| Abstract: | Magistro baigiamajame darbe nagrinėjamas klausimas – ar teismas gali įpareigoti šalis sudaryti sutartį? Lietuvos teisės doktrinoje tai mažai nagrinėtas klausimas dažniausiai apsiribojama, tokios teismų teisės konstatavimu ir toliau nesigilinama į detales, trūksta konkrečiai apibrėžtos sistemizuotos šio klausimo analizės, tad darbo tikslas ir būtų – išanalizuoti teismo galimybę įpareigoti šalis sudaryti sutartį. Darbas susideda iš trijų pagrindinių dalių. Pirmoje dalyje pateikiama sutarčių laisvės principo samprata, bei jo ribojimo galimybės. Vienas iš grieščiausių šio principo ribojimų - teismui suteikta teisė įpareigoti šalis sudaryti sutartį. Toks ribojimas įstatymų pagrindu galimas tik esant įstatymo imperatyvioms nuostatoms įtvirtinančioms tokią teisę ir kai pati šalis įsipareigoja sudaryti sutartį. Teisės doktrina išskiria dar vieną sutarčių laisvės principo ribojimo aplinkybę – sąžiningumo principo pažeidimas nesudarius sutarties. Antroje pagrindinėje darbo dalyje ir yra nagrinėjama teismo galimybė įpareigoti šalis sudaryti sutartį šių trijų aplinkybių kontekste. Aplinkybė, pačios šalies įsipareigojimas sudaryti sutartį (preliminariosios sutarties sudarymas), nors ir yra įtvirtinama įstatyme kaip veiksnys ribojantis sutarčių laisvės principą, tačiau teismas negali įpareigoti šalių sudaryti jokios preliminariosios sutarties, nes ši prarastų savo paskirtį. Esant įstatymui numatančiam teismui galimybę įpareigoti šalis sudaryti sutartį, teismas beabejo ir turi šią teisę, tačiau tai nėra besąligiška teisė, kiekvienas tipas aptartų sutarčių turi būtinąsias sąlygas tik kurioms esant teismas gali šalis įpareigoti sudaryti sutartį. Paskutinis veiksnys ribojantis sutarčių laisvės principą – sąžiningumo principo pažeidimas, nesudarius sutarties, Lietuvos teismų praktikoje nėra savarankiškas veiksnys, kurio pagrindu būtų galima įpareigoti šalis sudaryti sutartį. Tuo tarpu Europos Teisingumo Teismas šiuo klausimu laikosi visiškai priešingos pozicijos ir atsisakymas sudaryti sutartį laikomas neteisėtu, kai pažeidžiamas sąžiningumo principas nesudarius sutarties. Šioje vietoje ir yra pateikiama darbo rekomendacija: Lietuvoje įstatymo nuostatomis įtvirtinti dar vieną aplinkybę, sąžiningumo principo pažeidimą nesudarius sutarties, kaip leidžiamai ribojančią sutarčių laisvės principą. Nes tik tokiu būdu praplėtus teismo kompetenciją įpareigoti šalis sudaryti sutartį galima pasiekti efektyviausių rezultatų ginant silpnosios sutarties šalies teises. Paskutinėje trečiojoje darbo dalyje pateikiama valstybei kylančios deliktinės atsakomybės dėl teisėjų ar teismų civilinėse bylose neteisėtais veiksmais padarytos žalos asmeniui samprata ne tik nacionalinės bet ir Europos sąjungos teisės lygmeniu. Lietuvos teisėje deliktinė valstybei atsakomybė dėl teisėjų neteisėtais veiksmais padarytos žalos asmeniui civilinėse bylose kyla retai, nes sunku įrodyti būtinąją sąlygą atsakomybei kilti – teisėjo kaltę (tyčia), ypatingai tuomet kai įstatymų nuostatos ir teismai laikosi pozicijos, jog nutarties panaikinimas aukštesnės instancijos teisme nereiškia teisėjo kaltų veiksmų. Lietuvai tapus Europos Sąjungos nare taip pat atsirado galimybė valstybei narei užtraukti atsakomybę, dėl nacionalinių teismų veiksmais padarytos žalos privatiems asmenims, šiuo atveju valstybių atsakomybė dėl žalos kyla iš Europos Bendrijos teisės.
