{"id":16735,"date":"2019-08-11T10:50:41","date_gmt":"2019-08-11T07:50:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.teise.pro\/?p=16735"},"modified":"2019-08-11T10:51:47","modified_gmt":"2019-08-11T07:51:47","slug":"lapt-teismai-turi-vertinti-atlygintinu-bylinejimosi-islaidu-pagristuma-ir-neleisti-atlyginti-pernelyg-dideliu-islaidu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.teise.pro\/index.php\/2019\/08\/11\/lapt-teismai-turi-vertinti-atlygintinu-bylinejimosi-islaidu-pagristuma-ir-neleisti-atlyginti-pernelyg-dideliu-islaidu\/","title":{"rendered":"Lapt: teismai turi vertinti atlygintin\u0173 bylin\u0117jimosi i\u0161laid\u0173 pagr\u012fstum\u0105 ir neleisti atlyginti pernelyg dideli\u0173 i\u0161laid\u0173"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Lietuvos apeliacinio teismo (Lapt) teis\u0117j\u0173 kolegija <a href=\"http:\/\/liteko.teismai.lt\/viesasprendimupaieska\/tekstas.aspx?id=80870647-36a4-4bf7-ac3b-1cbd9229a93a\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">nutartyje<\/a> nagrin\u0117jo bylin\u0117jimosi i\u0161laid\u0173 priteisimo klausimus ir nusprend\u0117 pakeisti pirmosios instancijos teismo sprendim\u0105 ir priteisti ie\u0161kovei ne 12\u00a0631,00\u00a0Eur, o 6\u00a0214,87\u00a0Eur bylin\u0117jimosi i\u0161laid\u0173.<\/p>\n<p>Teis\u0117j\u0173 kolegija atkreip\u0117 d\u0117mes\u012f, kad\u00a0\u00a0Rekomendacij\u0173 \u201eD\u0117l\u00a0civilin\u0117se bylose priteistino u\u017emokes\u010dio u\u017e advokato ar\u00a0advokato pad\u0117j\u0117jo teikiam\u0105\u00a0pagalb\u0105 maksimalaus dyd\u017eio\u201c 4 punkte\u00a0nustatyta, jog\u00a0neatsi\u017evelgiant \u012f tai, kiek advokat\u0173 atstovauja (teikia paslaugas) \u0161aliai, priteistino u\u017emokes\u010dio dydis negali vir\u0161yti Rekomendacij\u0173 8 punkte nurodyto maksimalaus u\u017emokes\u010dio vienam advokatui dyd\u017eio, i\u0161skyrus tuos atvejus, kai keli\u0173 advokat\u0173 dalyvavimas b\u016btinas. Teismas turi analizuoti\u00a0ir\u00a0nurodyti konkre\u010dius priteisiamus dyd\u017eius ir savo i\u0161vadas motyvuoti, taip pat vertinti atlygintin\u0173 i\u0161laid\u0173 pagr\u012fstum\u0105 ir neleisti atlyginti pernelyg dideli\u0173 i\u0161laid\u0173. \u0160iuo atveju pirmosios instancijos teismas\u00a0netyr\u0117 ir nevertino aplinkybi\u0173,\u00a0kokias i\u0161laidas ie\u0161kov\u0117 patyr\u0117 ir\u00a0kada ie\u0161kov\u0117\u00a0atsiskait\u0117 su advokat\u0173 kontora (advokatu); koks pagal atitinkam\u0105 met\u0173 ketvirt\u012f\u00a0priteistinoms teisin\u0117s pagalbos i\u0161laidoms apskai\u010diuoti\u00a0taikomas maksimalus advokatui priteistinas dydis pagal Rekomendacijas.<\/p>\n<p>Ie\u0161kov\u0117s atstovai i\u0161samiai nedetalizavo,\u00a0kiek laiko\u00a0reng\u0117\u00a0lai\u0161k\u0105 d\u0117l taikos pasi\u016blymo, reng\u0117si teismo pos\u0117d\u017eiui, u\u017esak\u0117 visuomen\u0117s apklaus\u0105, reng\u0117 pra\u0161ym\u0105\u00a0priteisti\u00a0bylin\u0117jimosi i\u0161laidas, susipa\u017eino su visuomen\u0117s apklausos rezultatais, susipa\u017eino su prie\u0161ie\u0161kiniu, trumpai pristat\u0117 dokumentus klientui. Teis\u0117j\u0173 kolegijos vertinimu,\u00a01\u00a0080,66 Eur (77,19 Eur \u00d7 7 dok.\u00a0\/\u00a02 val.) u\u017emokes\u010dio\u00a0u\u017e aptariamas\u00a0advokato suteiktas teisines paslaugas suma yra pakankama.\u00a0I\u0161 Vilniaus apygardos teismo 2016 m. gruod\u017eio 21 d. teismo pos\u0117d\u017eio informacin\u0117s pa\u017eymos nustatyta, kad teismo pos\u0117dis truko 48 minutes (nuo\u00a09.03 val. iki\u00a09.51\u00a0val.).\u00a0Taigi\u00a0u\u017e atstovavim\u0105\u00a0ie\u0161kovei\u00a02016 m.\u00a0gruod\u017eio 21 d. teismo pos\u0117dyje\u00a0maksimalus\u00a0u\u017emokestis\u00a0sudar\u0117 61,75\u00a0Eur.\u00a0Remiantis i\u0161d\u0117stytais\u00a0argumentais, teis\u0117j\u0173 kolegija nusprend\u0117 ma\u017einti priteistin\u0105 sum\u0105.