In the Lithuanian legal system, one of the fundamental values of justice is to ensure a fair and just trial. Of particular importance here is the principle of "non reformatio in peius", which ensures that a person who has appealed against a decision of a court of first instance does not suffer worse consequences simply because he or she has exercised his or her right to appeal. According to Domantas Velykis, a lawyer at AVOCAD, this principle is particularly relevant in criminal proceedings as well as in civil and administrative cases.
For example, in a criminal case, if the court of first instance sentenced a person to 2 years' imprisonment and the person appealed against the decision, the Court of Appeal may refer the case back to the trial court. However, even in that case, the court of first instance may not, on the basis of the above-mentioned principle, impose a sentence more severe than 2 years, unless expressly requested to do so by another party to the proceedings, such as the prosecutor. This principle protects the appellant from the negative consequences that could result from the mere exercise of the right to appeal.
AVOCAD's lawyer says that this regulation guarantees the appellant's right to appeal against a decision of the court of first instance that he considers unjust, without fear that the appellate court will make his position worse than that of the court of first instance.
“When assessing whether the aforementioned principle was violated with respect to the appellant, it is necessary to determine whether a decision worse than the one being appealed was rendered. A court decision may be deemed worse if it more severely restricts a person’s rights, imposes more obligations on them, or the like. It is important to note that this prohibition applies only when the decision of the court of first instance is appealed by only one party to the proceedings,” notes D. Velykis
According to the lawyer, in civil proceedings, the exceptions to the prohibition of an inferior decision in the court of appeal must be interpreted very narrowly and can only be applied in those cases where a substantial public interest established in the particular case clearly so requires, in particular if the proceedings in the court of appeal are terminated without referring back to the court of first instance for a fresh decision.
The legal framework provides that the limits of an appeal may be exceeded only where the public interest so requires and the rights and legitimate interests of a person, society or the State would be prejudiced if the appeal were not exceeded.
“In judicial practice, the position is taken that the mere fact that the court of first instance, in rendering a procedural decision that is being appealed, incorrectly applied legal provisions, cannot in itself justify either exceeding the scope of the appeal or, accordingly, worsening the appellant’s legal position in the appellate court,” emphasizes Domantas Velykis.
However, according to the lawyer, it is important that the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has clarified that the appellate court must not be limited by the limits of the appeal in such a way that its decision would be fundamentally unfair and that this would violate constitutional values. The principle of proportionality is therefore also very important here.
It is important to note that the case-law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania did not consider as a violation of the prohibition to adopt a worse judgment a situation where both parties to the proceedings lodged appeals, but one of the parties contested only the allocation of the costs of the proceedings, and the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, even though the party that had contested the allocation of the costs of the proceedings had not raised such a claim, but did not disagree with the conclusions of the Court of First Instance, which led to the relevant decision on the allocation of the costs of proceedings, i.e. it also put forward arguments as to why the judgment of the Court of First Instance is not, in principle, correct.
The prohibition against rendering a decision that is less favorable to the appellant applies to all parties to the proceedings, both when considering future litigation strategies and formulating arguments and claims in the preparation of appeals, and when evaluating decisions rendered by appellate courts and assessing the possibilities for filing cassation appeals, based on a violation of this principle. “This principle is particularly important in protecting individuals from potential abuse of the judicial system or disproportionate decisions. Knowledge and understanding of it are important not only for legal professionals but also for all members of society, as it helps ensure trust in the legal system and encourages active participation in legal proceedings. “Only informed and aware citizens can effectively defend their rights and contribute to strengthening the rule of law,” the lawyer emphasizes.