Ar negautų pajamų įrodinėjimo procese ieškovai turi teisę remtis prielaidomis dėl ateities?
Pelėdžius, Tomas |
Magistro baigiamaje darbe atliekamas tyrimas, kuriuo siekiama nustatyti, ar negautų pajamų įrodinėjimo koncepcija, grindžiama negautos naudos realumu, pagrįstumu, neišvengiamumu, yra pagrįsta ir suteikia teisę ieškovams negautų pajamų įrodinėjimo procese remtis prielaidomis dėl ateities, įrodinėjant prielaidų tikėtinumą. Pirmoje darbo dalyje gilinamasi į negriežtosios teisės (angl. soft law) instrumentų taisyklėse – Bendrosios pagrindų sistemos projekte (DCFR), UNIDROIT tarptautinių komercinių sutarčių principuose, Europos sutarčių teisės principuose (PECL) ir gilias tradicijas turinčių bendrosios ir kontinentinės teisės užsienio valstybių (Prancūzijos, Anglijos ir kt.) teisinėse sistemose perteiktą negautų pajamų kaip nuostolių, įskaitant prarastą galimybę gauti naudos arba išvengti išlaidų, sampratą. Taip pat, negautų pajamų kaip nuostolių sutartiniuose santykiuose, atlyginimo ir atyginimo ribojimo kriterijus. Apžvelgiant Lietuvos Respublikos teisę, teismų praktiką, siekiama atskleisti nuostolių sampratą, principus. Išanalizavus teismų praktiką, išskiriami dalies teismų praktikos bylų analize suformuoti negautų pajamų atlyginimo kriterijai. Antroje darbo dalyje siekiama perteikti prielaidų pagrindžiamumo problematiką, kartu atskleidžiant Lietuvos Respublikos civiliniame procese vyraujančią įrodinėjimo specifiką. Atsižvelgiant į tai, siekiama suformuluoti įrodymų pakankamumo taisyklę. Įvertinus prielaidų pagrindžiamumo problematiką, išskiriama prielaidų kaip įrodymų kritika bei įvertinama prielaidų kaip įrodymų įrodomoji galia. Trečiosios darbo dalies pirmajame skyriuje perteikiamas skirtingas nei teisės doktrinos, o būtent, ekonomikos ir filosofijos doktrina paremtas prielaidų dėl ateities, ateities neapibrėžtumo ir rizikos, vertinimas. Šios skyriaus tikslas, papildomai patvirtinti arba paneigti ieškovų galimybę negautų pajamų įrodinėjimo procese remtis prielaidomis dėl ateities. Trečiojo skyriaus antrojoje dalyje, išskiriamas negautų pajamų kaip nuostolių atlyginimą ribojantis kriterijus – priežastinis ryšys, perteikiant priežastinio ryšio doktriną ir du jos nustatymo etapus: faktinį ir teisinį priežastinį ryšį. Priežastiniu ryšiu, kaip būtinąja civilinės atsakomybės sąlyga, nusprendžiama, kad tarp asmens neteisėtų veiksmų ir kilusių pasekmių esant priežastiniam ryšiui, asmuo privalo atlyginti žalą. Atlikus mokslinį tyrimą, įvade suformuota hipotezė, kad Lietuvos Respublikos teisėje negautų pajamų įrodinėjimo procese ieškovai turi teisę remtis prielaidomis dėl ateities, patvirtinama, kadangi negautų pajamų įrodinėjimo procese prielaidos gali būti grindžiamos pagal įrodymų pakankamumo taisyklę, teikiant teismui įrodymus, patvirtinančius prielaidų dėl ateities tikėtinumą, pagrįstumą, nedviprasmiškumą.
