Верховный суд Литвы
28 апреля 2009 года
Facts
The dispute in the case concerns the application of the rules of procedural law laying down the time-limit for lodging an appeal and the procedure for the renewal of the time-limit.
Complaint
The applicant applied for an extension of the time-limit for lodging an appeal. He stated that he had lodged his appeal within the time-limit, but that the appeal had been returned to him by the district court on the ground that the defects in the appeal had not been remedied, but, according to the applicant, he had not received the order of the court fixing the time-limit for the remedying of the defects in the appeal and he considered that the time-limit had therefore been exceeded for important reasons.
Court‘s ruling
The court of appeal, by only formally assessing the circumstances set out in the order of the court of first Instance, on the basis of which the application for extension of the time-limit was rejected and the appeal was dismissed, failed to consider the evidence submitted by the applicant, and therefore infringed the procedural rules on the assessment of evidence. A party to the proceedings acting in good faith who has missed the time-limit for lodging an appeal, but who has stated the reasons for missing the time-limit and provided evidence, should not lose the right to appeal against the decision of the court of first instance.
The denial of the right to appeal means that a party to civil proceedings loses the right to review the judgment on appeal. One of the aspects of a fair trial is the possibility for a person to appeal against a judgment.
The Court overturned the rulings of the lower courts and remitted the case for a new trial.