Search

The issuance of a writ of execution is one of the necessary conditions to begin the enforcement process, because without a writ of execution this process cannot be started. When a party to a dispute does not comply with a court decision in good faith (voluntarily), the other party has the right to apply to the court for the issuance of a writ of execution based on this decision, which can be submitted to the bailiff for enforcement. This article examines the conditions under which the court has the right to issue a writ of execution and what problems arise in judicial practice when solving this issue. The article examines how the resolution part of a decision should be formulated in order to ensure the prompt issuance of a writ of execution, alongside how the enforceability of the decision is understood when solving the issue of the issuance of the writ of execution. The article also examines the cases in which an enforceable document (a writ of execution) can be returned after the completion of the enforcement case, instead of issuing a new one.

This article analyzes the problems of enforcement of non-pecuniary (personal) judgments. Such judgments are characterized by a specific coercive enforcement procedure, as it can only be executed by a specific person (debtor), and ordinary enforcement measures are generally not applied. The legal acts regulating the forced enforcement process determine several sanctions that the court has the right to apply to a debtor who does not comply with a personal court decision. Such sanctions are regulated in Article 145(9), Article 273(3), and Article 771(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania. In court practice, a number of questions arise regarding the interpretation and application of the bases of these sanctions and their mutual compatibility. This article examines the cases in which the court should apply the sanctions established in the aforementioned articles and how their application allows the goals of the enforcement proceedings to be achieved. The article raises the question of whether the grounds for the application of these sanctions are adequately regulated, or whether the judicial practice interpreting them is justified.

Enforcement proceedings shall be effective and all procedural guarantees of the right to a fair trial shall be ensured. This article examines the problems of recovery from property pledged by mortgage or pledged for the benefit of third parties. The Law on Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania allows recovery from such property in enforcement proceedings only when the creditor does not contest this possibility. However, this creditor right is not absolute, and the creditor shall not abuse this this right. This article analyses how the protection of a claim secured by a mortgage or pledge must be reconciled with the goal of an effective enforcement process when there is a need to recover from property secured by a mortgage or pledge. The article assesses the procedural problems that arise for the bailiff in order to perform recovery from such property, the legal status of the mortgagee or pledge creditor, and the rights and obligations in the process of execution. The relevant case law shows that one of the fundamental problems in such collection procedures is the objection of the mortgage or pledge creditor to the recovery of the property pledged to them. It also examines how such consent should be expressed, what legal consequences arise when the creditor opposes such recovery, and in which cases recovery from mortgaged or pledged property is possible without the creditor’s consent.

This article examines the issue of the application of the civil liability of the director of a company for the failure to commence insolvency proceedings in time. This form of liability is specific, relating to the breach of the obligation to initiate insolvency proceedings in time, and its purpose is to compensate the company’s creditors for damage caused. Following the adoption of the Law on Insolvency of Legal Entities and the reform of the insolvency process in Lithuania, the question arises as to the process in which the liability of the director of a company for the failure to commence insolvency (bankruptcy) proceedings in time should be examined. In order to answer these questions, this article examines the nature, legal regulations, and case law of this liability in the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Poland. The analysis of the problems of the application of the civil liability of a director for failure to commence insolvency proceedings in time has focused on the identification of unlawful actions as the main conditions of tort liability, which has triggered a lot of questions in the case law. The purpose of this article is to reveal when the director of a company has a duty to commence insolvency proceedings, as well as the circumstances to be considered in deciding on the fulfillment of this duty.

This article examines the goals and procedure of the sale of an enterprise as a going concern in corporate bankruptcy proceedings. It argues that the goals of the sale of an enterprise are not in accordance with the classic goals of bankruptcy proceedings, as they relate to the broader economic and social goals that can be achieved by selling an enterprise as an asset. This article also focuses on the comparative analysis of international legal regulation by examining how this procedure is regulated in the bankruptcy law of Estonia, Latvia, Poland, and France. The procedure for the sale of an enterprise established by the Law on Insolvency of Legal Entities and its problems are also examined. The authors consider how the sale of an enterprise should be ensured at the earliest possible stage of bankruptcy proceedings, and provide a proposal to change the procedure for the sale of the enterprise, including the court in this procedure. This paper also analyzes how bids to buy a company should be submitted, what actions should be performed by an insolvency administrator, how the interests of employees should be ensured, and what requirements should be established by law for the buyer of an enterprise.

