LEXONOMICA 
Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 29–48, June 2021 
https://doi.org/10.18690/lexonomica.13.1.29-48.2021 
© 2021 University of Maribor, University Press 
TWO-TIER SYSTEM OF JUDGMENTS AND
ORDERS (NATURE OF THE SEPARATE ORDER
TO PAY OR FULFIL THE CLAIM) 
Accepted  
10. 11. 2020 
Revised 
20. 01. 2021 
Published 
30. 06. 2021
MYKOLAS KIRKUTIS, REMIGIJUS JOKUBAUSKAS,
DARIUS BOLZANAS & VIGINTAS VISINSKIS 
Mykolas Romeris University in Vilnius, Vilnius, Lithuania 
E-mail: mkirkutis@gmail.com, remigijus@jokubauskas.org, 
darius.bolzanas@icloud.com, vigvis@gmail.com
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR 
mkirkutis@gmail.com 
Keywords 
requirements  
for procedural  
judicial  
documents, 
quality of  
procedural  
documents,  
enforcement 
proceedings,  
judgment,  
ruling,  
enforcement  
title 
Abstract The quality of procedural judicial documents is one 
of the most important components of judicial proceedings. 
The trust of individuals and the public in the judicial system 
may also depend on the quality of these documents. Therefore, 
Lithuanian legislation sets certain standards for procedural 
judicial documents. As well as, the law also provides for certain 
possibilities to eliminate ambiguities in court procedural 
documents both after the court decision has been made and 
during enforcement proceedings. 
30 LEXONOMICA.   
 
1 Introduction 
 
It is critically important for all states to strive to achieve the highest quality legal 
systems possible.  When measuring the excellence of a legal system, one constituent 
element is the quality of the states’ court decisions in the broadest sense. Although, 
the quality of justice is a product of a certain system consisting of judges and court 
staff and other participants in the proceedings (defenders, lawyers) qualifications, as 
well as the quality of individual court proceedings (from the adoption of decisions 
to execution proceedings).1 
 
In the last decade in Lithuania much attention has been paid to the quality of 
procedural documents. The Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania 
(hereinafter: CCP) establishes three main court documents in civil litigation: i) a 
court order;2 ii) a court judgment;3 and iii) an execution order.4 These three main 
court documents are prerequisites for the exercise of the right to a fair trial. In order 
to guarantee the right to justice, judicial documents must be served in accordance 
with certain requirements. Some requirements of these documents discussed in this 
article justify their interdependence and commonality in civil proceedings. 
 
This article consists of three parts. The first part analyses the requirements for the 
form and content of both a court order and a court judgment5 as well as the quality 
of these documents. We will address the procedure for issuing a court order together 
with the requirements for not only its content but also its enforceability. Secondly, 
we will delineate the content requirements for court decisions6 set out in both 
legislation and case law and the principles for quality of court decisions set out in 
the Recommended Quality Standards for Procedural Decisions Rendered by Courts 
(hereinafter: Standards). 
 
1 Jean-Paul Jean „La qualité des décisions de justice au sens du Conseil de l’Europe“,8th and 9th of March, 2007. 
Colloquium organized by the Faculty of Law and Social Sciences of the University of Poities on the quality of court 
decisions. CEPEJ Study No. 4. 
2 It is an enforceable document issued by a court for the award of pecuniary claims, the entry into force of which 
depends on the will of the debtor (objections). 
3 It is an individual act of application of the law by which the court finally settles a dispute between the parties. 
4 It is a court document issued on the basis of a final and enforceable court judgment, which can be submitted to 
the bailiff for execution. 
5 The CCP of the Republic of Lithuania regulates that in resolving a dispute, in principle, the court of first instance 
makes a court judgment. Meanwhile, the procedural issues arising during the proceeding are resolved by a court 
ruling. By court ruling, the court does not resolve the dispute on the merits, except in cases of appeal and cassation. 
6 The term “court decisions” is used to refer to both a court judgment and a court ruling. 
M. Kirkutis, R. Jokubauskas, D.Bolzanas & V. Visinskis: Two-Tier System of Judgments and 
Orders (Nature of the Separate Order to Pay or Fulfil the Claim) 31. 
 
 
The second part of this article analyses the nature of an execution order and the 
differences between the enforcement of court orders and court judgments. In the 
third part of this article, the authors discuss the judiciary’s role within the hierarchy 
of the enforcement process as well as the peculiarities of the enforcement of some 
decisions. 
 
2 Court orders and judgments in civil litigation 
 
The CCP establishes that a claimant has the right to choose between several forms 
of civil litigation. One of these forms is a summary procedure and the other is a 
contradictory procedure. In Lithuania, there are basically three forms of summary 
proceedings – the court order procedure, the documentary process and the small 
claims procedure. This article focuses on court orders issued in summary 
proceedings and decisions made in the course of the litigation process. Therefore, 
in this part of this article, it is first of all expedient to explain the summary proceeding 
and the specifics involved in the issue of court orders. 
 