Lithuania Civil Code 6.249 (1) – Damage shall include the amount of the loss or damage of property sustained by a person and the expenses incurred (direct damages) as well as the incomes of which he has been deprived, i.e. the incomes he would have received if unlawful actions had not been committed. The lost profit evidentiary process is unique in the way that the aggrieved party argues for the fact, which had to happen, but did not happen on the basis of the other party unlawful actions. The plaintiff, in order to prove that he would have gotten income or would have avoided suffering loss, has to invoke presumptions about the future. In a dispute of lost profit the plaintiff have the duty of the burden of proof i.e. that the income would have been received and this scenario is arguably likely to have happened if it were not for the unlawful actions of the opposing party. The evidentiary process in civil cases requires that the plaintiffs meet the necessary standard of proof. But the plaintiff may not have the necessary proof directly based on the fact – lost profit. In this case they may invoke presumptions about the future. The relevance of this master thesis lies in the fact that during a loss of a chance case law plaintiff make presumptions about the future, and in those practical situations they have to prove loss of a chance probability. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze, whether Lithuanian law regulation allows the plaintiff‘s to invoke presumptions about the future in the lost profit proving process (evidentiary process). Problematic aspects of scientific research How can the judge evaluate the loss of a chance? In these practical situations presumptions about the future may be an inevatible necessity, given that the plaintiff seeks to prove a fact which did not occured, but is reasonably expected to have happened. It is doubtful that such a lost profit evidentiary process helps to reveal the sufficient evidence and establish the truth in a specific case. Meanwhile, the court decision can not be based solely on presumptions. The judges in a case may be doubtful about the uncertainty of the presumptions. Another problematic aspect is whether the court should award the plaintiff‘s full compensation which is equal to the whole expectation value (i.e. expectation interest) or the proportion of probability of the loss of a chance (lost profit). The civil standard of proof in Lithuania demands that the lost profit standard in civil litigation should be based on realistic, reasonable, indubitable, but not probable, concept. It remains unclear whether it is reasonable to impose such a civil standard for proving lost profit, whilst dismissing the sufficient evidence rule, based on higher likelihood. Hypothesis of scientific research Lithuanian civil process law allow the plaintiff‘s in a lost profit proving process to invoke presumptions about the future. The goal of this scientific research: Disclose, whether the lost profit concept based on the lost profit proving process reality, reasonability and indibutability, is reasonable. Also, disclose whether the plaintiff has the right to invoke presumptions about the future in lost profit civil litigation, proving the likeliness. Steps which were used to reach the goal of the scientific research and to confirm or deny the hypothesis of the master thesis: 1. To analyze the lost profit concept under soft law instruments, Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR), Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UNIDROIT), Principles of European Contract Law, Civil Code of The Republic of Lithuania, foreign doctrine, judicial precedents. Exclude lost profit as damages, including loss of a chance, with limiting criteria: foreseeability, certainty, causation, and their essence. 2. To determine the Lithuanian legal doctrine of the evidentiary process, author‘s research and court practice. Examine the sufficient evidence rule and presumptions about the future problem in civil proceedings. 3. To explore a non-legal approach to the assumptions, risk and future uncertainty. To assess in this context how it influences lost profit as damages, including losses of chances, proving process (evidentiary process), based on reality, reasonability, indibutability, but not probability. After these steps, following conclusions were made: 1. Case specifics have led to the conclusion that the civil standard for lost profit proof is established by the relative truth doctrine which means that the courts award the damages incurred due to lost of profit or loss of a chance if they reasonably believe for the fact to have occured. 2. The loss of a chance evidentiary process is based on probability test. Probability test may be defined as the factor by which the plaintiff argue the future, in order to prove that the fact probably would have been occured. 3. The evidence supporting the validity of the assumptions about the future must show the likelihood of a certain fact, the fact being unambigous. 4. The presumptions about the future in loss of a chance as damages institute are undibutable, because the plaintiff argue: 1) the future of a certain event which did not happen; 2) argue the probability with which that income would have been obtained. 5. Lithuanian legal doctrine based on the lost profit evidentiary process reality, reasonability, indibutability, is unreasonable, because the economic and philosophy doctrine widely recognizes the future uncertainty, unpredictability factor and widely use probability, as a probability theory. Therefore, the income, the lost profit, may be neither real nor inevitable, because receiving expected income is influenced by many uncertain factors such as other party actions which are not entirely predictable.