This article examines the meaning of fraudulent bankruptcy and the problems inherent in applications of fraudulent bankruptcy. It proposes how the regulation of fraudulent bankruptcy can be improved, and considers the historical development and legal regulation of the institute of fraudulent bankruptcy in foreign countries. Also considered is the amendment of fraudulent bankruptcy introduced by the Law on Insolvency of Enterprises of the Republic of Lithuania. The authors assert that the new law on insolvency proceedings has fundamentally changed the procedure for the examination of applications for fraudulent bankruptcy. They argue this to be the case since the court must decide not only on the grounds of fraudulent bankruptcy, but also on the persons who caused the fraudulent bankruptcy by the same decision. In such cases, also discussed is how the court must ensure the right to a fair trial and the effectiveness of insolvency (bankruptcy) proceedings is discussed, and the status of the person(s) involved and their procedural rights and obligations.

This article analyzes the concept of viability and its interpretation in insolvency law in relation to the restructuring of enterprises where creditors provide financial support in order to avoid bankruptcy. The significance of viability in insolvency law is assessed, as this concept is regulated by international legal acts regulating insolvency proceedings, i.e. European Union law. The complex nature of viability and the assessment of the economic situation of the company are analyzed. The author also examines the precise meaning of viability when applying the Law on Insolvency of Enterprises of the Republic of Lithuania, and the objectives and economic justification for the establishment of this concept. The author asserts that viability is an economic category, the assessment of which requires not only legal, but also special economic, financial, and market knowledge. Recent case law on the interpretation and application of the viability condition in the restructuring process is analyzed. Moreover, the author suggests which circumstances may prove the non-viability of the enterprise and when bankruptcy proceedings should be commenced.

This article focuses on extrajudicial (out-of-court) bankruptcy proceedings. It discusses how the new Law on Insolvency of Enterprises has changed the legal regulation of this process. The article examines the procedure of commencement of out-of-court bankruptcy proceedings, alongside the issues of informing creditors and the gathering of the creditors’ meeting. The statutory conditions for out-of-court bankruptcy proceedings are thoroughly discussed. The article also examines the competence of the creditors’ meeting in such bankruptcy proceedings. In essence, the creditors’ meeting performs the functions assigned to the court in ordinary bankruptcy proceedings. In practice, however, there are problems with the competence of the creditors’ meeting, for instance, the application of fraudulent bankruptcy. Furthermore, the article discusses the role of the court in this process. Though the court is not active in extrajudicial bankruptcy proceedings, the practical examples raise doubts as to whether the court should be allowed to interfere in the competence of the creditors’ meeting in deciding certain issues relevant to the bankruptcy proceedings.

This article analyzes public order as a ground for the non-recognition of foreign court judgments in the case-law of Lithuanian courts. Violation of public order is often used by the parties to challenge the recognition of foreign court judgments. Firstly, the authors seek to reveal the content of public order as a ground for the non-recognition of foreign court judgments. The concept of public policy must be in-terpreted narrowly, thus ensuring the effectiveness of the process of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and equality of parties. Secondly, the authors raise a debatable question regarding the validity of Lithuanian case law interpreting international treaties concluded between the Republic of Lithuania and other states, as far as it is related to public order as grounds for the non-recognition of foreign judgments. The authors analyze whether these international treaties concluded more than two decades ago are still compatible with the current international standards. Thirdly, this article presents the development of the application of the public policy clause in separate areas of legal relations. Violations of public order are linked to fundamental principles of law and human rights. Such case law is justified and meets the requirements of a narrow interpretation of public order. The courts have found violations of public policy in cases when the child was not heard in person by the court in family cases. Also, courts have found violations of public policy in certain commercial disputes.