2.1 The requirements and nature of court orders 
 
Chapter XXIII of the CCP regulates the peculiarities of a court order. The court 
issues an order according to the creditor’s statement of pecuniary claims arising out 
of the contract, tort, employment relationship, maintenance award etc.  Article 431 
(2) of the CCP identifies certain exceptions when an order cannot be issued. For 
example, the court may not consider the creditor’s application for an order if (i) at 
the time of the application for a court order, the creditor has not fulfilled his 
obligation (or part thereof) to the debtor, for which a payment is demanded, and the 
debtor demands the fulfilment of said obligation; or (ii) when the debtor resides 
abroad or is domiciled abroad; or (iii) when the debtor’s place of residence and place 
of work are unknown; or (iv) it is impossible to perform the obligation in parts and 
the creditor demands to perform the obligation of debtor  in part. 
 
The difference between a court order and a court judgment is that in court order 
cases, the court does not check the validity of the creditor’s claim. The main 
purposes of a court order are both to simplify and expedite the work of the court in 
cases when the parties do not dispute the claim. When issuing a court order, the 
court only verifies that the creditor’s application satisfies form and content 
32 LEXONOMICA.   
 
requirements and that none of the circumstances set in Article 431 of CCP exist that 
would preclude the court from issuing the order.  
 
How the matter proceeds depend on the nature of the debtor’s objections,7 for 
which the debtor does not have to provide underpinning arguments. If objections 
are raised then the case is pursued further, if not then the court order enters into 
force and becomes an enforcement title. No further enforcement order is issued on 
the basis of the court orders since the court order itself is an enforcement title. 
 
The case-law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania clarifies that the debtor’s objection 
expresses his will to disagree with all or part of the creditor’s claim, as the objection 
does not allow the injunction to take effect, which means that the court order 
proceeding ends and the creditor can defend its legitimate interests only by bringing 
an action in accordance with the procedure laid down in the CCP.8 As the court 
order is also an enforcement title, it must satisfy the requirements for an 
enforcement title. These requirements are discussed in detail in the next part of this 
article. A final court order has the same consequences in terms of enforceability as 
a final court judgment.9 
 
A final court order, theoretically, acquires the force of res judicata, becomes a binding, 
indisputable and enforceable court document. In practice, however, there are 
possible situations where the court renews the time limit for lodging objections after 
the court order has already been enforced and annuls the court order. In such a case, 
when the court order is executed, the institution of reversal of the court judgment 
may also be applied.10 
 
2.2 The requirement and nature of court decisions 
 
The requirements for court decisions are established in the CCP, case-law and the 
Standards, which were approved by Resolution of the Judicial Council on 27 of May, 
2016. Although, the Standards are recommendations and not binding, the courts of 
Lithuania apply them consistently. 
 
7 According to Article 439 (2) of the CCP, the debtor must submit all objections to the court within 20 days from 
the date of service of the notice of an issued court order. 
8 The Supreme Court of Lithuania 18.04.2014, Case No. 3K-3-222/2014. 
9 The Supreme Court of Lithuania 01.12.2015, Case No. 3K-3-638-378 /2015. 
10 Supra note 3. 
M. Kirkutis, R. Jokubauskas, D.Bolzanas & V. Visinskis: Two-Tier System of Judgments and 
Orders (Nature of the Separate Order to Pay or Fulfil the Claim) 33. 
 
 
Article 116 (1) of the CCP defines court documents as documents issued by the 
court during a trial. This article provides a list of court documents that can be issued 
by the court: i) judgments; ii) commandments; iii) orders; iv) rulings; v) resolutions; 
vi) minutes of court hearings; vii) summonses; and viii) notices. Sections 1 and 2 of 
Chapter 15 of the CCP regulate the essential requirements for courts’ judgments and 
rulings.  
 
Judgments differ from court orders. By rendering a judgment, the court resolves a 
dispute between the parties on the merits. If the court judgment fails to satisfy the 
requirements established either by legislation or case-law, according to Article 329 
(2) of the CCP it can be annulled on the absolute grounds of invalidity or for failure 
to disclose the substance of the dispute. Thus, court decisions have to comply with 
the established requirements. 
 
The Constitutional Court of Lithuania has indicated that a final judicial act rendered 
in a given case is a single act of application of law which settles the dispute. Thus, a 
final court act consists of one document, and not several legal acts – documents, 
written and rendered at different times. The final judicial act cannot be 
fragmentary.11 This means that the main requirement for court judgments, which 
derives from the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter: Lithuanian 
Constitution), is that a court decision must be written in a one legal document 
(judgment or order). 
 
In one case, the Supreme Court of Lithuania annulled the ruling12 (lt. nutartis) and 
the additional judgment of an appellate instance court because of breach of the 
principle of continuity of proceedings.13The appellate instance court examined the 
plaintiff’s appeal and rendered a ruling without examination of the defendant’s 
appeal. The court ruled on the defendant’s appeal in an additional judgment. The 
Supreme Court found that the appeal court violated the fundamental rules of civil 
procedure, which are important for the correct resolution of the case because of the 
hypothetical possibility that if the appellate court had examined the appeals of both 
parties and established the circumstances relevant to the case prior to the 
 
11 The Constitutional Court of Lithuania 21.09.2006. 
12 Supra note 5. 
13 The Supreme Court of Lithuania 19.04.2019, Case No. e3K-3-114-1075/2019. 
34 LEXONOMICA.   
 
announcement of the court’s final act, the examination might have led to a different 
outcome.  
 
