Summary: – 1. Introduction. – 2. The Concept of Finality and its Relevance. –
3. Considerations Related to Finality. – 3.1. View of the Court. –3.2. View of the (Post-)
Soviet Doctrine. – 3.3. Considerations that Support Finality. – 4. The Experience
of Ukraine. – 5. The Experience of Lithuania. – 6. Possible Implications for the Two
Nations. – 7. Conclusions.
Finality of judgments is a concept that puts an end to the trial, prohibiting subsequent appeals, opening of new proceedings and disputing clearly established facts. Despite being promoted by the Council of Europe and its Court of Human Rights and familiar to most if not all states, its application still encounters misunderstanding in some Eastern European Countries. Deeply rooted ideas of substantive truth and public role of the judiciary, a rather idiosyncratic notion of fair trial and the rule of law all lead to underestimation of the role played by finality in a peaceful life of the society. This article addresses the experience of Ukraine (where a major judicial reform has just taken place) and Lithuania – two post-Soviet nations that both, still in their unique way, worked on implementing the principle of finality into their procedural order. The paper also explores an uneasy balance to be found between this notion and other relevant considerations (access to justice, rule of law, judicial economy and some other).
Kostiantyn Gusarov,Doctor of Law, Professor, Head of the Department
of Civil Procedure, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Ukraine
Viktor Terekhov, PhD in Law, Lecturer of the Private Law Department,
Law Faculty, Vilnius University, Lithuania
finality of judgments, legal effect, res judicata, review of judicial decisions,
access to justice, rule of law, correction of errors, judicial economy.
How to cite it?
K Gusarov, V Terekhov 'Finality of Judgments in Civil Cases and Related Considerations: The Experience of Ukraine and Lithuania' (2019) No 4 (5) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 6-29.