| Summary: | Baigiamasis darbas skirtas išanalizuoti prašymu del teismo leidimu išdavimo ir faktu patvirtinimo nagrinejimo Vilniaus rajono apylinkes teisme praktika. Autorius, analizuodamas teismo bylas, kartu aptare ir teorinius klausimus. Prašymai del teismo leidimu išdavimo priskiriami prie ypatingosios teisenos bylu, kurios nagrinejamos supaprastinto proceso tvarka. Autorius analizavo kriterijus, pagal kuriuos nustatoma, kokiam konkreciai teismui teismingi šie prašymai. Kartu autorius aptare procesiniu dokumentu samprata, kurie skirstomi I byloje dalyvaujanciu asmenu ir teismo procesinius dokumentus. Darbe analizuojami šiu pareiškimu nagrinejimo tvarkos ypatumai bei terminai. Remiantis Vilniaus rajono apylinkes teismo bylomis, išskirtos pagrindines atsisakymu išduoti teismo leidimus priežastys. Taip pat aptarta teismo procesinio dokumento – nutarties, kuriuo užbaigiamas šiu bylu nagrinejimas, turinys ir jai budingi požymiai. Analizuodamas Vilniaus rajono apylinkes teismo bylas del teismo leidimu išdavimo, autorius pastebejo, kad teismas ne visada tinkamai taiko teisminguma reglamentuojancias teises normas. Taip pat pastebeta, kad teismas, nagrinedamas prašymus žodinio proceso tvarka, pažeidžia suteikta penkiu dienu termina šiems prašymams išnagrineti. Kalbant apie prašymus del faktu patvirtinimo, Vilniaus rajono apylinkes teisme buvo tik kelios tokios bylos, todel baigiamajame darbe atlikta tik keleto tokio pobudžio bylu analize. === The final work is dedicated to analyse the practice of dealing with the pleas for bestowal of court permissions and pleas for confirmations of facts in the court of Vilnius precinct. The author also talked over the theory by analysing court cases. Pleas for bestowal of court permissions are in the category of cases of special proceedings and they are dealt with in the simplified trial. The author analysed criteria’s determining which court should deal with the pleas. The author described the definitions of aforesaid processial documents, which are of two different kinds: documents of court participants and processial documents of the court. The final work described the singleness and terms of dealing with the pleas for bestowal of court permissions and pleas for confirmation of facts. Having analysed the cases the author singled out the main refusal reasons to bestowal the court permission. The definition and content of the final document in the court proceedings was also given in this work. Having analysed the cases in the court of Vilnius precinct there were found some wrong applications of law rules regarding the courts work. The court sometimes doesn’t abide the five days term after receiving aforesaid pleas to make a final decision in the case. It is also important to mention that the court received just a couple of pleas for confirmation of facts over few years.
|
|---|