The content requirements of judgments can vary depending on the instance of the 
court. Article 270 of the CCP, for example, sets the content requirements for 
judgments rendered by the first instance court, while Article 331 of the CCP 
regulates the content requirement for judgments of appellate instance courts. Both 
Articles state that a court judgment consists of four parts: i) introductory part; 
ii) descriptive part; iii) motivation part; and iv) operative part. The introductory part 
of the decision of a first instance court shall specify the time and place of the 
decision, the name of the court which made the decision, the composition of the 
court (name and surname of the judge (s)), the secretary of the court hearing, the 
parties, other persons participating in the case and the subject matter of the dispute. 
The descriptive part of the decision of the first instance court must contain a 
summary of the parties' claims and objections. The statement of reasons for the 
decision must state in brief the circumstances of the case established by the court, 
an assessment of the evidence on which the court’s findings are based, the arguments 
for which the court rejected any evidence, as well as the other legal arguments, 
legislation and other legal acts on which the court was guided. The operative part of 
the judgment of the first instance court must contain a court’s conclusion to satisfy 
the claim and/or counterclaim in full or in part, together with the content of the 
satisfied claim, or to dismiss the claim and/or counterclaim, in cases provided by 
law – the amount of interest awarded and the period until which it is recovered, an 
indication of the costs of litigation, and court conclusions on other issues resolved 
by the decision. The operative part of the judgment of the first instance court also 
must state the time limit and procedure for appealing against the decision.  
 
Article 291 of CCP regulates the content of the first instance court rulings (lt. 
nutartis). For comparison to the content requirements of court decisions, there is no 
requirement that an order of the first instance court must consist of four parts. 
Article 291 (1) of CCP stipulates that the ruling shall specify: i) the time and place of 
the ruling; ii) the name of the court; iii) the composition of the court and the clerk 
of the court; iv) the persons involved and the subject matter of the dispute; v) the 
issue on which the order is made; vi) the grounds on which the court reached its 
conclusions; vii) the ruling of the court; and viii) the time limits for appealing against 
the ruling. 
M. Kirkutis, R. Jokubauskas, D.Bolzanas & V. Visinskis: Two-Tier System of Judgments and 
Orders (Nature of the Separate Order to Pay or Fulfil the Claim) 35. 
 
 
The introductory part of the appellate court judgment (ruling)14 must include the 
time and place of the judgment (ruling), the name and composition of the court that 
issued the judgment (ruling), the persons who participated in the proceedings before 
the appellate court (in oral proceedings), the appellant, the appealed court judgment 
(ruling), the main parties to the proceeding, the other parties to the proceedings and 
the subject-matter of the dispute. The descriptive part of the judgment (ruling) must 
briefly summarize the circumstances of the case, indicate the essence of the appealed 
judgment (ruling), the grounds of appeal and arguments of the response relevant to 
the legality and validity of the appealed judgment (ruling), and indicate the summary 
of the appeal.  
 
Article 331 (4) of the CCP requires that the reasoning part of a judgment (ruling) of 
an appellate instance court shall set out in a concise form the circumstances of the 
case established by the court, the evidence on which the court’s conclusions is based, 
the arguments upon which the court rejected any evidence, and the laws and other 
legal acts and legal arguments upon which the court based its conclusions. The 
operative part of the decision (ruling) must state only the decision of the court of 
appeal. Whereas the judgment (ruling) of the appellate court enters into force from 
the day when it is rendered, there is no requirement that the operative part of the 
judgment (ruling) delineates the terms and procedure for appealing against the 
decision. However, this does not mean that the judgment (ruling) of the appellate 
court cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court of Lithuania.15 The question 
therefore arises whether the requirement to explain to parties of the case the 
procedure for appealing against such a judgment (ruling) in the operative part of a 
judgment (ruling) should not also apply to judgments (rulings) of the appellate court. 
We believe, that this requirement is also applicable to the operative part of judgments 
(rulings) of the appellate court. 
 
 
14 According to Article 326 (1) The court of appeal shall, after examining the case, have the right: 1) leave the 
judgment of the court of first instance unchanged; 2) set aside the judgment of the court of first instance (in whole 
or in part) and adopt a new judgment; 3) change the judgment of the court of first instance; 4) annul the judgment 
of the court of first instance in full or in part and refer the case to the court of first instance for retrial; 5) set aside 
the judgment of the court of first instance (in whole or in part) and dismiss the case or leave the application 
unexamined. Then the court of appellate instance adopts a new judgment the court document – judgment – has to 
be rendered. In all other cases, court rulings are issued. 
15 According to Article 345 (1) of the CCP, an appeal in cassation may be filed within three months from the date 
of entry into force of the appealed decision. An appeal in cassation against an order of an appellate court made on 
absolute grounds for invalidity of a decision shall be lodged within one month from the date on which the order 
under appeal enters into force. 
36 LEXONOMICA.   
 
