Teismo sprendimų įvykdymo atgręžimas

Abstract

In civil procedure judgements of lower courts, that can be heretofore executed, are quite often reversed as a result of use by parties of means of recourse against judgements - appeal, cassation or reopening of proceedings. In other words, after the execution of a judgement it may emerge that the judgement was illegal and must therefore be quashed by the appellate or cassation court by passing a new judgement to reject a claim, ruling to discontinue civil proceedings or leave the claim untried. It is recognized that realisation of the court judgement which was afterwards reversed is also illegal, and means the violation of rights and legitimate interests of the defendant, as opposed to the restoration of violated substantive rights or protection of legitimate interests of the plaintiff. In this case the institution of reversal of execution of judgements should be applied in order to restore justice. The purpose of the mentioned institution is to re-establish the status of the substantive legal relations between the parties that had existed prior to the execution of the judgement, which was afterwards reversed by the court of higher instance by deciding a case differently than it was done by the reversed judgement (restoration of status quo ante). Application of the institution of reversal of execution of judgements is based on the principle ex iniuria ius non oritur or, in other words, on the idea that illegality of a judgement makes the execution of this particular judgement also illegal; consequently the parties must be returned to the situation that had existed before the illegal judgement was adopted (executed). Reversal of execution of judgement is interrelated with the deprivation of executed judgement of the legal significance. Legal significance of such a judgement terminates after the appellate court, cassation court or the court hearing the case in reopened proceedings passes the new judgement (ruling). It should be noted that adoption of a new judgement on appeal could determine the reversal of execution of judgement only if the judgement was executed as a result of application of the institution of immediate execution of judgements.
The article deals with the concept of reversal of execution of judgements, grounds for and limits of the application of this institution. The following circumstances are recognized as grounds for the application of the institution of reversal of execution of judgements:
1) reversal of the executed judgement and adoption of a new judgement to reject a claim;
2) reversal of the executed judgement and adoption of a ruling to discontinue proceedings;
3) reversal of the executed judgement and adoption of a ruling to leave the claim untried.
Taking into account the aims and functions of civil procedure, the author tries to disclose an interrelation between substantive and procedural law when applying the norms of institution of reversal of execution of judgements. The article also presents the analysis of judicial practice on application of institution under consideration, as well as peculiarities of legal regulation of this institution in foreign states (Russia, Germany).
At the end of the article conclusions characterising the legal nature of the institution of reversal of execution of judgements and preconditions for application of this institution are provided.