Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/122302
Type of publication: master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law (S001)
Author(s): Palienė, Kristina
Supervisor: Grigienė, Jurgita
Title: Ar mirusio, savininkui grąžintose patalpose gyvenusio nuomininko nepasirašyta valstybės garantija sukelia teisines pasekmes jo įpėdiniui?
Other Title: Whether a state – guarantee document unsigned by lessee who was residing in accommodation returned to actual owner invokes any consequences in respect of lessee’s heir?
Extent: 25 p.
Date: 16-Jun-2008
Keywords: nuomininkas;savininkas;valstybės garantija;grąžintos patalpos;teisinės pasekmės;state – guarantee document;lessee;actual owner;consequences;lessee’s heir
Abstract: 1. Lietuvos Respublikos galiojančiuose teisės aktuose tiesiogiai ir nedviprasmiškai numatytas valstybės garantijų išdavimas savininkams grąžintose gyvenamosiose patalpose gyvenantiems nuomininkams. 2. Valstybės garantinio dokumento išdavimas nuomininkams ir jų šeimos nariams, gyvenantiems savininkui sugrąžintose gyvenamosiose patalpose, yra ne tik savivaldybės vykdomosios institucijos teisė, bet ir pareiga. 3. Jokie Lietuvos Respublikoje galiojantys norminiai aktai neįpareigoja nuomininkų privalomai pasirinkti ir / ar priimti valstybės suteikiamą garantiją. 4. Valstybės garantija laikoma išduota, kai ji yra pasirašyta savivaldybės vykdomosios institucijos atstovo bei garantijos turėtojų; nuomininko nepasirašytas garantinis dokumentas vertintinas kaip dokumento projektas, pasiūlymas, nesukeliantis jam jokių teisinių pasekmių. 5. Valstybės garantijų turėtojų sąrašas yra platus ir nebaigtinis. 6. Vadovaujantis LR Civilinio kodekso 2.2 straipsniu, fizinio asmens civilinis teisnumas, t. y. galėjimas turėti civilines teises ir pareigas, išnyksta jam mirus. Todėl reikalavimas įpareigoti savivaldybę išduoti valstybės garantiją mirusiajam neturi įstatyminio pagrindo ir negali būti patenkintas. 7. Vadovaujantis LR Civilinio kodekso nuostatomis reikalavimo teisė, kylanti iš valstybės garantinio dokumento nuomininkui, gali būti paveldima tik tuo atveju, jei tokią teisę turėjo palikėjas. Jei palikėjas (nuomininkas) garantinio dokumento nepasirašė ir dėl to pastarasis laikytinas tik dokumento projektu, nesukeliančiu nuomininko atžvilgiu jokių teisinių pasekmių, tai toks valstybės garantinio dokumento projektas negali sukelti teisinių pasekmių ir įpėdinio atžvilgiu, t. y. įpėdinis negali turėti daugiau teisių nei turėjo palikėjas.
This specific feature is regulated by set of Lithuanian laws. The goal of this work is to make a research whether the state – guaranty unsigned by lessee who was residing in accommodation returned to actual owner invokes any consequences in respect of lessee’s heir. The object of this research is the juristic regulation of the problem. The hypothesis was raised that the state – guaranty unsigned by lessee who was residing in accommodation returned to actual owner does not invoke any consequences in respect of lessee’s heir. In the first part of the work the research is made as to: which Lithuanian legal acts regulate the proceedings of state – guaranty issue; whether the issue of state – guaranty is a right or an obligation of executive institution; whether the acceptance of a state – guaranty is a right or an obligation of a recipient. In the second part of the work the attention is concentrated on a moment of the issue of state – guarantee and on legal rules concerning recipients of a state – guarantee. The result of systematic study of analyzed law rules led to conclusions: 1. The issue of a state – guaranty to a lessee who is residing in accommodation returned to an actual owner is directly and unambiguous regulated by several Lithuanian legal acts (laws, resolutions etc.). 2. The issue of a state – guaranty to a lessee and his family members who are residing in accommodation returned to an actual owner is not just a right but also an obligation of executive institution. 3. There are no legal rules in Lithuania on behalf of which a lessee is obligated to accept any offered state – guarantee. 4. The state – guarantee document is held to be issued when it is signed by an authority of executive institution and a guarantee holder (lessee). The document with no holders signature is held to be just a documents project and does not invoke any consequences in respect of a lessee. 5. According to legal rules, provided in Lithuanian Civil Code, right of any natural person to have any rights and obligations ceases with his / her death. Therefore there is no legal reason to oblige any executive institution to issue a state – guarantee document to deceased person. 6. According to legal rules provided in Lithuanian Civil Code, o right of claim arising from a state – guarantee document is inheritable just if a deceased person (lessee) has had such a right before his death. State – guarantee document unsigned by a lessee is held to be just a document’s project that doesn’t invoke any legal consequences neither in respect of lessee nor of his / her heir. No heir can have more rights than a deceased person. Summarizing presented arguments final conclusion is made that a state – guarantee document unsigned by lessee who was residing in accommodation returned to actual owner does not invoke any legal consequences in respect of lessee’s heir. So the raised hypothesis is approved.
Internet: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/122302
Appears in Collections:VDU, ASU ir LEU iki / until 2018

Files in This Item:
Show full item record
Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats
Export to Other Non-XML Formats


CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

5
checked on Jun 6, 2021

Download(s)

4
checked on Jun 6, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.