Ar privaloma mediacija šeimos bylose nepažeidžia asmens laisvės nuspręsti, kokiu būdu turi būti sprendžiamas jo ginčas?
Partauskienė, Regina |
2020 m. sausio 1 d. Lietuvoje įsigaliojo nauji Lietuvos Respublikos mediacijos įstatymo pakeitimai, kuriais įvesta privaloma mediacija šeimos bylose. Remiantis naujausiais įstatymų pakeitimais šeimos ginčuose privaloma pasinaudoti mediacija prieš kreipiantis į teismą dėl ginčo sprendimo, tačiau abejojama, ar toks reglamentavimas nepažeidžia asmens laisvės nuspręsti, kokiu būdu turi būti sprendžiamas jo ginčas. Atliekant tiriamąjį darbą šia tema, nustatyta, kad privalomos mediacijos reglamentavimas Lietuvoje neriboja mediacijos savanoriškumo principo visuose mediacijos etapuose, išskyrus inicijavimą, o atsisakymas pasinaudoti mediacija daugiau neigiamų teisinių pasekmių, nei bylinėjimosi išlaidų padidėjimas, atsisakiusiai šaliai nesukelia. Taip pat, išsiaiškinta, kad privaloma mediacija nepažeidžia nesikišimo į privačius santykius principo, nes privalomas mediacijos iniciavimas laikytinas informavimu apie alternatyvų ginčo sprendimo būdą. Be to, nėra pagrindo vertinti, kad privalomos mediacijos atveju asmens teisė kreiptis į teismą yra pažeidžiama, nes ši teisė išlieka, tačiau inicijuojant privalomą mediaciją yra nukeliama/atidedama teisminio proceso pradžia. Sutarties laisvės principas privalomos mediacijos atveju taip pat nėra pažeidžiamas, nes susitarimas tarp ginčo šalių yra priimamas laisva valia padedant mediatoriui, o sudaroma taikos sutartis yra privaloma abiems šalims. Pagal Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo praktiką mediacijos savanoriškumo principo laikymasis netrukdo nacionaliniams įstatymų leidėjams reikalauti, kad šalys dalyvautų pirmajame susitikime su mediatoriumi, o reikalavimas išbandyti mediaciją nepažeidžia asmens teisės kreiptis į teismą. Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio proceso kodekso tikslas kuo greičiau atkurti teisinę taiką tarp ginčo šalių nėra pažeidžiamas, nes šeimos byla teismuose yra nagrinėjama gerokai ilgiau nei, kai ginčas išsprendžiamas pasinaudojus mediacijos procesu. Remiantis aukščiau išdėstytais argumentais, daroma išvada, kad privaloma mediacija šeimos bylose nepažeidžia asmens laisvės nuspręsti, kokiu būdu turi būti sprendžiamas jo ginčas.
The new amendments to the Law on Mediation of the Republic of Lithuania have entered into force on the 1st of January 2020, introducing mandatory mediation in family matters. These changes are inspired by the development of the use of mediation institutes in the European Union. According to recent changes in the Law, mediation in family disputes became mandatory to use before going to court to solve a dispute, but the issue arises whether such regulation does not violate a person's rights and freedoms and whether a person is free to decide in what way his dispute should be solved. In particular, the state may violate the core principle of voluntariness of mediation by imposing mandatory mediation in family matters, as individuals are forced to participate in mediation to solve their family problems, which also manifests itself as interference in private relationships. It also may violate their right to choose how they want to solve the dispute. Individuals cannot exercise their right to go to court as soon as the need arises, as they must first initiate the mediation. As a result of such a mandatory application, the time for resolving their dispute is prolonged, and the start of court proceedings is delayed, thus violating their right to restore legal peace as soon as possible. In addition, the aim of mediation is for the parties, led by the mediator, to reach a settlement, which may in principle restrict the implementation of the principle of their freedom of contract. On the other hand, by introducing mandatory mediation in family matters, the state seeks positive goals - to introduce individuals to alternative dispute resolution, which can enable the parties not only to resolve their dispute cheaper and faster, but also to maintain mutual respect and satisfactory solution. Participation in mediation is voluntary, from the initiation stage of mediation the parties must express their consent not only to the first meeting but also to the further process, they are free to choose and agree on the settlement of the dispute, and can opt out of mediation at any time without giving any reason. The provision of compulsory mediation services is paid by public funds, so it does not incur additional costs for the parties. In case of ambiguous arguments, research work was carried out, during which the analysis of differences in types of mediation and recommendations for mediation regulation concluded that court, out of court, direct, indirect, mandatory and voluntary mediation are applied in Lithuania. The fundamental difference between mandatory mediation and other types of mediation is the basis of its initiation. According to the grounds of initiation, mediation can be divided into voluntary and mandatory. In the case of voluntary mediation, the parties may initiate mediation at any stage before or after the dispute has arisen, and in the case of compulsory mediation, participation in the first mediation session is usually regulated as a condition for initiating legal proceedings when parties are required to attend an introductory first mediation session or information mediation session. The current regulation of mandatory mediation in family disputes in Lithuania manifests itself as a requirement to initiate mediation before going to court, and refusal to participate in mediation both in the initial and subsequent stages of mediation has no negative consequences to the party, except for a possible increase in litigation costs for the party, that refused to participate in mediation. The regulation of mandatory mediation in Lithuania does not restrict the principle of voluntary mediation in all stages of mediation, except initiation, because in the case of mandatory mediation, the principle of voluntariness manifests itself through freedom of mediation and mediator choice, withdrawal from mediation and freedom to sign a settlement. At each of these stages of mediation, the party has the freedom of choice. An analysis of mediation regulations and practices in family disputes in the European Union countries (Lithuania, Germany and Estonia) with different traditions of mediation has shown that the form of mandatory mediation occurs in all analyzed countries, but refusal to use mediation has no more negative legal consequences than increasing in litigation costs. Mandatory mediation does not violate the principle of non-interference with private relations, as the mandatory initiation of mediation is not an interference with a person's private relations, but should be considered as only giving information about an alternative dispute resolution method. There is no reason to consider that in the case of mandatory mediation, a person's right to go to court is violated, because the right remains, but the initiation of mandatory mediation only postpones the start of court proceedings. The principle of freedom of contract in the case of mandatory mediation is also not violated, since the agreement between the parties to the dispute is made voluntarily with the assistance of a mediator, and the conclusion of a settlement agreement is binding on both parties. According to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, compliance with the principle of voluntary mediation does not prevent national legislators from ordering the parties to attend the first meeting with the mediator, and the requirement to try mediation does not violate the individual's right to go to court. One of the objectives of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania to restore legal peace between the parties as soon as possible is not violated, as family disputes are being solved in courts much longer than when a dispute is resolved through mediation, therefore a person can solve a family dispute much faster. Mandatory mediation can be seen as one of the most effective alternative dispute resolution methods, in which time and money are saved when the parties voluntarily reach an agreement. To sum up, mandatory mediation in family disputes does not violate the principles of relations of civil law, and the existing litigation requirements are proportionate to the objectives of family mediation and do not, in principle, burden the parties of the dispute. The hypothesis “mandatory mediation in family disputes does not violate a person's freedom to decide in what way his dispute should be solved” is confirmed.