Nevertheless, these content requirements for the court decisions are minimum 
requirements and according to special forms of judgment the CCP can set additional 
requirements. For example, the motivational part of the judgment in absentia can be 
abbreviated (Article 286 (1) of CCP), whereas the introductory part of the judgment 
in absentia must specifically state that the decision was rendered in absentia (Article 
286 (2) of CCP). 
 
Certain requirements regarding the content of judgments (rulings) are also provided 
in case-law. According to the Constitutional Court of Lithuania, the requirement of 
the integrity of a final court act arising from the Constitution means that the 
operative part of such act must always, without any exceptions, be based on the 
circumstances and arguments expressis verbis set out in the descriptive and/or 
motivational parts. The Lithuanian Constitution does not tolerate a legal and factual 
situation where a final court act (judgment, ruling, etc.) is not formally rendered and 
made public, inter alia, when the operative part of such act is formally rendered and 
made public (which sets out the decision in principle) and the arguments in support 
of it (i.e. the judgment set out therein) are set out later, post factum. 
 
Article 6 (1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and 
Fundamental Freedoms requires national courts to examine in detail the 
explanations, arguments and evidence provided by the parties without first assessing 
whether they are relevant to the decision. Judgments of courts and tribunals should 
duly state the reasons on which they are based. The statement of reasons for the 
decision is necessary in order to demonstrate that the parties have been heard and 
that justice has been done.16 According to Article 329 (2) (4) of the CCP, the court 
or tribunal’s failure to provide such reasons (arguments) constitutes an absolute 
ground to invalidate a judgment or ruling. The mere insufficient reasoning of a court 
judgment (ruling), on the other hand, does not constitute an absolute ground for its 
invalidity under the CCP. In cases where the reasoning for the court judgment 
(ruling) is incomplete or insufficient, such violation may nevertheless be recognized 
as substantial if the main (essential) factual and legal aspects of the case are not 
answered in the reasoning of the judgment (ruling) and as a result the case could 
have been resolved incorrectly. 
 
 
16 ECtHR 27.09.2001, Case Hirvisaari v. Finland, No. 4968/99. 
M. Kirkutis, R. Jokubauskas, D.Bolzanas & V. Visinskis: Two-Tier System of Judgments and 
Orders (Nature of the Separate Order to Pay or Fulfil the Claim) 37. 
 
 
The operative part is based on the arguments set out in the reasoning and not vice 
versa. Ensuring both the integrity and consistency of the judgment (ruling) is 
paramount. In the absence of a descriptive part, there can be no statement of 
reasons, and consequently there can be no operative part of the decision. 
 
Thus, before its announcement, a judgment or a ruling shall include all four parts 
and its entirety must be signed either by the judge or the panel of judges. This 
requirement ensures that the judgment or ruling will not be supplemented after the 
announcement.  
 
The Supreme Court of Lithuania has found that the reasoning and the operative part 
of the judgment must be interpreted in the light of the nature of the judgment as a 
single act.17 This means that the four parts of a court decision cannot be interpreted 
separately. When there are certain ambiguities in any of the four parts of the 
judgment (ruling), if possible, these ambiguities shall be resolved by interpreting the 
decision as a whole, considering all four parts of the judgment (ruling).  
 
In some cases, the reasoning of the judgment may not be sufficiently clear and the 
court may be asked to explain the reasoning after the announcement of the 
judgment. Article 278 of the CCP regulates the institution of the interpretation of 
judgments (ruling).  However, interpretation of the judgment (ruling) shall be 
permitted if it has not already been executed, or if the period during which the 
decision may be enforced has not expired or has not been renewed.18 
 
The CCP regulates only the main content requirements for judgments or orders. The 
quality requirements for court judgments and orders are set out in the Standards. 
  
 
17 The Supreme Court of Lithuania 08.02.2011, Case No. 3K-3-42/2011. 
18 According to Article 606 (2) of the CCP, the general time limit for the submission of an enforcement order is five 
years from the date of entry into force of the decision. The time limit for lodging enforcement orders under urgent 
judgments is calculated from the first day after the judgment is given. 
38 LEXONOMICA.   
 
3 Requirements for court decisions in the context of Standards 
 
The Council of Judges decided to adopt the Standards, taking into account that the 
rule of law principle enshrined in the Lithuanian Constitution means that court 
decisions must be both duly motivated and clear. The fact that only reasoned court 
judgments can ensure a quality system of justice led to an initiative to ensure the 
quality of court decisions. The standard sets out seven principles for the quality of 
court decisions that are recommended to be followed when preparing judgments or 
rulings. 
 
The first principle of the quality of court decisions is that the judgment must be fair 
and lawful. To satisfy this principle, the judgment shall be substantiated by the 
relevant factual circumstances (merits) of the case established by the court and by 
the law. This principle also requires the court to follow the applicable precedents in 
similar cases. Deviations from the precedents are permissible only in exceptional 
cases. 
 
The court judgment shall be convincing. This means that the court decision should 
convince the interested parties that it is fair and lawful. In considering matters related 
to establishing factual circumstances, the court shall specify why it is rejecting certain 
evidence. Since in many instances the court decision will not be convincing to those 
to whom it is unfavourable, it is critical that sufficient attention shall be devoted, in 
the reasoning part of the decision, to the evaluation of the argumentation presented 
by the losing party. It has to be evident from the court decision why adopting the 
argumentation or position of the losing party would contradict legal provisions or 
evidence collected in the case. In providing arguments for its decision, the court may 
accept one or more arguments advanced by a participant in the proceedings, already 
stated in the decision, without repeating them. However, it must be evident that the 
court has made an independent evaluation.  
 
