For the article of October 23, 2013 - Documented facts of pressure from Lithuanian state and official persons for the purpose of extortion, seizure of property of US justice veterans in Lithuania, EU.
Original documents / English
Page 1
Stamp: The final court decision.
The Gerb with Lithuanian Heraldry.
Civil case no. 2-1269-514/2008.
procedural decision category 75.4.3, 77.4.2, 78.2.1, 75.8, 116.4.
PLUNGE DISTRICT COURT
SOLUTION
FROM NAME OF REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
2008 year, October, 29th day, Plunge.
Plunge District Court Judge Ausra Volskyte, secretary Daiva Akavickiene,
in the presence of the plaintiff Konstantin Korenevsky,
the plaintiff's representative lawyer Jovita Pekene,
the representative of the Child Rights Protection Service Vaida Vaicikauskiene,
In an open court session, the court considered the civil case on the claim of the plaintiff Konstantin Korenevskiy against the defendant Grazina Korenevskaya on the dissolution of marriage, determination of the place of residence of children, collection of alimony, division of property and
the court found:
The plaintiff requests to dissolve the marriage with the defendant, registered on 18 March 2005 in the civil registry office of the municipality of Rietavas, due to the fault of the defendant, to establish a place of residence for the daughter Eduarda, born on 21 February 2006, and the son Etnesta, born on 27 March 2008, together with the plaintiff, to oblige the defendant to pay alimony in periodic payments in the amount of 200 litas per month. To divide the property acquired during the marriage and award the plaintiff a Ford Mondeo worth 3,000 litas, state number DCJ994.
It has been proven that the defendant found a loverman and left his family. The plaintiff improperly cared for minor children, left them unattended, and she to drunkard. Without the plaintiff's permission, she took and sold jointly acquired property, including a crib, and spent the proceeds on alcoholic beverages. For these reasons, the marriage broke down due to the fault of the defendant. The defendant lives with a cohabitant, does not provide care for the children, the children currently live with the plaintiff, who continues to care for them, therefore the place of residence of the children must be determined jointly with the plaintiff, and alimony is collected and awarded as compensation for child care in accordance with the claim. During the marriage, they purchased a Ford Mondeo worth 3,000 litas, which the plaintiff requests to be awarded to sebe, since the defendant took away part of their common property: a scooter, a microwave oven, a mobile phone, etc..
During the court hearing, the plaintiffman supported the claims and indicated that by the first court hearing, the defendant had returned to family, had given a written undertaking not to return to cohabitant and to live with family, but had not kept she promise. She left the family again. Since 30 September 2008, both minor children have been undergoing treatment in hospital under the care of the applicantman. During this time, the defendant did not exercise custody or care for the children, although she was paid child care benefits for some time. The defendant's current location the danefits is unknown. The defendant's lifestyle does not change, so the plaintiff is convinced that there is no possibility of preserving the family and asks to declare the marriage invalid due to the defendant's fault. The house has all the necessary conditions for raising children, so the place of residence of the children is determined with the plaintiff anf collecting alimony from the defendant. To oblige the defendant to pay legal costs.
The plaintiff's representative supports the claim.
The defendant did not submit a response to the claim and did not participate in the court hearing.
The claim satisfied /Articles 3.60, 3.192, 3.196, 3.208 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania/.
The plaintiff demanded a divorce due to the defendant's fault, since the defendant drunking, did not care for the minor children and abandoned the family.
Page 2
According to Article 3.60, Part 2 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, a spouse is considered guilty of divorce if he or she has materially violated his or her duties as a spouse, as a result of which cohabitation has become impossible. The duties of the spouse are provided for in Articles 3.26–3.30, 3.35–3.36, 3.92 of the Civil Code. This is devotion, mutual respect, moral and material support, comprehensive care for children and the whole family, as well as other responsibilities.
The testimonies of witnesses G. Celediniene, A. Peciulis, S. Stoniene established that the defendant did not take proper care of her young children, left them unattended, and drunking. The Child Rights Protection Service of the Rietavas City Administration also stated in its report of 12 September 2008 (1.33) that the defendant frequently consumed alcoholic beverages during his stay at the defendant's home and that the room was uncleaned all the time.
