Whether a person's right to fair trial in a process of becoming legally incapable is properly ensured?

„[S]prendžiant žmogaus veiksnumo apribojimo klausimą, yra pavojus pažeisti fundamentalias asmens teises, todėl tokio proceso inicijavimui turi egzistuoti svarūs argumentai, o jo metu turi būti kreipiamas ypatingas dėmesys į tinkamą asmens, tariamai stokojančio veiksnumo, teisių apsaugą, privalo būti užtikrinamas teisingas bylos nagrinėjimas.“ Lietuvos Respublikos Civilinio kodekso ir Civilinio proceso kodekso nuostatų, nustatančių neveiksnumo institutą, pagrindiniai reguliavimo trūkumai: nėra užtikrinamas fizinio asmens, kurį prašoma pripažinti neveiksniu, dalyvavimas teismo posėdyje, kai sprendžiamas jo neveiksnumo nustatymo klausimas, neveiksnus asmuo neturi teisės teismo sprendimo skųsti kasacine (teismine) tvarka dėl savo teisinio statuso įvertinimo, teisės aktais nėra reglamentuotas neveiksnaus asmens periodinis sveikatos patikrinimas ir teisė skųsti globėjo veiklą. Tyrimo objektas- asmens teisės į teisingą teismą užtikrinimas dėl jo pripažinimo neveiksniu proceso metu. Tyrimo dalykas- pagrindas kreiptis į teismą dėl asmens pripažinimo neveiksniu, šio asmens atstovavimas teisme ir teisė skųsti teismo sprendimą, globėjo veiklos kontrolė, neveiksnaus asmens periodinis sveikatos patikrinimas, kaip sąlyga iniciuoti procesą dėl veiksnumo statuso peržiūrėjimo. Tyrimo tikslas- pateikti teisės aktų analizę dėl asmens teisės į teisingą teismą užtikrinimo proceso metu, kai keliamas klausimas dėl asmens veiksnumo teisinio statuso įvertinimo. Pirmoje dalyje pateikiama analizė dėl pagrindo kreiptis į teismą, kad asmuo būtų pripažintas neveiksniu. Antroje dalyje pateikiama teisės aktų analizė dėl asmens teisės užtikrinimo būti informuotam apie proceso eigą, kai sprendžiamas šio asmens neveiksnumo nustatymo klausimas, šio asmens teisė būti išklausytam proceso metu. Trečioje dalyje pateikiama teisės aktų analizė dėl neveiksnaus asmens teisės skųsti teismo sprendimus instancine tvarka ir turėti advokatą. Ketvirtoje dalyje pateikiama analizė dėl neveiksnus asmens periodinio sveikatos patikrinimo, sąlygų iniciuoti procesą dėl veiksnumo statuso peržiūrėjimo, globėjo veiklos kontrolės ir atsakomybės. Penktoje dalyje pateikiamas Lietuvos Respublikos teisinio reguliavimo palyginimas su Latvijos ir Prancūzijos neveiksnumo instituto teisiniu reguliavimu.According to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, “in the settlement of restriction of person’s capacity, the hazard to violate the fundamental rights of that person exists; therefore in order to be able to initiate such proceedings, strong reasoning is needed, while the special attention should be paid to the protection of rights of the person, who supposedly lacks capacity, and the fair trail has to be secured”. The defects of the provisions of the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania regarding recognition of natural person as incapable are the following: the participation of the natural person, with regard to whom the application of recognition of incapacity is submitted, in the trial, when the issue of that incapacity is being settled, and the right of such person to be heard in the trial are not secured; the incapable natural person does not have a right to bring cassation regarding evaluation of the legal status of incapacity; and the periodical health examination of the incapable natural person and right to complain about the guardian’s activity are not regulated in the legal acts. The object of the research is the assurance of the person’s right to the fair trial regarding his determination as incapable. The subject of the research is the ground to ask the court to recognize the person as incapable, representation of that person and the right to appeal the court’s decision, control of the guardian’s activity, and periodical health examination of the incapable person as the precondition to initiate the proceedings regarding revision of the incapacity’s status. The legal institution of incapacity defined in the legal acts of the Republic of Lithuania contradicts the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, other national laws and main standards of human rights consolidated in the international legal acts because of its laconic regulation and legal gaps. The narrow legal regulation of incapacity determined in the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania results in the fact that the natural person may be only completely capable or incapable because of mental problems, and this has strong impact on the extent of his/her rights. In order to restrict the rights of the person, who has mental disease or disability, as little as possible, it is important to take