Šio darbo tikslas – kompleksiškai išanalizuoti ir palyginti teisės kreiptis į teismą įgyvendinimo procesinę tvarką pagal Lietuvos ir Austrijos civilinio proceso įstatymus. Abiejose šalyse konstituciniu lygmeniu įtvirtintą teisę kreiptis į teismą detalizuoja civilinio proceso įstatymuose nustatyta šios teisės įgyvendinimo tvarka. Darbe teorinių ir empirinių metodų pagalba yra analizuojama teisė kreiptis į teismą, jos turinys, teisės kreiptis į teismą prielaidos ir sąlygos, nustatytos atsisakymo priimti ieškinį pagrinduose, įtvirtintuose Lietuvos ir Austrijos civilinio proceso įstatymuose. Remiantis moksline literatūra, teisės aktais, Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo ir Austrijos Aukščiausiojo Teismo (Oberster Gerichtshof) praktika atskiruose baigiamojo darbo skyriuose analizuojami Lietuvos ir Austrijos civilinio proceso kodeksuose numatyti atsisakymo priimti ieškinį pagrindai. Atlikus lyginamąją Lietuvos ir Austrijos civilinio proceso įstatymų analizę, prieinama išvados, kad abiejų valstybių civilinio proceso įstatymuose įtvirtinti atsisakymo priimti ieškinį pagrindai yra beveik identiški, teisė kreiptis į teismą yra tinkamai reglamentuota ir įgyvendinama nepažeidžiant įstatymuose numatytų reikalavimų. Tiek Lietuvoje, tiek Austrijoje įtvirtinti baigtiniai atsisakymo priimti ieškinį pagrindų sąrašai nesudaro kliūčių asmenims pasinaudoti teise kreiptis į teismą. Taip pat darbe pateikiami pasiūlymai Lietuvos įstatymų leidėjui dėl kai kurių civilinio proceso įstatymų nuostatų... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / In dieser Magistrusarbeit analysiert man die Ordnung der Verwirklichung des Justizgewährungsanspruchs anhand der Gesetze des Zivilprozesses in Litauen und Österreich. Den Justizgewärungsanspruch, den die Verfassungen der beiden Ländern durchsetzen, detailisiert die Ordnung der Verwirklichung dieses Rechts in den Gesetzen des Zivilprozesses. In der Arbeit analysiert man den Justizgewärungsanspruch, Inhalt des Justizgewährungsanspruchs (die Prozessvoraussetzungen und die Rechtszugvoraussetzungen sind in den Gesetzen des Zivilprozesses verwirklicht, die in den Gründen der Zurückweisung der Klage festgesstelt sind). Hier werden auch die Werke der Rechtswissenshaftler in Litauen und Österreich besprochen. In einzelnen Teilen dieser Arbeit werden die Gründen der Zurückweisung der Klage besprochen. Diese Gründe analysiert man anhand der Gesetze, der Rechtsprechung, der Wissenschaft des Zivilprozessrechtes. Nach der vergleichenden Analyse der Gesetze des Zivilprozesses in Litauen und Österreich kann man die Schlussfolderung ziehen, das die Gründen der Zurückweisung der Klage fast identisch sind. Der Justizgewährungsanspruch ist ausführlich reglementiert und verwirklicht man ohne Verletzungen der Gesetze. Sowohl in Litauen als auch in Österreich ist die Endliste der Gründen der Zurückweisung der Klage verwirklicht, die keine Hindernisse der Personen, die den Justizgewährungsanspruch nutzen wollen, machen. In der Arbeit werden auch die Vorschläge für den Gesetzgeber Litauens wegen... [to full text]

Litigation in person is a widespread phenomenon in common law jurisdictions. A right to litigate in person is treated as a fundamental right, regardless of whether the litigant has the financial means to hire a lawyer or the capacity to conduct litigation effectively. Due to the high numbers of litigants in person and the various burdens placed on judicial resources by their lack of legal knowledge, they pose a serious challenge to the effective and efficient administration of justice. This thesis assesses the theoretical value of a right to self-representation, and challenges the position that courts should not impose legal representation on a litigant nor require him to obtain such representation as a condition for litigation. It argues that a litigant who lacks the professional knowledge and skills to present his case effectively cannot legitimately insist upon representing himself if in doing so he is likely to inflict disproportionate costs on his opponent and on the administration of justice. This thesis advances the case for mandatory representation in civil proceedings on three main fronts: a comparison with the criminal context, an assessment of the value of self-representation in terms of outcome, and an examination of its possible intrinsic justifications.