<\/p>\n<p>\u012evertinus nustatytas aplinkybes ir tai, kad ie\u0161kov\u0117\u00a0nepateik\u0117 joki\u0173 paai\u0161kinim\u0173,\u00a0kokius \u012frodymus analizavo ir kiek laiko truko\u00a0j\u0173\u00a0analiz\u0117\u00a0bei komunikacija su muitin\u0117s atstovais, taip pat atsi\u017evelgus \u012f Rekomendacijas, spr\u0119stina ie\u0161kov\u0117s pra\u0161om\u0105 priteisti 1\u00a0345,99 Eur bylin\u0117jimosi i\u0161laid\u0173 sum\u0105 suma\u017einti iki\u00a0214,20\u00a0Eur.<\/p>\n<p>Lietuvos Auk\u0161\u010diausiasis Teismas\u00a02018 m. vasario 6 d. nutartyje civilin\u0117je byloje Nr.\u00a0e3K-3-108-248\/2018 pateik\u0117 i\u0161ai\u0161kinim\u0105\u00a0d\u0117l i\u0161laid\u0173, kitos \u0161alies patirt\u0173 advokato pagalbai apmok\u0117ti, priteisimo i\u0161 pralaim\u0117jusios \u0161alies dyd\u017eio (ma\u017einimo PVM suma). \u0160ios nutarties 38 punkte nurodyta, jog teismai, nustatydami atlygintinas i\u0161laidas advokato pagalbai apmok\u0117ti, privalo vadovautis\u00a0CPK\u00a0normomis ir neturi pareigos priteistin\u0105 sum\u0105 vertinti bylos \u0161alims kaip mokes\u010di\u0173 mok\u0117tojams galimai kilsian\u010di\u0173 mokestini\u0173 prievoli\u0173 bei teisi\u0173 aspektu ir pagal tai koreguoti priteistin\u0105 i\u0161laid\u0173 atlyginim\u0105. D\u0117l to\u00a0apeliant\u0117s\u00a0teiginys, kad\u00a0skund\u017eiamame sprendime neatsi\u017evelgta \u012f aplinkyb\u0119, jog\u00a0ie\u0161kov\u0117\u00a0\u012f pra\u0161omas priteisti bylin\u0117jimosi i\u0161laid\u0173\u00a0sumas \u012ftrauk\u0117 ir PVM mokest\u012f,\u00a0atmestinas kaip nepagr\u012fstas.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lietuvos apeliacinio teismo (Lapt) teis\u0117j\u0173 kolegija nutartyje nagrin\u0117jo bylin\u0117jimosi i\u0161laid\u0173 priteisimo klausimus ir nusprend\u0117 pakeisti pirmosios instancijos teismo sprendim\u0105 ir priteisti ie\u0161kovei ne 12\u00a0631,00\u00a0Eur, o 6\u00a0214,87\u00a0Eur bylin\u0117jimosi i\u0161laid\u0173. Teis\u0117j\u0173 kolegija atkreip\u0117 d\u0117mes\u012f, kad\u00a0\u00a0Rekomendacij\u0173 \u201eD\u0117l\u00a0civilin\u0117se bylose priteistino u\u017emokes\u010dio u\u017e advokato ar\u00a0advokato pad\u0117j\u0117jo teikiam\u0105\u00a0pagalb\u0105 maksimalaus dyd\u017eio\u201c 4 punkte\u00a0nustatyta, jog\u00a0neatsi\u017evelgiant \u012f tai, kiek advokat\u0173 atstovauja (teikia paslaugas) \u0161aliai, &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":15741,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"episode_type":"","audio_file":"","duration":"","filesize":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","filesize_raw":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[1590,1229,220,221,380],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.teise.pro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16735"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.teise.pro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.teise.pro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.teise.pro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.teise.pro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16735"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.teise.pro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16735\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16737,"href":"https:\/\/www.teise.pro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16735\/revisions\/16737"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.teise.pro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15741"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.teise.pro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16735"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.teise.pro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16735"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.teise.pro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}