras, egzistuojančias įvairių valstybių baudžiamuosiuose procesuose. Baudžiamojo proceso atnaujinimo rūšys be skirstymo pagal pagrindus į in favorem ir in defavorem iki šiol nė vienoje valstybėje nebuvo išskirtos. Pastaraisiais metais daug dėmesio baudžiamojo proceso atnaujinimo institutas susilaukė ir Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo praktikoje, todėl straipsnyje remiamasi minėto teismo teiginiais. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Baudžiamojo proceso atnaujinimas; Baudžiamosios bylos atnaujinimas; Baudžiamojo proceso atnaujinimo institutas; Reopening of criminal proceedings; Reopening of criminal case; Institute of reopening of criminal proceedings.

ENThe article analyses a new theme, which has not yet been analysed in Lithuanian research. Though it could hardly be stated that a reopening of the criminal proceedings is the most pressing issue to be analysed by the today's researchers, nevertheless, this form of control over the reasonableness and lawfulness of court judgements must be given theoretical foundation. This is the only way to give essence to the whole system of control over court judgements that exists in the criminal procedure. It must be consistent. It is necessary to prevent one form of control duplicating another or overlapping with it. Meanwhile, reopening of criminal proceedings, included into the system of control over court judgements, offers the last chance to restore justice in a criminal case. The reasonableness of a court judgement and its lawfulness are subjected to review, review is also extended to the final res judicata judgements. Such instances when criminal cases are reopened are not frequent in the court practice; and there is nothing wrong in it - the criminal procedure must be stable. Even though reopening of criminal proceedings is an exceptional possibility, it is noted that over a hundred judgements are reviewed every year because of manifestly improper application of law. It is described in the article that a reopening of criminal proceedings is an exceptional stage or phase of the criminal procedure, thus eliminating all the ambiguities related with the role of this form of control over court judgements in the procedure.A new approach is applied to the determination of the types of the reopening of criminal proceedings taking in regard the grounds and procedure for the reopening of criminal proceedings that function the criminal procedures of various countries. Apart from the division of grounds into in favorem and in defavorem, no other types of reopening criminal proceedings have yet been determined in any country. The article reveals features characteristic to all types of the reopening of criminal proceedings, i.e., to reopening of criminal proceedings as a form of control over court judgements. This form is not compared to cassation or appeal, as the analysis of this aspect will be the subject matter of another articles. Here, the focus was given to the principal aspects of the concept of the reopening of criminal proceedings, as this is a completely new theme. In current years, the institute of the reopening of criminal proceedings has been given considerable attention in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, therefore the author considerably relies on the attitudes of this Court. [From the publication]The article discusses a topic previously not studied in the Lithuanian science. We cannot say that resuming the penal procedure is the most relevant are of study for scientists today, however, even this form of controlling validity and legality must be based theoretically. The resumption of penal procedure in the system of judicial decisions’ control functions as the last possibility to restore justice in a criminal case. Both the validity and legality of court's decision and the final decisions standing are verified. In the practice of courts, very often criminal cases are not resumed. It is not very bad since penal procedure must be stable. Resumption of penal procedure is an exceptional measure, however, it must be noted that due to clearly inadequate application of penal law in Lithuaniamore than a hundred cases are revised annually. There is a statement in the article that resumption of penal procedure is an exceptional stage of penal procedure thus resolving any obscurities as regards the place of this institute in the process. The author identifies the features of penal procedure resumption, types of penal procedure resumption considering the reasons for process resumption in the penal procedures of various countries. Beside the distribution into in favorem and defavorem, the types of penal procedure resumption has never been defined separated in any country. Recently, the institution of penal procedure received lots of attention in the practice of European Human Rights’ Court; therefore the article is based on the statements from the above-mentioned court.