Sądownictwo Komisji Skarbu Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w sprawach skarbowych (1765-1794): studium historyczno-prawne

LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė; Lietuvos XVIII a. istorija; Teismai; Iždo komisija; Teisės istorija; Bajorai. Keywords: The Great Duchy of Lithuania; The Lithuanian XVIII c. history; Courts; The Treasury Commision; Law history; Noblemen.

ENIn 1764, the Parliament in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth set up revenue committees: the Treasury Commission for the Polish Crown and the Treasury Commission of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They served both as courts and administrative organs in charge of managing the country's funds. While the establishment of the two institutions was a symbol of the first reforms during King Stanislaw Poniatowski's reign, many aspects of their operation remain unknown. The Treasury Commission of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was established in 1765 in Grodno, with a seat in the local castle. Originally, the committee would meet only at regular intervals (terms of office) until, by virtue of a reform of 1780, the committee'smembers worked all year. It was a collegial body, consisting of two Lithuanian treasurers and commissioners elected during parliamentary sessions. While their remuneration was dependent on their involvement in the committees' work, the presence of a quorum was among regular problems plaguing the institutions. The committee's responsibilities were carried out by a team of clerks. The entire customs organization was taken over, together with the officials (the treasurer and fiscal secretaries), and a number of new positions were filled. In the years to come, the existing clerical apparatus was further extended, both in the central office in Grodno and the local branches alike. The committee also had its own military division, a treasury unit. As a court, the committee handled specific categories of cases. In line with the then system, they were all registered separately. The committee had at its disposal five registers (six after 1775). Fiscal cases had separate (fisci) registers and were clearly different from other cases revolving around disputes over trade and business activities. The fiscal registers reflected public law disputes with the treasury, or cases when a fiscal official represented a litigant.Therefore, the cases were different, not with respect to the subject-matter of the disputes but the parties involved. The idiosyncrasies are further emphasized by practices different than in the other registers. Oftentimes, fiscal cases were preceded by investigations, even if the respective legal regulations were non-existent. In many cases, however, the committee responded to information about irregularities by seconding a fiscal clerk to cross-examine the individuals in question and establish the facts. As a result, a subordinate clerk could be instructed to instigate a legal action in thefisci register. Subsequently, the case was brought to court. Interestingly, the committee also offered an alternative, extrajudicial resolution of disputes, although there were no legal rules governing the procedure. Once a lawsuit was filed, the committee had the power to adopt preventive measures, which was yet another specific element differentiating fiscal cases. When needed, the committee could issue an arrest warrant for individuals suspected of owing damages to the Lithuanian treasury. Soldiers from the treasury unit were typically employed to arrest people and incarcerate them. Measures other than arrest included guarantees that the suspect would be brought to justice and the claims would be settled. The individuals brought before the law were varied, including all categories of natural persons and entities that today would be referred to as legal persons. When cases were brought by the treasury, the plaintiff would be a Lithuanian instigator (an official equal to today's general prosecutor), although this was only a formality. In fact, he did not take part in the lawsuit. Instead, he delegated an appointed solicitor (a fiscal plenipotentiary), who was the committee's official.Since public legal action had not been fully developed, at the beginning of the committee's operations, court cases had also to be attended by denouncers i.e. individuals who formally put forward claims. Over time, the requirement was no longer imposed, gradually replaced by public remonstrance. Despite some characteristic features, the actual course of the lawsuit was not very different from proceedings in the courts in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish Crown. Formally, at first the statement of claim was delivered and the case was entered into the register. When a case was brought during the committee's term of office, registered cases defying specific requirements could be deleted right away and there was no lawsuit at all. Otherwise, the lawsuit would either have been continued indeterminately when the defendant failed to turn up. The alternative was a typical court case attended by both parties. Initially, various formal charges were made which could lead either to the withdrawal of legal action or (despite a statutory limitation of postponement resulting from absence in court) until the trial was adjourned. Once this stage was over, the dispute was viewed as part of the principal trial during which the defendant and the prosecutor took turns to speak; their statements were written down beforehand and submitted before all the trial participants. Typical evidence included documents and the witnesses' statements. When the trial was over, the committee court pronounced sentence. In some sentences, only the requirement of paying the financial charge was communicated, but the committee could also impose financial sanctions or administer punishment when the person in question was at large. Here, the trial-related role of the committee ended because following sentence, its imposition was not within the committee's scope of competence and was subjected to general law. [...]. [From the publication]