The principle that courts decisions must be transparent means that the court shall 
state all the factual circumstances established that are relevant to the rendering of 
the decision, and all the motives underlying the decision, even when not all of the 
arguments are of a legal nature. The reasoning underlying the court decision shall be 
concise, clear, logical, unequivocal, specific, objective and unbiased. Where the court 
has seriously considered a number of alternative options in formulating its decision, 
M. Kirkutis, R. Jokubauskas, D.Bolzanas & V. Visinskis: Two-Tier System of Judgments and 
Orders (Nature of the Separate Order to Pay or Fulfil the Claim) 39. 
 
 
they shall be set out in the reasoning part of the court decision, with all “for” and 
“against” discussed. 
 
The court decision shall be consistent and sufficiently reasoned. Consistency of 
a court decision means that there is a logical relationship between different parts and 
paragraphs of the decision. All relevant factual circumstances shall be established 
and all legal issues shall be resolved in a reasonable sequence. The reasoning set out 
in the court decision shall not be contradictory. Sufficiency of the reasoning of the 
court decision means that explicit answers to the main issues raised in the case must 
be provided. The reasoning of the court decision shall demonstrate that the court 
considered all submitted evidence and dealt with all relevant questions/issues arising 
from the case. 
 
Another principle of quality of court decisions is that a court decision shall be clear 
and understandable. The court decision shall be written in easily understandable, 
common Lithuanian language. Scientific, technical, artistic or other special terms 
should be used as rarely as possible or be explained. The wording of the operative 
part of the court decision shall be clear. In cases where the decision can be enforced, 
the operative part shall be worded in a way which makes it clear how the decision 
will be enforced. The court must render a decision that it would be possible to 
enforce in practice. The order of the court set out in the operative part of the court 
decision shall not give rise to opportunities for different interpretations of the 
content of the court decision in terms of how specifically and to what extent it 
should be enforced. 
 
Further, a court decision shall have a clear structure and form and shall be correct 
both linguistically and legally.  It shall be written without linguistic or spelling 
mistakes, consistently and in the same style. Structural parts that are required by law 
or that have been selected by the court (in cases where a statutory structural part is 
divided additionally by the court) must be clearly separated. Each paragraph in the 
decision should deal with an independent (new) thought/idea or other relevant 
information. Normally, a paragraph of the reasoning part of the court decision 
should not consist of just one sentence or two sentences. However, paragraphs 
should not be too long either (normally, maximum 0.5 of the page). 
 
40 LEXONOMICA.   
 
The final principle is that a court decision rendered by a court of relevant 
instance shall reflect the peculiarities of the court of such instance. This means 
that decisions rendered by courts of first instance and courts of appeal shall be, first 
of all, clear and understandable to parties to the case, therefore, preparation of 
decisions shall take account of who are the parties, are they capable of understanding 
the content of the reasoning of the court, whether they receive professional legal aid. 
The main task of the court of first instance shall be to clearly define and identify the 
factual circumstances established by the court. Attention should be focussed on 
evidence as well as its summarisation, grouping and assessment. A legal assessment 
of the factual circumstances established by the court (qualification of relations) shall 
be presented, specifying those legal provisions which, in the opinion of the court, 
are applicable based on the factual circumstances, and the application of these 
provisions shall be substantiated. The higher the instance of the court, the greater 
the importance of law interpretation and development. Legal matters considered in 
a decision of a court of appeal as well as the relevant solutions and arguments shall 
be clearly identifiable and separable from other information. 
 
These seven principles of quality of court decisions set forth in the Standards 
harmonized the form of court decisions in Lithuania. Nevertheless, even when these 
principles are fully satisfied, giving the decision the highest quality, the court decision 
nevertheless is meaningless if it is not enforceable. 
 
4 The enforcement of court judgments and orders: the nature of the 
 enforcement title 
 
The right to a fair trial depends not only on the efficiency of court proceedings and 
on the quality of court decisions, but also on the effectiveness of the enforcement 
proceedings. Applicable case law of the European Court of Human Rights suggests 
that enforcement proceedings are an integral part of the right to a fair trial.19  
  
 
19 ECtHR 19.03.1997, Case Hornsby v. Greece, No. 18357/91. 
M. Kirkutis, R. Jokubauskas, D.Bolzanas & V. Visinskis: Two-Tier System of Judgments and 
Orders (Nature of the Separate Order to Pay or Fulfil the Claim) 41. 
 
