Supreme Court of Lithuania
4 July 2014
Facts
The case raises questions regarding the interpretation and application of procedural law provisions establishing rules for the presentation and evaluation of evidence (witness examination, appointment of experts). The plaintiffs applied to the court requesting that the defendant be evicted from the apartment and that a certain amount be awarded for utility bills and litigation costs.
Complaint
The appellant based his request to overturn the lower court's decisions on the fact that the lower court only granted part of the defendant's request (deciding to hear only 4 of the 10 witnesses requested). The court also refused to order a handwriting analysis. The appellant notes that judges are not handwriting experts, therefore the panel of judges' approval of the first instance court's decision to refuse to order an examination on the grounds that the handwriting in the letters submitted to the court and the signature on the will are similar is insufficient.
Court‘s ruling
When deciding on a request to examine witnesses, the court must assess whether a specific person can be a witness, whether the request has been submitted in accordance with the procedure, whether the witness will be able to indicate circumstances related to the case, whether circumstances relevant to the case can be proven by witness testimony, whether the request could have been submitted earlier and whether its late submission will delay the proceedings, and other circumstances.
The European Court of Human Rights has established the principle that Article 6 of the Convention does not expressly establish the right to call witnesses or to have other evidence admitted by the court in civil proceedings, and therefore national courts (not international courts) must assess the relevance of all the evidence in the case.
The Supreme Court has stated that only factual data that meets 4 criteria can be considered evidence: first, evidence must be specific data, information, or knowledge about facts that constitute the subject matter of the evidence; second, evidence must be related to the case and the facts constituting the subject matter of the evidence (relevance of the evidence); third, the evidence must be obtained, presented, collected, examined and assessed only in accordance with the procedure established by law; fourth, the information must be obtained only from a source or means of evidence established by law.
In exceptional cases, when it is impossible or difficult to examine a witness at a court hearing, the court has the right to evaluate the witness's written testimony if, in the opinion of the court, taking into account the personality of the witness and the essence of the circumstances to be testified, this will not prejudice the disclosure of the essential circumstances of the case. In the case under consideration, the courts did not establish and the appellant did not prove such exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the copies of the witness statements submitted by the appellant are considered to be inadmissible as evidence, and the refusal to accept such evidence cannot be equated with a refusal to examine the witnesses.
The Court, thus, decided that the appellant's right to a fair trial had not been infringed upon.
When deciding on disputes concerning the appointment of experts, the Court has repeatedly stated that the appointment of experts must be based not on conjecture, but on the court's conviction that it is appropriate to do so, taking into account the main objective of the proceedings – to examine the case fairly and properly, while maintaining a balance between the principles of procedural concentration and economy, cooperation and other procedural principles. A person requesting the court to appoint an expert must justify this request.