Justice and equity within civil process

Straipsnyje yra analizuojama, kiek gali būti teisingas standartinis teismo procesas, tiriama, kokiais būdais ir priemonėmis yra įgyvendinamas teisingumas procesine prasme. Pripažįstama, kad teismas, kaip subjektas, sprendžiantis teisinį ginčą, įgyvendina teisingumą tik tuo atveju, jei užtikrina nešališkumą visų asmenų atžvilgiu. Tinkamas teisinis procesas yra konstitucinės teisės kreiptis į teismą sudedamoji dalis. Tačiau procesas nėra paremtas vien teisės principais, kurie inkorporuoja daugiau ar mažiau nusistovėjusias nuostatas, ar teisės normomis. Tam tikri konkretūs politiniai sprendimai ar veiksmai turi įtakos teismo procesui. Straipsniu siekiama išnagrinėti tam tikrus teisingumo principo įgyvendinimo aspektus Lietuvos teismų procesuose. Parodoma, kad teisinės metodologijos trūkumas lemia skirtingus priimtų sprendimų argumentus, jų nenuspėjamumą, todėl neskatina teisinės taikos.Article provides an analysis on how much the standard court proceedings can be regarded as the research, which is performed by investigating by what manner and measures the justice in a procedural sense is implemented. It is generally acknowledged that the court, as a subject, solving a legal dispute, implements justice only in the case, when it ensures the impartiality towards all persons. The appropriate legal proceedings form a constituent part of the constitutional right to apply in the court. The article aims at introducing certain aspects of the implementation of the principle of justice in the court proceedings of Lithuania. It is indicated that the lack of legal methodology results in different arguments of the rendered decisions and their unpredictability, therefore, it does not encourage to opt for the legal peace. The article is topical in a sense that it has not provided an analysis, on which the aspects of impartiality reveal themselves in the nowadays case law in particular cases and how it produces an effect on the approach to justice. In Lithuania, doctrinal presumptions were created for the freedom of the courts, upon which the courts started to formulate new procedural regulations. The freedom of the actions of judges is based on the aim to ensure a stronger safety in regard to the rights pertaining to one of the public groups, i.e. to disallow the domination of certain subjects over the others by eliminating inequality between the parties. The freedom of the actions of judges is also justified by the aim to render the right decision. However, the formulation of the new regulations according to the actual situation by too freely interpreting the norm of the proceedings, without having the doctrinal basis for that, causes the legal confusion, thus inconsistency in the case law appears, the inner contradictions arise and, in addition to that, there is a failure to follow the standard of impartiality. The individualisation of each legal dispute pursuant to the newly established procedural regulations creates the presumptions for legal instability. Upon the absence of doctrinal substantiation for the newly formulated procedural regulations, the risk arises for the courts to unduly avail of the competence granted to them, thus there will be no implementation of the justice attained. The approach, based on the demand for an individual safety, encourages to refuse the regulations, which are universally applied. Such conception of justice is characteristic for legal individualism, which is grounded in consumerism, by means of which the standard court proceedings are refused, while the extended sympathy theory becomes the starting point. The comprehension and observance of the legal methodology is one of the conditions for the development of the consistent case law. The presence of a clear method in the case law will allow to prevent from pursuing different legal conceptions, i.e. different reasoning of a court decision upon the similar circumstances, as well as it will prevent from speculating on the accepted legal position by refusing the legal argument