The Supreme Court of Lithuania addressed a case concerning an individual who had previously been declared incompetent in certain areas and sought to have that judicial decision reviewed and annulled on the grounds of improved health. The initial and appellate courts deemed the application inadmissible because a medical certificate indicated that the individual was not receiving treatment, taking medication, or visiting doctors. This led to the argument that the courts conflated the acceptance of the application with the substantive examination of the case, thereby infringing upon the individual's right to judicial protection.

The Supreme Court asserted that when a person submits an application to the court, they are obligated to include evidence supporting their claims and outlining the relevant circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the court elaborated that the absence of medical documentation or assessments regarding the individual's mental condition constituted a deficiency in the application, which the judge has the authority to require the applicant to rectify. This distinction draws attention to the procedural standards required in judicial applications and the responsibilities of parties involved.

This ruling underscores the significance of ensuring that individuals have the opportunity to challenge unfavorable legal determinations regarding their competence based on changes in their health status. It also reflects broader implications for how medical data is considered in legal contexts, emphasizing the need for clear guidelines on the evaluation of such evidence in court cases.