the social skills of that person into account, the possibility to make own decisions and take care about himself/herself; therefore it is necessary to expand the application limits of “limited capacity” in the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania or to consolidate a new concept of “limited incapacity”. The requirement is set in the new Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania that entered into effect on 01 January 2014 that the person, who is asked to be recognized as incapable, should be represented by the lawyer during the preparation for the case and its examination. Otherwise the lawyer appointed by the State should guarantee that such a person would be notified about the started trial and that his/her interests would be represented properly in the court. This procedural guarantee secures the right to the person to be heard personally or through his/her representative. According to the case law of the Republic of Lithuania, the issue of determination of incapacity of natural person is mainly settled in the court of first instance, because the courts of higher instance do not always undertake measures to learn all the circumstances of the The incapable person does not have any rights, cannot bring a cassation nor make an agreement for legal services with a lawyer. In the case law the courts accept the cassation written and signed by the lawyer of the incapable person, although the procedural guarantee to be represented by the lawyer during the trial does not always guarantee proper representation of the interests of incapable natural person. The periodical health examination of incapable persons is not consolidated in the legal acts of the Republic of Lithuania, nor is his/her right to ask the court to assess the legal status of incapacity when the health condition improves and to complain about the actions of the guardian. When the legal regulations of the Republic of Lithuania and Latvia regarding the legal protection of the persons, who have mental disease or affection, are compared, the conclusion should be made that the legal regulation of the Republic of Lithuania is the strictest and restricts the rights of the persons more than in Latvia and France. The essential difference is that the guardianship is imposed for the person because of the mental disorders in the Republic of Lithuania, while in Latvia the care is applied. According to the Latvian civil legal regulation, the successors of the caregiver shall be held liable to the charge for the damage caused by the actions of the caregiver, while the legal regulation of the Republic of Lithuania does not provide such a possibility. The regulation of the Latvian Civil Code does not prohibit the person, whose health and mental condition have improved, to address the court asking to recognize him/her as capable and to withdraw care, whereas the legal regulation of the Republic of Lithuania does not provide such an opportunity. The French civil legal regulation determines three forms of the protection of person’s rights depending on the mental disorders: judicial protection, guardianship and care, while the Lithuanian legislation provides the institution of guardianship. According to the French laws, the person, to whom the guardianship is imposed, can make certain transactions with the help of the guardian, while the Lithuanian laws do not provide such an opportunity at all. The last essential difference is that the French legislation determines the time-limited period of the guardian’s activity, while the guardian is imposed for indefinite period, according to the laws of the Republic of Lithuania. The first part presents the ground to ask the court to recognize the person as incapable. In the second part there is presented the analysis of legal acts regarding the assurance of the right of incapable natural person to be informed about the course of proceedings, when the issue of that person’s incapacity is being determined, as well as the right of that person to be heard during the trial. The third part presents the analysis of legal acts regarding the right of incapable person to appeal the court’s decisions to certain instances and to have a lawyer. The fourth part presents the analysis regarding periodical health examination of the incapable natural person and evaluation of legal status of that person’s incapacity, control of the guardian’s activity and his responsibility. The case law of foreign countries is introduced in the fifth part together with the analysis and comparison of the legal acts, which regulate the legal institution of incapacity in the Republic of Lithuania and Latvia and in the Republic of Lithuania and France.Vytauto Didžiojo universiteta