 
Although no material value is created in the enforcement process, nevertheless the 
court decision is enforced and the amount decided by a court or other competent 
entity is recovered. The practical form of expression of this judgment in 
enforcement proceedings is an execution title issued by the court (Višinskis and 
Stauskienė, 2007: 58).20 
 
Article 586 of the CCP states that the basis for the execution of enforcement actions 
is an enforcement title submitted for execution in accordance with the procedure 
established in the CCP. Enforcement actions taken without an enforcement title are 
prohibited, with certain exceptions, such as where the judgment itself is considered 
to be an enforcement title (for example, a court order on interim measures 
etc.)(Višinskis and Stauskienė, 2007: 59-60). When performing enforcement actions, 
the bailiff must unconditionally comply with all of the enforcement procedures set 
forth in the enforcement title since it is the enforcement title itself that determines 
both the scope and the content of enforcement proceeding.21 Therefore, the 
enforcement title must also meet certain content requirements. 
 
Article 648 of the CCP sets the parameters for the content required in enforcement 
titles. The enforcement title must state the name of the court that issued the 
enforcement title, the case in which the enforcement title was issued, as well as the 
date of the judgment or ruling, which has to be executed. Also, enforcement titles 
must specify the time of entry into force of the decision or an indication that the 
decision is urgently enforceable and the time of issuance of the enforcement title. 
The enforcement title must also include the full names of both the creditor and the 
debtor and their addresses, personal identification codes, legal entity codes, details 
of credit, payment and/or electronic money institutions (if known). The 
enforcement title for the recovery of maintenance payments shall also specify the 
dates of birth of the children. 
 
One of the most important requirements related to decisions which have to be 
executed is that the enforcement title must indicate literally the operative part of the 
judgment or ruling which has to be enforced. The requirement to specify the 
operative part of the decision literally to the enforcement title confirms that the 
 
20 ECtHR 06.03.2003, Case Jasiunienė v. Lithuania, No. 41510/98. 
21 The Supreme Court of Lithuania 16.09.2002, Case No. 3K-3-992/2002. 
42 LEXONOMICA.   
 
enforcement title legitimizes only the enforcement process and not the validity of 
the claim. The validity of the claim being verified cannot be verified in the 
enforcement process (Višinskis and Stauskienė, 2007: 59). This position is in line 
with the idea of the court order procedure. When the court issues an enforcement 
title the court does not assess the merits of the claim and its validity. The court can 
refuse to issue a court order only if the claim is manifestly unfounded (Article 435 
(2) of the CCP). The creditor has the obligation to indicate in the statement the 
evidence forming the basis of the claim.  
 
The commencement of proceedings for the enforcement of the court order depends 
solely on the debtor’s consent to the creditor’s claim against him. However, an 
enforcement title may not be issued for the enforcement of any judgment, but rather 
only for an enforceable judgment. The enforcement of decisions (coercive measures) 
is not always required. Instead, it is only one form of enforcement. The concept of 
implementation is broader than the concept of enforcement. All court decisions are 
implemented, since all court decisions have some effect on the legal relationship 
between the parties (Višinskis and Ambrasienė, 2008: 40-41). However, decisions on 
recognition, termination, alteration or establishment of a legal relationship do not 
normally require enforcement, since the judgment itself has legal effect.  A decision 
on the determination of the rights and obligations of the parties is effective from the 
moment of entry into force, regardless of whether the defendant has taken any 
action or not.  
 
 Meanwhile, the legal effect of judgments on an award22 is achieved only when the 
defendant performs the acts which the court orders the defendant to take in the 
operative part of the judgment. A defendant who fails to perform the obligations 
ordered is subject to the methods of coercion provided by the law. Judgments that 
can enforced using coercive methods are called enforceable. Since court decisions 
deal not only with pecuniary claims, but also with others that cannot be subject to 
enforcement actions, a separate enforcement order is required to initiate 
enforcement proceedings. The enforcement order defines the limits of enforcement, 
not the judgment. According to Article 648 (6) of the CPP, if an error is made in the 
 
22 Judgments on an award mean judgments ordering a certain amount of money of property from the debtor in 
favor of the creditor. 
M. Kirkutis, R. Jokubauskas, D.Bolzanas & V. Visinskis: Two-Tier System of Judgments and 
Orders (Nature of the Separate Order to Pay or Fulfil the Claim) 43. 
 
 
issuance of an enforcement order, it shall be corrected by the issuing authority at the 
request of the party concerned. 
 
 According to Article 646 of the CCP, when issuing an enforcement order, the court 
does not resolve disputes between the parties but merely issues enforcement orders 
in accordance with enforceable court decisions.23 The court only verifies that the 
limitation period for the enforcement of the enforcement order has not expired and 
checks that there are no data on the execution of the decision and whether the 
judgment or part thereof is enforceable. Whether an enforcement order will be 
presented for enforcement to a bailiff depends on the will of the creditor (Kirkutis, 
and Višinskis, 2020: 79). It is one of the expressions of the principle of dispositivity 
in the enforcement proceeding (Žemkauskas, Kirkutis, and Višinskis, 2020: 515).  
 
However, this does not mean that the enforcement title can be considered as a 
completely separate, independent document, isolated from the judgment 
(Stauskienė, 2007: 73). The basis for enforcement action is an enforcement title, but 
the legal basis for enforcement is always a court decision and not an enforcement 
title.24 
 
The nature of an enforcement title proves that the content and quality requirements 
for court judgments and rulings also affects the content of enforcement title and the 
efficiency of the enforcement process. 
 
