Problematical issues of non-contentious proceedings hearing cases settling the fact of law as concerning the tenure of building, land and forest property

Įsigaliojus naujajam Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio proceso kodeksui (toliau – CPK) buvo iš esmės reformuotas ypatingosios teisenos procesas pasirinkus germaniškąją ypatingosios teisenos koncepciją. Atsisakius ginčo dėl teisės, kaip pagrindinio teisenas atribojančio kriterijaus, naujajame CPK įtvirtinta nuostata, draudžianti perduoti ypatingosios teisenos bylą nagrinėti ieškinio teisenos tvarka, jei joje kyla ginčas dėl teisės. Šis besąlyginis draudimas paskatino sugrįžti prie ypatingosios teisenos reformos naujajame CPK ir įvertinti šią įstatymo leidėjo poziciją remiantis egzistuojančia teismų praktika vienoje iš gausiausių juridinę reikšmę turinčių faktų nustatymo bylų kategorijų – bylose dėl pastato, žemės ar miško valdymo nuosavybės teise fakto nustatymo.The institute of non-contentious proceedings was reformed according to the German non-contentious proceedings conception as the new Code of Civil Procedure (thereinafter – CCP) of Lithuania came in to force. The issue of dispute over the fact of law as the main criteria dissociating contentious and non-contentious proceedings was denied, therefore the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, that forbid transferring the civil case of non-contentious proceedings to be further heard by contentious proceedings if the dispute over the fact of law arose, were established. Provisions of CCP of 1964 established the only criteria dissociating contentious and non-contentious proceedings - the dispute over the fact of law. Civil cases were herd by contentious proceedings if a dispute over the fact of law was present and by non-contentious proceedings if a dispute over the fact of law was not present. In case if a dispute over the fact of law arose in the civil case heard by non-contentious proceedings civil case was left untried and the plaintiff was elucidated the right to present a claim following the rules of contentious proceedings. However the new CCP established expedience as the main criteria dissociating contentious and non-contentious proceedings. Therefore civil cases of non-contentious proceedings shall be heard following the rules of non-contentious proceedings irrespective of arising of a dispute over the fact of law. Article 443 section 1 of the new CCP establishes that civil cases of non-contentious proceedings are heard in accordance with general rules of civil procedure. This provision of the new CCP permits the use of the majority of rules of contentious proceedings hearing civil cases of non-contentious proceedings. Irrespective to abovementioned, the fact that rules of non-contentious proceedings are based on legal principles that are practically opposite to legal principles of contentious proceedings presents a serious doubt whether non-contentious proceedings may reach it’s goal when the dispute over the fact of law arises. Strict prohibition of transferring the civil case of non-contentious proceedings to be further heard by contentious proceedings if the dispute over the fact of law arose encouraged to get back to the reform of non-contentious proceedings in the new Code of Civil Procedure and size this position according to existing courts practice hearing cases which settle the fact of law as concerning tenure of buildings, land and forest property. Such cases are one of the most important categories of all cases that settle the fact of law