Equality before the law and equal access to justice are fundamental rights in a modern state governed by the rule of law. Access to justice refers to the essential notion that all people have the right to legal protection and a jucidial remedy and that no practical, legal or other obstacles should prevent individuals from exercising their rights. The main facets that constitute the essence of access to justice is the right to access to court, involving a right to effective access to a fair and public hearing for everyone. Applied to criminal proceedings, this includes the right to equality of arms and practical and effective legal representation, if it is needed in order to ensure effective access to court.  Access to justice as a fundamental right covers several European legal principles, the right to a fair trial in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms being the main focus. The provision aims particularly on the person being suspected of a crime. However, the overall principle of the right to a fair trial and access to justice also includes the victim of a crime. This means that the rights deriving from access to justice also must be respected in regards of the injured party.  In order for the injured party to be able to exercice his or her rights under access to justice, the rights for the victim under Swedish law must provide him or her with sufficient conditions for doing so. The injured party may, inter alia, institute a private claim for compensation in criminal proceedings as well as under certain conditions file an action in accordance with the rules on private prosecution. The police and public prosecutor have an obligation to inform the injured party on his or her rights. The victim of a serious crime may have the right to be represented by a counsel. The right to counsel for the injured party does not correspond to the suspect’s right do defense counsel, which can result in failure to ensure equality of arms between the victim and the suspect. A procedural imbalance that favors one of the parties at the expense of the other may cause that his or her right to access to justice is denied. In general, being represented by a counsel for the injured party increases the victim's chances of defending his or her rights in accordance with access to justice.

La Pologne est un ancien État communiste qui a signé la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme en 1991 et l'a ratifiée en 1993. Le droit de recours individuel a été reconnu en 1993. Le changement de régime a exigé de revoir le système juridique polonais, dont les principes du procès équitable, afin de pouvoir se conformer aux exigences de la Convention. La France a signé la Convention en 1950, l'a ratifiée en 1974. Le droit de recours individuel a été reconnu en 1981. C'est un des plus anciens signataires de la Convention et actuellement un acteur majeur de la société internationale dont l'attachement aux droits de l'homme constitue un élément caractéristique de sa politique extérieure. Cette étude comparative détermine si les exigences concernant les tribunaux et le procès, ainsi que les droits garantis en matière pénale, imposés par l'article 6 de la Convention, sont respectés dans les deux États. D'un côté, cela permet de voir les différences et les similitudes entre la France et la Pologne qui peuvent sembler différentes à cause de leur histoire et de leur tradition de respect des droits de l'homme, mais qui également se ressemblent dans les mécanismes de protection des droits de l'homme mis en place et rencontrent les problèmes similaires, comme par exemple la durée excessive de la procédure ou le non-Respect du principe de l'égalité des armes.D'un autre côté, cela permet de vérifier si les organes internes ont bien appliqué et, le cas échéant, réparé les violations de la Convention, notamment par les réformes de la loi interne. / Poland is a post-Communist state which signed the Convention in 1991, and ratified it in 1993. The right to the individual application was established in 1993. The change of the regime required to reform the Polish legal system, including the principles of fair trial, to comply with the requirements of the Convention. France signed the Convention in 1950, and ratified it in 1974. The right to the individual application was established in 1981. It is one of the oldest members of the Convention and at the moment one of the major actors of the international society, whose attachment to human rights is one of the characteristics of its foreign policy. This comparative study sets out to determine whether the requirements concerning the courts and the trials, and the rights guaranteed in criminal matters imposed by the article 6 of the Convention are respected in both states. On the one hand, this enables us to see the differences and the similitudes between France and Poland. These two states can seem to be different because of their respective histories and traditions when it comes to the respect of human rights. However, in the final analysis, they deal with similar problems, as, for example, the excessive length of proceedings, or non-Respect of the principle of equity of arms. On the other hand, this enables us to verify if the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights have been entirely implemented by the two states, and, where necessary, if the infringements of the Convention were repaired, including the reforms of the internal law.