Apeliacinio proceso prielaidos

LTTam, kad apeliacinis procesas galėtų būti pradėtas, turi egzistuoti įstatyme numatytų sąlygų visuma. Šios sąlygos teisinėje literatūroje nurodomos skirtingos ir skirstomos nevienodai. Atsižvelgiant į įstatyme numatytų sąlygų apeliaciniam procesui pradėti prigimtį ir sukeliamas teisines pasekmes, straipsnyje siūloma jas skirstyti į objektyvias ir subjektyvias apeliacinio proceso prielaidas, kurių nesant apeliacijos teisė apskritai neegzistuoja, bei apeliacijos teisės tinkamo realizavimo sąlygas, kurių nebuvimas rodo, kad apeliantas netinkamai realizuoja jam priklausančią apeliacijos teisę. Remiantis siūloma klasifikacija toliau straipsnyje analizuojamos subjektyvios apeliacinio proceso prielaidos. Daug dėmesio skiriama apelianto teisiniam suinteresuotumui skundžiamo sprendimo panaikinimu kaip apeliacinio proceso prielaidai. Aptariama apelianto galimybė skųsti tik motyvuojamąją teismo sprendimo dalį, skųsti materialia prasme palankų teismo sprendimą motyvuojant absoliučiais šio sprendimo negaliojimo pagrindais. Galiausiai aptariamos apeliacijos ribojimo ginčo suma (naudingumo dydžio) įtvirtinimo įstatyme prielaidos, atkreipiamas dėmesys į kai kurias galimas su šiuo ribojimu susijusias problemas. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Apeliacinis procesas; Civilinis procesas; Civilinis procesas, apeliacija, subjektyvios apeliacijos prielaidos; Appeal; Civil procedure; Civil procedure, appeal, subjective preconditions of appeal.

ENArticle is devoted to the analysis of legal conditions necessary to start the appellate procedure. They are proposed to be classified into the preconditions of appeal, in the absence of which the right of appeal does not exist, and the conditions of proper realization of the right of appeal, the absence of which witnesses that the person despite having the right of appeal realizes it in a wrong way and, therefore, the appellate procedure may not be initiated. The preconditions of appeal, in their turn, may be objective (related to the object of the appellate complaint) and subjective (related to the procedural status of the appellant). As limited volume of the article precludes the possibility to analyze all the legal conditions necessary to start the appellate procedure, article is focused on the subjective preconditions of appeal. It is noted that the Code of Civil Procedure of Lithuania (further on – CPC) does not directly provide for the legal interest of the appellant in the abolition of the questioned decision as a necessary precondition of the appeal, however, this condition is reasonably followed in the judicial practice, systematically explaining CPC provisions. The legal interest of the appellant in the abolition of the questioned decision as the necessary precondition of appeal may be related with at least two practical problems: the possibility of the appellant to appeal against the motives of the first instance court decision, and possibility to appeal against the favorable decision, which is passed by violating the main procedural guarantees.It is concluded, that although the CPC does not directly prohibit to appeal against the motives of the decision, according to the common rule one should stand on the fact that questioning the motives of the court decision alone is not possible unless, regarding the circumstances of the particular case, it is obvious that the motives of the court decision violate the rights or legitimate interests of the appellant. However, in case when the appeal is based on the absolute grounds of invalidity of the first instance court decision, the appeal should not be refused on the ground of absence of legal interest in abolishment of the questioned decision even if it is in favor of the appellant. In Lithuania, like in most of the European States, the legal interest of the appellant in the abolishment of the questioned decision in the monetary disputes is related to the relevant sum involved, in presence of which the interest of the appellant is protected by the possibility to appeal against decision (so-called size of interest). Although such limitation by itself is justifiable, it should not be applied if the appeal is based on the absolute grounds of invalidity of the first instance court decision, as one of the main presumptions grounding such limitation is that the person has already implemented his/her right to judicial protection in the first instance court. [Text from author]