 
5 The role of the court in the enforcement process and the peculiarities 
 of the enforcement of some decisions  
 
Section 1.2 of this article discussed the basic requirements for a court decision. 
However, in specific cases, the CCP also provides some requirements that are 
relevant to the enforcement process. Also, the CCP provides a possibility for the 
court to defer, set out or change the procedure for enforcing the judgment. 
 
 
23 The Supreme Court of Lithuania 04.11.2015, Case No. 3 K-3-587-687/2015. 
24 The Supreme Court of Lithuania 22.05.2006, Case No. 3K-3-352/2006. 
44 LEXONOMICA.   
 
Article 271 (1) of the CCP states that when making a judgment the court shall, if 
necessary, determine the specific procedures and terms for the execution of the 
judgment. When awarding property in a dispute about ownership, for example, the 
court must specify the value of the property to be awarded, which must be recovered 
from the defendant.25 The purpose of this requirement is to recover the value of the 
assets to the creditor if the enforcement proceedings reveal that the assets awarded 
no longer exist. 
 
By way of another example, in a decision ordering the defendant to perform or 
terminate certain acts not involving the transfer of assets or funds, the court may in 
the same judgment state that if the defendant fails to comply within the time limit, 
the plaintiff has the right to perform those actions or take measures to terminate 
them at the defendant’s expense and at the same time recover the necessary costs 
from the defendant. If the specified actions can be performed or terminated only by 
the defendant, or if the defendant is obliged to eliminate the consequences of 
construction in violation of legal requirements, the court shall set a time limit within 
which the judgment must be executed. In addition, the court must indicate the 
amount of the fine to be imposed on the defendant if he fails to comply with the 
judgment or to bring the specified action to an end within the period set in the 
judgment. 
 
Article 771 (6) of the CCP states that in the absence of compliance with the decision 
obliging the debtor to perform or terminate certain actions,  which can only be 
performed or terminated by the debtor himself, or the decision obliging the debtor 
to eliminate the consequences of construction in violation of legal requirements, or 
a mandatory order, or a mandatory order, for which time limits have not been set,  
then the bailiff shall forward the written act to the district court of the place where 
the bailiff’s office is located. If the court determines that the debtor has not complied 
with the judgment or binding order, the court may impose a fine of up to three 
hundred euros for each day of delay in enforcing the judgment or binding order in 
favour of the creditor. The fines regulated in both Article 273 (3) and Article 771 (6) 
of the CCP are imposed on the same basis, i.e. for failure to fulfil an obligation of a 
 
25 Article 272 of the CCP. 
M. Kirkutis, R. Jokubauskas, D.Bolzanas & V. Visinskis: Two-Tier System of Judgments and 
Orders (Nature of the Separate Order to Pay or Fulfil the Claim) 45. 
 
 
similar nature. According to the case law, these fines are recovered in favour of the 
recoveree.26 
 
Another important institution of the CCP impacting both the content of court 
decisions and the enforcement process is a possibility for the court to defer, establish 
or change the procedure of enforcing the judgment. According to Article 284 of the 
CCP, the court has a right, at the request of the persons participating in the case or 
on its own initiative, to postpone or set out the execution of the decision, as well as 
to change the procedure for execution of the decision, taking into account the 
property situation or other circumstances of both parties. If the amounts required 
for the execution of a court decision awarding monies from the State of Lithuania 
are not provided for in the approved state budget, the execution of this decision may 
be postponed to the next budget year at the request of the defendant. However, an 
execution of an urgent decision or part thereof may not be postponed. 
 
These requirements help ensure that in cases where execution upon the judgment 
depends on actions by the debtor, the judgment can be adequately enforced. These 
requirements encourage the debtor to comply with the judgment, since the court 
may determine by the terms in the judgment itself that a certain fine is levied for 
each day the judgment goes unenforced. If these issues have not been resolved by 
the court judgment, they still may be considered after the judgment has been 
announced. This institution is an exception to the general rule of the CCP that all 
final court decisions are binding. 
 
A judgment may not always be enforceable in accordance with the procedure 
specified therein. There are numerous reasons why a judgment might not be 
enforced. The debtor might act dishonestly to avoid enforcement of the judgment. 
The judgment ordering the defendant to take or terminate certain actions might itself 
be deficient by failing to indicate the consequences of non-enforcement, such as not 
including specific sanctions such as monetary penalties. Furthermore, other 
objective circumstances may prevent enforcement. The case-law recognizes a 
ground for changing the procedure for the enforcement of a judgment where the 
defendant has been ordered by a judgment to take or terminate certain acts, but the 
 
26 The Supreme Court of Lithuania 12.06.2019, Case No. e3K-3-213-248/2019. 
46 LEXONOMICA.   
 
judgment has not specified the consequences of non-compliance.27 A change or 
modification in the procedure for enforcement of a judgment also is warranted in 
situations where the execution of a decision on the return of property in kind 
(restitution in kind) has revealed that the property (or part of it) is no longer in kind 
and it is accordingly impossible to enforce the decision to return the property.28 
 
