Ar nepažeidžiamos sutuoktinio teisė, kai santuokos nutraukimo byloje teismas taikys lex fori teisę, bet ne paskutinės sutuoktinių gyvenamosios vietos teisę, kur vienas sutuoktinis tebegyvena?
Miškinytė, Jurga |
Reglamente (EB) Nr. 2201/2003 nustatyti bendri visoms valstybėms narėms santuokos nutraukimo bylų jurisdikcijos kriterijai, tačiau bendros taikytinos teisės taisyklės ES nėra apibrėžtos. Todėl skirtingose valstybėse narėse taikytinos teisės klausimas nustatomos skirtingomis nacionalinėmis materialinėmis ir kolizinėmis tarptautinės privatinės teisės normomis. Tai reiškia, kad vienos valstybės taikys pilietybės, kitos paskutinės bendros nuolatinės gyvenamosios vietos, o dar kitos išskirtinai tik nagrinėjančio ginčą teismo nacionalinę teisę (lex fori). Pagal galiojančias jurisdikcijos taisykles, sutuoktinis išvykęs į užsienio valstybę, po metų įgyja teisę kreiptis į tos valstybės teismą dėl santuokos nutraukimo. Darbe keliama hipotezė, kad jeigu toje valstybėje santuokos nutraukimui taikoma tik lex fori teisė, pažeidžiamos sutuoktinio, likusio gyventi paskutinėje bendrojoje nuolatinėje gyvenamojoje vietoje, teisės. Išnagrinėjus Europos Sąjungoje taikomų lex fori ir paskutinės gyvenamosios vietos, kur vienas sutuoktinis tebegyvena kriterijų privalumus ir trūkumus bei pagrindinius tarptautinio ginčo nagrinėjimo reikalavimus, darytina išvada, kad analizuojamoje situacijoje neužtikrinami sutuoktinio, gyvenančio paskutinėje bendrojoje nuolatinėje gyvenamojoje vietoje, teisėti lūkesčiai, pažeidžiamas teisinis tikrumas ir nuspėjamumas bei neužtikrinamas lygiateisiškumas su kita ginčo šalimi, be to, lex fori teisė neturi pakankamo ryšio su nagrinėjamu ginču, todėl pažeidžiama sutuoktinio teisė į teisingą ginčo išnagrinėjimą teisme pagal labiausiai su juo susijusią teisę. Darbe atkreipiamas dėmesys į 2005 m. Europos Komisijos išreikštą iniciatyvą dėl taikytinos teisės unifikavimo įtvirtinant vienodas taikytinos teisės nustatymo taisykles santuokos nutraukimui visoje ES. Pasiūlyme aiškiai išskirta paskutinės bendros nuolatinės gyvenamosios vietos, kur vienas sutuoktinis tebegyvena, viršenybė prieš lex fori kriterijų, galėjusi išspręsti esamas problemas, tačiau bendras valstybių narių sutarimas nerastas. Darbe pabrėžiama, kad esamos situacijos trūkumai negali būti paneigti, todėl būtina ieškoti problemų sprendimo būdų. Pateikiami du galimi situacijos pagerinimo variantai pateikiami šiame darbe, pirmiausia siūlant leisti susitarimą toms šalims, kurios neprieštarauja taikytinos teisės unifikavimui, jungiantis prie bendros sutarties, kuri nebūtų griežtai privaloma visoje ES. Taip pat siūloma keisti Reglamento (EB) Nr. 2201/2003 3 straipsnį, panaikinant nepagrįstus jurisdikcijos kriterijus pagal ieškovo gyvenamąją vietą.
Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (“the new Brussels Regulation”) establishes common jurisdiction criteria in divorce matters in all Member States, but there are no common rules that determines the applicable law in these matters at the European Union level. Therefore, different Member States set out national standards to law applicable in divorce matters in accordance with their national substantial rules or conflict of law rules. That is why, some European Union countries will apply law of common nationality of the spouses, others the law of the last common habitual residence or some of the states will apply exclusively the law of the forum (lex fori). Under the existing rules of jurisdiction, the spouse who moves to another Member State, has a right to apply for divorce in that country after he resided here for at least a year before the application was made, and this court has a jurisdiction set out in article 3 of the Regulation. Depending on the laws set out to international divorce it may result in big differences in applicable law to the divorce, even if the other spouse still lives in the last common habitual country. The aim of this job is to analyze weather this situation conforms to the rights of the spouse who resides in the last common habitual country. This job raises the hypothesis that if in that destination state exclusively only lex fori law in divorce is applied it can be contrary to the expectations and so to the rights of the party who still lives in the last common habitual country. The objectives of this job are to analyze the current legal situation in EU mainly taking into consideration lex fori and the last common habitual residence where one of the spouses still lives criteria, their advantages and disadvantages. As well to analyze principal of the private international law that it is very important to apply the law which has the closest connection to the dispute in order to meet the interests of both parties in the dispute. It also discloses the conception of habitual residence in the European Union level and shows its importance as the most closely connecting factor to the state which law is to be applied in order to reach the best result. The analysis showed that despite of the fact that both criteria lex fori and the last common habitual residence have one aim to protect the same rights, but in different systems their results are different. That is, the main advantage of lex fori criteria is justice in formal application of the law in court, because it is best known and familiar to the judges. The main disadvantage is the risk that in some cases lex fori has small or no connection to the dispute. Meanwhile the criteria of last common habitual residence if one of the spouses still resides here has the closest connection to the dispute when the family do not live together. On the other hand, the main disadvantage is that this criteria leads to the application of the foreign law what is expensive and hard process to the courts. Despite of the fact that it is very hard to determine the habitual residence when people cross border everyday and sometimes they cannot exactly determine their main centre of interests in one country, habitual residence country has the real and substantial connection to both parties in the dispute. On the one hand, the main aim of European Union is to create free space without borders with common judicial area where citizens can move freely and it is partly reached according jurisdiction rules in divorce matters allowing filing for divorce in many courts of EU. On the other hand, in certain cases uniform jurisdiction rules lack of uniform conflict of law rules leads to the application of law which is not connected to the marriage itself and usually has a link only to one spouse. That is why, in cases when the spouses had lived together in habitual residence and one of them still resides there, it is breached the right of that spouse if lex fori law is applied. First of all, he meets with the lack of legal certainty and predictability, because it is hard to predict the results of divorce. Secondly, the litigation results do not correspond to his legal expectations, when his divorce results depend on the law of unknown country. Thirdly, the spouse living in the last common habitual country does not have the same access to the court as the spouse who lives in the forum country. Because of this he is made to litigate in the forum which has no current connection with the marriage. A relationship, which was established and lived in one country and the particular legal regime, can be easily dissolved under different laws and with the different consequences. That is the right of equality of both spouses in litigation is breached. So the conclusion of the analysis confirms the hypothesis. In 2005 the European Union expressed the initiative of determining common rules of applicable law in divorce matters and launched the proposal for the Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 called Roma III. In the proposal it is clearly expressed the priority of the last common habitual residence if one of the spouses still lives there, criteria against the lex fori criteria. However, the common consensus of Member States was not found and the proposal was rejected. As far as no common solution was made, but the situation requires it, there are presented two possible improvements of the situation in this work: 1. Whereas, basically only six lex fori countries are not in favor of harmonizing conflict of law rules because of the difficulties in foreign law application, it is suggested to make a regional treaty on common applicable law in divorce matters at the European Union level for those countries which do not oppose to the common law rules. It should be stated that in the bigger part of the continental part of European there is law of last common habitual residence of the most connected law applied. So this would not make any big difference to the courts in applying foreign law so far they apply it at the current situation. This would increase legal certainty and predictability and help people to know exact rules to be applied in certain Member States. 2. Another suggestion is the amendment to the article 3 of the Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 eliminating the jurisdiction rules according to the application of a plaintiff’s habitual residence. As far as this jurisdiction ground is not sufficient in the whole area of private international law in other Regulations, it could be cancelled in this one as well. This would eliminate the problem of lex fori law application after such a short period of time spent in the country and so it does not create real connection to the dispute.