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 postSoviet 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).

中文翻译：

---

民事案件判决的终局性和相关考虑：乌克兰和立陶宛的经验

判决的确定性是终止审判的一种概念，它禁止随后的上诉，禁止新的诉讼程序以及对明确成立的事实提出异议。尽管受到欧洲委员会及其人权法院的推动，并且即使不是大多数国家也为大多数国家所熟悉，但在某些东欧国家，其应用仍然遇到误解。关于实质性真相和司法机构的公共角色的根深蒂固的观念，公平审判的相当特有的观念和法治，都导致人们低估了终局在社会和平生活中所发挥的作用。本文介绍了乌克兰（刚刚进行了重大司法改革）和立陶宛这两个后苏联国家的经验，这两个国家仍以其独特的方式致力于将终局性原则落实到其程序秩序中。