Based on the explanations of the plaintiff and the testimony of the witness G. Chelediniene, the defendant has not been and is not interested in the children in recent times, i.e. while the children were being treated in the hospital, and does not provide them with never support.
Such behavior of the defendant, neglect of the interests of the children and abuse of alcohol are completely unacceptable from the point of view of the goals of the family and society as a whole, therefore it must be concluded that the defendant essentially violated her marital duties. The spouses have not lived together since May 2008, with a short break, they do not maintain marital relations, they do not run a joint household, neither of the spouses strives to renew family relations, which makes reconciliation between the spouses impossible. It was established that the family broke up due to the fault of the defendant and the marriage is dissolved.
According to the Child Protection Service, the plaintiff has a better chance of creating proper conditions for the children than the defendant /1.41/. Thus, having assessed these conclusions, in the actual situation the place of residence of the children is determined to be that of the plaintiff /Article 3.169, Part 2 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania/. However, if the circumstances change where the child’s place of residence is determined at plaintiff, the defendant has the right to file a repeated claim to determine the child’s place of residence /Article 3.169, Part 3 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania/. In addition, a mother who does not live with her children has the right and obligation to communicate with them during the period of their upbringing /Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 3.170, Part 1/.
Parents are obliged to support their minor children, the defendant lives separately and does not participate in the maintenance of the children, therefore the defendant must payment alimony. The plaintiff request's that alimony be awarded in periodic payments in the amount of 200 litas per month. This amount is minimal, but given the age of the children, the defendant must help ensure the necessary conditions for the development of the children by receiving periodic payments in the specified amount. Therefore, the defendant is ordered to pay the required amount of alimony.
The claim for division of property acquired during marriage is also satisfied.
According to Article 3.117, Part 1 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, it is assumed that the spouses' shares in the common property are equal. That's why the car and an enterprise it common property of spouses. The value of this property is small, the defendant did not object to the division, therefore this property should be awarded in the plaintiff. The plaintiff's minor children continue to live with him, and the defendant took away some of his property: a microwave oven and a scuter, so she has no right to the compensation from the plaintiff.
If the claim is satisfied, the defendant is ordered to pay the registration fee and postal expenses (Article 96, Part 1, Article 88, Part 1, Clause 3 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania), and the plaintiff is obliged to pay the incurred legal costs (Articles 93, 98 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania).
The court, guided by Articles 268 and 270 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania,
r u l e d:
Satisfy the lawsuit.
The marriage registered on 18 March 2005 in the civil registry office of the Rietava municipality, entry No. 5, between Konstantin Korenevskyi and Gražina Korenevskienė, personal code 48308031272, has been dissolved. To admit that the marriage broke down due to the fault of the defendant, Grażyna Korenevskiene.
Page 3
After a divorce, keep the surnames of the spouses received during marriage.
To Childrens: Eduarda Korenevskyte, born 21.02.2006, and Ernesto Korenevskiy, born 27.03.2008, place of residence will be determined jointly with father Konstantin Kotenevsky.
To order Grazina Korenevskiene, personal code 48308031272, to pay alimony to children Eduard Korenevskyte, born 21.02.2006, and Ernest Korenevskiy, born 27.03.2008, in periodic payments of 200 litas per month for each child until they reach adulthood, the amount of alimony is indexed annually in the manner established by the Government, taking into account inflation since 1 August 2008.
Konstantin Korenevsky shall be left as the administrator of the funds of Eduarda Korenevskte, born on 21.02.2006, and Ernest Korenevsky, born on 27.03.2008.
To order Gražina Korendvskienė to pay LTL 144 in stamp duty, LTL 17.85 in passport costs, a total of LTL 161.85 to the state, and LTL 716 in legal costs to Konstantin Korenevsky.
To divide the property acquired during the marriage and award Konstantin Korenevskyi, as his personal property, a Ford Mondeo worth 3,000 litas, state registration number DCJ 994, Personal Company: K.Korenevskio individuali imone, code 111605090.
There are no other claimants or creditors for the divide property.
The court decision may be appealed through the Plunge District Court within 30 days from the date of its adoption.
Coat of Arms Seal with write: Lithuanian Republik / Plunge District Court.
Judge Ausra Volskite.
Shtamp: Copia real, Judge: Signature, Ausra Volskite, 2008.12.02.
No comments:
Post a Comment