|Abstract: ||Lietuvos Respublikos 2000 m. Civiliniame kodekse įtvirtintas netiesioginio ieškinio institutas, pagal kurį kreditorius, turintis neabejotiną ir vykdytiną reikalavimo teisę skolininkui, turi teisę priverstinai įgyvendinti skolininko teises, pareikšdamas ieškinį skolininko vardu, jeigu skolininkas pats šių teisių neįgyvendina arba atsisako tai daryti ir dėl to pažeidžia kreditoriaus interesus. Tai reiškia, kad Lietuvos teisinėje sistemoje yra įtvirtintas visai naujas institutas, kurio taikymas pasižymi tam tikra specifika. Darbe keliama hipotezė, jog Lietuvoje nevisiškai užtikrinama kreditoriaus ir skolininko teisių ir teisėtų interesų pusiausvyra, pareiškus netiesioginį ieškinį. Tyrime atskleidžiami Lietuvoje egzistuojančios netiesioginio ieškinio sampratos privalumai ir trūkumai, o nagrinėjant užsienio valstybių teisinius šaltinius ir teismų praktiką siekiama surasti optimalius netiesioginio ieškinio, kurį pareiškus būtų išlaikyta pusiausvyra tarp kreditoriaus ir skolininko teisių ir teisėtų interesų, reglamentavimo būdus. Tiriant Lietuvos teismų praktiką, išryškėja kreditoriaus ir skolininko procesinės padėties, pareiškus netiesioginį ieškinį, neapibrėžtumas, sąlygojantis šio instituto praktinį neveiksmingumą, dėl to pateikiami galimi problemos sprendimo variantai. Autorius mano, kad netiesioginio ieškinio trūkumai gali būti pašalinti ir būtų galima gauti tikslius atsakymus į daugumą probleminių klausimų, jei Lietuvos Respublikos įstatymuose būtų įtvirtintos netiesioginio ieškinio procesą reglamentuojančios taisyklės arba šio instituto trūkumai pašalinti kryptingai vienoda teismų praktika.|
Oblique action institute under which a creditor (the obligge) whose right is certain, liquid and eligible may exercise the rights and actions belonging to debtor (the obligor), in the debtor’s name, when the debtor fails to exercise it himself to the prejudice of the creditor. It was embedded in Lithuanian Civil Code in 2000. It is a new law institute with its specific application. Oblique action is not analyzed explicitly, there are not enough scientific literature and court’s practice. Therefore reasonable questions arise, what are the problems that causes inefficiency of oblique action. Is it a regulation of oblique action, lack of information or other reasons? In order to answer these questions and with the aim to understand this law institute foreign countries scientific resources and courts practice are employed. Also under the Lithuanian law the legal status of creditor who brings the oblique action is uncertain. Can the creditor be treated as a plaintiff, or a representative of a debtor? This uncertainty is considered being one of the problems why this law institute does not work. The aim of this paper is to reveal peculiarities of oblique action, which have significant impact on securing the balance between creditors and debtors rights and interests. The object of this work is the institute of oblique action. In order to achieve the aim of this paper and to confirm or deny the hypothesis the following tasks were designed: 1. To discuss the conception, purpose and the essence of action oblique. 2. To explore the alternation of oblique action conception in foreign countries legal systems. 3. To define the conception of oblique action under the Lithuanian and foreign countries law sources. 4. To reveal probable legal status of creditor and debtor, when the oblique action is brought. After the research of law, legal literature, courts practice the hypothesis that the balance between the rights and interests of creditor and debtor are not secured properly was confirmed and the following conclusions and recommendations have been drawn: 1. Under Lithuanian Civil code it is not required that creditor’s right towards the debtor would be confirmed by the court. However in order that the oblique action would be satisfied the following conditions should be proved: creditors claim is certain, liquid and exigible towards his debtor (primary debtor) and the secondary debtor owe a lawful debt to the primary debtor; b) the circumstance, that the debtor fails to exercise his right or neglects to do so; c) such debtor’s inaction infringes the interests of creditor. It should be emphasized that it is not possible to find out anything about debtors solvency or his claims towards other persons without courts order. Therefore it is considered that the satisfaction of oblique action is burdened. Because of this reason it is assumed that it would be the right thing if the law required that the creditor confirmed his claim in the court. In this way the probability that the debtor would challenge creditor’s right will disappear and the oblique action would be satisfied faster. 2. If the oblique action is satisfied, all the recoveries necessary to satisfy the primary creditor’s claim should be returned to the primary debtor’s asset pool and is used to satisfy all the debtor’s creditors. It is considered being as a drawback of oblique action institute, because while the creditor does not have any preference to the property he recovered with his efforts the creditor would be disinterested to use this mean of defense. Therefore in order to reach that the oblique action would function effectively it is suggested to give the preference to the creditor to use the property recovered by the oblique action to satisfy his claims how it is in USA, China and Romania. 3. Uncertain legal status of the creditor and debtor when the oblique action is brought is another drawback of oblique action. It is one more reason, why the balance between creditors and debtors rights and interests is not secured. Therefore in order to reach that the oblique action institute function effectively and with the purpose to keep the balance between the rights and interests of the creditor and debtor, it is suggested that the creditor would have plaintiff’s legal status together with the debtor as an accessory when the oblique action is brought. In such a case it is important to limit creditor’s and debtor’s rights by the law to dispose of the subject of the dispute. It is also proposed that creditor could be kept as the representative of the debtor. This kind of situation is possible only if in Lithuanian Civil code there was a requirement for the creditor to confirm his right towards the debtor in the court how it is done in USA and China. In such a case, when the creditor has the courts judgment he can be the representative of the debtor under the law. 4. Conventional legal relations of representation exist when there is an agreement between the principal and his representative. The creditor who brings the oblique action exercises debtor’s rights without the debtors consent or will. Because of this reason, the creditor can not be the representative of the debtor when the oblique action is brought. 5. It would be wrongly to involve the debtor as a third party without any independent claims when the oblique action is brought, because it is the debtor who is in relation with the third party and the courts judgment will have direct effect to the rights and interests of the debtor not to the creditor. If the debtor was just a third party in oblique action case, his rights would be infringed. 6. Because the creditor who brings the oblique action exercises debtor’s rights in the debtor’s name, the disposition principle is limited. However the creditor can not exercise rights and actions which are strictly personal to the debtor. Oblique action is not the invention of Lithuanian legislator. In one or another form such an action exists in France, Quebec, Louisiana, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Latvia, Philippines, USA and China. It is considered that French conception of oblique action is similar to Lithuanian one, what means that the creditor can exercise debtor’s rights and claims except those which are strictly personal to the debtor. Under the French law the oblique action can be satisfied if the creditor’s right is certain, liquid and eligible, the debtor fails to exercise his right or neglects to do so, and the debtor’s inactiveness infringes creditor’s rights.