In such cases, the parties to the case have the right to request the court to change 
the procedure for enforcement of the decision in accordance with Article 284 (1) of 
the CCP. A change in the procedure for the enforcement of a judgment is the 
introduction of a different procedure for the enforcement of a judgment from that 
set out in the operative part of the judgment or the normal procedure for the 
enforcement of certain types of judgment.29 The change of the procedure for 
enforcement of the judgment ensures the binding effect and enforceability of the 
final judgment is the protection of the legitimate interests of the party. Since the 
application for a change in the procedure for the enforcement of a judgment is 
pending after the judgment’s entry into force, the court is bound by the content of 
the substantiated substantive claim set out in the operative part of the judgment and 
cannot change the substance of the judgment. The mechanism for changing the 
procedure for the enforcement of the judgment is not intended to be used for 
reviewing/modifying (the substance of) a court judgment that has entered into force. 
When modifying the procedure for enforcement of a judgment, the court therefore 
may not extend or reduce the rights or obligations established by the parties and 
granted by the judgment or create obligations for persons other than those specified 
in the court judgment whose enforcement procedure is changed (except their 
successors), etc.30 
 
In conclusion, the above-mentioned shows the importance of the requirements of 
court judgments to the enforcement proceeding. These requirements ensure the 
effectiveness of the enforcement proceeding and the protection of the violated rights 
of the individual in the shortest possible time.  
  
 
27 The Supreme Court of Lithuania 13.02.2006, Case No. 3K-7-29/2006. 
28 The Supreme Court of Lithuania 12.12.2014, Case No. 3K-3-545/2014 and the Supreme Court of Lithuania 
19.04.2017, Case No. e3K-3-201-611/2017. 
29 The Supreme Court of Lithuania 04.01.2013, Case No. 3K-7-83/2013. 
30 The Supreme Court of Lithuania 25.06.2013, Case No. 3K-3-346/2013. 
M. Kirkutis, R. Jokubauskas, D.Bolzanas & V. Visinskis: Two-Tier System of Judgments and 
Orders (Nature of the Separate Order to Pay or Fulfil the Claim) 47. 
 
 
6 Conclusions 
 
1. The court order in Lithuania itself is an enforcement title due to the 
limitations of this procedure. Only pecuniary claims for a judgment can be 
settled by court order procedure. Therefore, the court order has to meet the 
requirements for the enforcement title. 
2. In Lithuania, court decisions consist of four parts: introductory, descriptive, 
motivational and operative. As these parts are inter-related, they ensure that 
a court decision is one, legal, integrated act. At the time of announcement of 
the decision, it must consist of all four parts. 
3. The operative part of the court judgment is the most important for the 
enforcement procedure. It must be transposed literally into the enforcement 
order. It is the operative part of the judgment that determines the scope of 
the enforcement proceedings. Thus, this paragraph must be clear and 
enforceable, without any ambiguity. 
4. Standards of Quality of Court Decisions set out 7 principles for the quality of 
court decisions that are recommended to be followed when preparing 
judgments or rulings. Although Standards are not binding, they are applied by 
the courts of Lithuania and have led to a harmonized form of court decisions. 
5. All court decisions produce legal effects, as all court decisions have some 
effect on the legal relationship between the parties. However, not all court 
decisions require enforcement (e.g., application of coercive measures). The 
enforceability of a judgment depends on the legal relationship between the 
dispute and the content of the claims. Decisions on recognition, termination, 
alteration or establishment of a legal relationship do not normally require 
enforcement, as the judgment itself has legal effect (constitutive judgment). 
 
 
References 
 
Kirkutis, M., and Višinskis, V. (2020) Antstolių institucinės veiklos pokyčiai (Vilnius, Mykolo Romerio 
universitetas), Lietuvos teisė 2020: esminiai pokyčiai (II dalis). 
Stauskienė, E. (2007) Teisinė vykdymo proceso prigimtis (Vilnius, Mykolo Romerio universitetas), 
Jurisprudencija 1(97). 
Višinskis, V., and Abrasienė, D. (2008) Teismo vykdomųjų dokumentų išdavimo tvarka (Vilnius, 
Mykolo Romerio universitetas), Jurisprudencija 2(104). 
Višinskis, V., and Stauskienė, E. (2007) Teismo išduodami vykdomieji dokumentai (Vilnius, Mykolo 
Romerio universitetas), Jurisprudencija 11(101). 
48 LEXONOMICA.   
 
Žemkauskas, M., Kirkutis, M., and Višinskis, V. (2020) Bendrųjų civilinio proceso principų taikymas 
vykdymo procese (Vilnius, Mykolo Romerio universitetas), Jurisprudencija 2(27). 
 
About the authors 
 
Mykolas Kirkutis is a Ph.D. candidate at Mykolas Romeris University in Vilnius, Lithuania, e-mail: 
mkirkutis@gmail.com. 
 
Remigijus Jokubauskas is a Ph.D researcher at Mykolas Romeris University in Vilnius, Lithuania and a 
consultant of the Council of Europe, e-mail: remigijus@jokubauskas.org. 
 
Dr. Darius Bolzanas is a lecturer at Mykolas Romeris univeristy, Lithuania, e-mail: 
darius.bolzanas@gmail.com. 
 
Prof. dr. Vigintas Višinskis is a professor at Mykolas Romeris University in Vilnius, Lithuania and a 
judge at the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, e-mail: vigvis@gmail.com.