Communicated on 24 February 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 27376/11 Vygandas LIATUKAS against Lithuania lodged on 7 April 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vygandas Liatukas , is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Kaunas.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In March 2008 the applicant ’ s mother passed away. In her will she had left half of her property to the applicant. On 27 May 2008 the applicant signed an official refusal to accept his part of inheritance, thereby transferring it to his sister and niece.

Subsequently the applicant ’ s creditors D.L. and V.L. submitted a request to a district court for the annulment of the applicant ’ s refusal to accept the inheritance. They claimed that the applicant had been insolvent and that by refusing the inheritance he was attempting to avoid his obligations to his creditors. D.L. and V.L. requested the court to annul the applicant ’ s refusal of 27 May 2008 and to find that he had in fact accepted the inheritance because he was using his late mother ’ s property.

On 25 November 2009 the Kaunas District Court partly upheld the creditors ’ claim. It annulled the applicant ’ s refusal to accept the inheritance on the grounds that it violated the interests of his creditors. However, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to find that he had in fact accepted the inheritance, and thus dismissed that part of the creditors ’ claim.

The applicant appealed against that judgment. One of the creditors, D.L., did as well, but the Kaunas District Court refused to accept her appeal due to formal deficiencies and gave her ten days to correct them. On 28 January 2010 the court held that D.L. had not submitted a corrected appeal within that time-limit, so it considered that she had not appealed.

However, on 29 September 2010 the Kaunas Regional Court examined both the appeals submitted by the applicant and by D.L. The court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, but it upheld D.L. ’ s appeal and found that the applicant had in fact accepted his mother ’ s inheritance.

On 27 December 2010 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant ’ s cassation appeal as raising no important legal questions.

The applicant submitted a complaint to the Commission on Judicial Ethics and Discipline concerning the judge of the Kaunas District Court who had examined his case. He complained that the judge had abused office by forwarding D.L. ’ s appeal to the Kaunas Regional Court because that appeal had not been submitted in accordance with the procedural rules. On 8 June 2011 the Commission dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint.

Subsequently the applicant requested the district prosecutor to investigate the actions of the judges of the Kaunas District Court and the Kaunas Regional Court but his request was denied on the grounds that no crime appeared to have been committed.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 316 § 1 of the Code of Civil Proceedings provides that when an appeal does not comply with the formal requirements provided in the Code, the court orders the appellant to correct the deficiencies within a certain time-limit. Article 316 § 2 provides that when the appellant does not submit a corrected appeal within that time-limit, it is considered that the appeal has not been submitted.

Article 320 § 2 of the Code of Civil Proceedings provides that the appellate court examines the case within the limits of the appeal, except in cases where the public interest demands otherwise.

Article 313 of the Code of Civil Proceedings provides that where only one of the parties submits an appeal, the appellate court may not adopt a judgment which would be worse to the appellant than the judgment of the first-instance court.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic court which examined his case on appeal adopted a judgment worsening his situation, even though the other party did not submit an appeal in accordance with the procedural rules.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the examination of his creditor ’ s appeal by the Kaunas Regional Court?