Išieškotojo ir skolininko teisių gynimas vykdymo procese
Navickaitė, Justina |
Stauskienė, Egidija | Recenzentas / Rewiewer |
Norkus, Rimvydas | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Žalėnienė, Inga | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Driukas, Artūras | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Laužikas, Egidijus | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Višinskis, Vigintas | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
Vėlyvis, Stasys | Darbo gynimo komisijos pirmininkas / Thesis Defence Board Chairman |
Krivka, Egidijus | Darbo gynimo komisijos narys / Thesis Defence Board Member |
The execution process is very important for protection of human rights. If court decisions were not executed the very court decisions would loose their importance. Rights of a creditor and a debtor are written in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and in other legal acts, but these rights should be properly explained to the parties of the execution process. Only the prescription to present the writ of execution is determined in Lithuanian laws, but any prescription for the whole case of execution is not determined usually. It would be reasonable to determine such a period of time at least for enforcement of administrative sanctions. A proposal to fulfil a decision is an important mean to offer to a debtor to pay the debt by himself. But according to CPC the proposal is sent not in every case. For example, it is not sent in cases of enforcement of administrative sanctions. According to the new Instruction on Execution of Judgements, there is an alternative document to the proposal. To have in mind that both these documents have the same functions and almost the same content, there is a doubt if it is reasonable to regulate the same thing in different laws. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania has decided that the Instruction on Execution of Judgements adopted in 2002 years violates other legal acts adopted by the Government. So there is a problem which Instruction should be implemented for the executive cases which were started before adopting the new Instruction. Expenses in the execution process are divided into three parts: the general expenses, expenses for exact executive actions and the bailiff‘s salary for enforcement of a judgement. The author discusses if it is necessary to divide them even into three parts. It is important that there are the highest limits of the expenses for exact executive actions determined in the new Instruction on Execution of Judgements. But they are determined only in the cases when the debtor owns a small sum of money, it would be good to determine them for bigger sums too. Executive procedures can not be started without the writ of execution. Usually the court issues execution paper for the creditor after the judgement comes into force, except immediately executed judgements. There are two groups of court decisions for immediate execution: obligatory and optional. But there is a conflict between the CPC and the Labour Code. According to the CPC the judgement to return an employee back to work is optional immediate execution, according to the Labour Code it is obligatory immediate execution. The parties of the execution process can lodge a claim against the actions of a bailiff (articles 510 – 513 of the CPC). It should be lodged in the district court under which jurisdiction falls the place where the executive actions were performed. It can be done during 10 days from the moment when the person learns about the wrongful bailiff‘s action but not later than after 30 days from the performance of the wrongful act. The discussible question is if the term of 30 days could be renewed by the court if dismissed. Another mean to protect creditor‘s or debtor‘s rights is a claim according to the article 602 of the CPC. The main differences between them are the situations named in the article 602 and the moment when the court‘s decision to confirm the sales act comes into effect. Other subjects who have influence for defence of creditor‘s and debtor‘s rights are their representatives, interpreters, police, the Ministry of Justice, the Chamber of Bailiffs, the Court of Bailiffs‘. The problem is that legal acts which regulate work of the Court of Bailiffs‘ were adopted too late.