The issue is analyzed in the master’s thesis whether the court can obligate the parties to conclude the contract. It is a kind of issue which has been hardly analyzed in the juridical doctrine of Lithuania; it is mostly restricted to stating such a right of the courts and it is not gone into further details; there is a lack of certainly defined systemized analysis of this issue; therefore the purpose of this thesis would be to analyze a possibility of the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract. The work consists of three main parts. In the first part, the concept of the contract freedom principle and possibilities of its limitation are presented. One of the strictest limitations of this principle is a right given to the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract. This limitation on a basis of the laws is only possible in case of imperative regulations of the law which consolidate this right and in case the party itself obligates to conclude the contract. The juridical doctrine distinguishes one more circumstance of limiting the contract freedom principle – infringement of the honesty principle without concluding the contract. In case the court obligates the parties to conclude the contract, it is both important to follow the balance principle of the parties’ interests and reasonably intervene in the contractual relations, as otherwise the state can have tortuous responsibility because of harm done to the people by illegal actions of the courts in civil cases. In the second and main part of the thesis, a possibility of the court of obligating the parties to conclude the contract in the context of these three circumstances is analyzed. Such a circumstance as the obligation by the party itself to conclude the contract (conclusion of the preliminary contract) is consolidated in the law as the factor which limits the contract freedom principle, but the court cannot obligate the parties to conclude the preliminary contract (including a specific form of the preliminary contract – the preliminary contract of buying-selling the future dwelling-house or flat). As the consequence of non-executing the preliminary contract is the compensation of a negative interest (interest of concluding the main contract) its purpose would be lost if it was executed by force. In case there is a law which foresees a possibility for the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract, the court really has this right, but it is not an unconditional right; each type of the discussed contracts has their obligatory provisions under which the court can obligate the countries to conclude the contract. The following types of contracts are discussed in the thesis: public contracts, obligatory sale of stocks (shares, divvies) (chapter IX of book 2 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania), obligatory purchase and sale of stocks consolidated in article 37 of the Law of Securities (the commented article does not give the court a right to obligate the parties to conclude the stock purchase-sale contract, but it foresees a simpler obligatory procedure of transferring the property right to the stocks) and labor contracts in case part 1 of article 96 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Lithuania is infringed which provision consolidated in the regulation enables the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract. The last factor which limits the contract freedom principle is the infringement of the honesty principle without concluding the contract; it is not an independent factor in the practice of the courts of Lithuania on which base it would be possible to obligate the parties to conclude the contract. Meanwhile, the European Court of Justice holds an absolutely opposite position about this issue and the refusal of concluding the contract is considered illegal in case the honesty principle is infringed without concluding the contract. The work recommendation is presented here: the position of the both contract parties is not always equal; therefore it is necessary to develop a system which enables the state intervening the contractual relations of the parties in case the interests of a weaker party are infringed; and it is not only done in case the laws allow it but also in case of infringing the general honesty principle. In Lithuania one more circumstance should be consolidated by the regulations of the law: infringement of the honesty principle without concluding the contract as it limits the contract freedom principle in a permissible way. This is the only way to expand the competence of the court to obligate the parties to conclude the contract which can reach the most efficient results when defending the rights of the weak contract party. After presenting the analysis of the right given to the courts to obligate the parties to conclude the contract, it is also important to mention responsibility of the state because of illegal use of the right to obligate the parties to conclude the contract by the courts. So, in the third and last part of the thesis, the concept of tortuous responsibility of the state because of harm done to the people by illegal actions of the judges or courts in civil cases at the national level and the juridical level of the European Union is presented. Tortuous responsibility of the state because of harm done to the person by illegal actions of the judges in civil cases at the juridical level of Lithuania can be hardly found, as it is difficult to prove the obligatory condition for responsibility – the judge’s fault (intentionally), especially in case the courts and legislation holds the position the annulment of the judgment at a higher instance court does not mean the judge performed guilty actions. After Lithuania became a member of the European Union, there is a possibility of arraigning the state-member because of harm done to private people by actions of the national courts. When the European Court of Justice checks the validity of the last-instance judgments made by the national courts of the states-members and acknowledges the decision invalid and the obligatory conditions are met, the state is arraigned and the decision made on its basis is executed in the state-member according to the national law. |
