Different approach to losses caused by the abuse of civil procedure

Straipsnyje autoriai analizuoja bylinėjimosi išlaidų instituto kaip priemonės atlyginti dėl piktnaudžiavimo civiliniu procesu padarytus nuostolius aktualijas ir perspektyvas. Darbe atskleidžiama, kaip šis teisinis instrumentas, skatinant proceso operatyvumą ir ekonomiškumą, gali būti veiksmingai panaudotas prieš procesinį piktnaudžiavimą. Daroma išvada, kad prie šių tikslų įgyvendinimo turėtų prisidėti nuo 2011 m. spalio 1 d. įsigalioję civilinio proceso įstatymo pakeitimai, o tam tikrais atvejais – kūrybiškas teisės normų taikymas. Įvertinę užsienio valstybių patirtį ir praktiką, autoriai pritaria privačios baudos, kuri būtų skiriama nuo piktnaudžiavimo nukentėjusio asmens naudai, įtvirtinimui Lietuvos civilinio proceso teisėje, tačiau pateikia keletą kritiškų pastabų dėl Lietuvoje pasirinkto šio instituto teisinio reglamentavimo turinio.Recent major amendments of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter – the ‘CCP’) have added new and improved older procedural instruments that may be used for reimbursement of losses inflicted by the abuse of process. The law now clearly states that the court may take into account improper conduct of the participants when deciding on distribution of litigation costs. A fine in favour of the party aggrieved by the abuse may also be imposed. Therefore, in this article the authors analyse litigation costs and private fine as measures to reimburse losses caused by the abuse of civil procedure. The authors argue that litigation costs can be a fairly effective and relatively easy-to-use procedural instrument, which might not only prevent procedural abuses, but also compensate losses inflicted by it that falls within the category of litigation costs. Therefore, changes to the statutory legislation, expressly empowering a court to deviate from general rules of distributing and awarding litigation costs, by taking into account the propriety of the party’s actions in a procedure and causes that have given rise to those litigation costs, are welcomed. The courts are encouraged to apply these new rules without unnecessary hesitation. In addition, paragraph 11 of the Recommendations on Maximum Amounts to be Awarded as Remuneration for Attorney’s and Assistant Attorney’s Legal Aid (Services) in Civil Cases, approved by the Minister for Justice in 2004, should be construed as enabling the court to take due account to propriety of actions undertaken in the procedure and the fact of abuse when calculating the awardable amounts of attorney’s fees, which are considered litigation costs according to the CCP. The authors also conclude that award of litigation costs in a separate (new) case, i. e. by filing a claim for litigation costs as damages under tort liability rules, as a general rule, should not be allowed. In addition, it is expedient to supplement Article 98 of the CCP by providing an opportunity to ask for and substantiate the incurred attorney costs even after the case hearing is over. Regretfully, the Parliament has not adopted the respective amendments. After reviewing the practice and experience of other countries, the authors also agree with the introduction in the Lithuanian law of civil procedure of a private fine to be awarded in favour of a person aggrieved by the abuse. This procedural instrument shall be more efficient and act as economic means to redress violations of private rights, indemnify material or non-material damage and prevent abuse of process, rather than award of damages according to the rules of tort liability. However, the rules adopted on this issue are subject to some critical remarks