Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34440
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law
Author(s): Vilimas, Tomas
Title: Ar partnerystės instituto neįteisinimas Lietuvos Respublikoje pažeidžia lygiateisiškumo principą?
Other Title: Does not legalization of Civil Union Institute in Lithuania infringes the principle of quality?
Extent: 34 p.
Date: 2-Jun-2017
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Partnerystė;Santuoka;Šeimos institutai;Lygiateisiškumo principas;Civil union;Marriage;Family institutes;Equality principle
Abstract: Šiame magistriniame darbe analizuojama partnerystės instituto neįteisinimo Lietuvos Respublikoje problema, kada visuomenėje susiformuoja skirtingos lyties asmenų grupė, kuri negali pasinaudoti partnerystės instituto teikiamomis teisėmis. Dėl to yra keliamas klausimas: ar partnerystės instituto neįteisinimas Lietuvos Respublikoje pažeidžia lygiateisiškumo principą? Siekiant atsakyti į iškeltą klausimą, darbe tiriami šie problemos aspektai: ar partnerystės ir santuokos institutai yra tapatūs, partnerystės instituto sukeliamos pasekmės, įstatymo leidėjo kompetencija dėl partnerystės ir kitų šeimos formų reglamentavimo. Darbą sudaro trys dalys, kuriose problema nagrinėjama teoriniu ir praktiniu atžvilgiu. Pirmoje darbo dalyje, siekiant nustatyti ar partnerystė ir santuoka savo turiniu yra tapatūs institutai, analizuojama santuokos ir partnerystės institutų samprata ir genezė, lyginami šių institutų tikslai. Antroje darbo dalyje aptariamos partnerystės instituto sukeliamos pasekmės, kada institutas nėra įteisintas. Tai atliekama nustatant asmenų, kurie nėra sudarę santuokos teisines pasekmes turtiniuose ir neturtiniuose santykiuose bei nustatant ar Lietuvoje įteisinti šeimos teisės institutai pilnai saugo visų subjektų teises. Trečiojoje darbo dalyje, siekiant nustatyti įstatymo leidėjo kompetenciją dėl partnerystės ir kitų šeimos formų reglamentavimo, atliekama Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo ir užsienio šalių praktikos analizė susijusi su bylomis dėl partnerystės ar kitų šeimos formų bei plačiau išanalizuojamas partnerystės instituto reglamentavimas, sąlygos, sukeltos pasekmės kitoje valstybėje, kurioje šis institutas jau įteisintas. Atlikus tyrimą nustatyta, kad santuokos ir partnerystės institutų normos turinio prasme yra vienodos, t.y. saugo tas pačias vertybes bei sukuria tuos pačius lūkesčius - saugoti silpnesnę santykių šalį. Taip pat nustatyta, kad nesant partnerystės institutui ir asmenims nesudarius santuokos, tokių asmenų turtiniai ir neturtiniai santykiai – reguliuojami žymiai siauriau. Be to nustatyta, kad partnerystės institutas negarantuoja šių santykių subjektams visapusiškų teisių ir pareigų. Dėl to gali būti skirtas tos pačios lyties asmenų santykių reglamentavimui, bet ne kaip alternatyva santuokai. Būtent Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas išskiria, kad partnerystės institutas yra įvardijamas kaip vienas iš apsaugos būdų, bet ne kaip vienintelis ir privalomas. Taigi, vadovaujantis tuo, kas išdėstyta, nustatyta, kad partnerystės instituto neįteisinimas Lietuvos Respublikoje, nepažeidžia lygiateisiškumo principo.
The current master's thesis analyses the problem of not legalizing partnership institute in the Republic of Lithuania when the society forms groups of different genders which cannot benefit from the competence provided by the partnership institute. Consequently, a question rises: does not legalization of civil union institute in Lithuania infringes the principle of equality? In order to answer this question, the work analyses these aspects of the problem: are institutes of partnership and marriage the same; consequences raised by partnership institute; the legislator's competence regarding regulation of partnership and other family forms. The work consists of three parts which consider the issue from a theoretical and a practical perspective. In the first part, in order to determine whether partnership and marriage institutes are the same concerning their content, the concept and genesis of marriage and partnership institutes are analysed and their objectives are compared. The second part of this work discusses consequences caused by partnership institute when the institute is not legalized. This is done by determining the legal consequences of people who have not married in property and non-property relations as well as determining whether family law institutes legalized in Lithuania fully protect the rights of all subjects. The third part of the work, in order to determine the competence of the legislator on partnership and regulation of other family forms, an analysis of European Court of Human Rights and foreign practice. This analysis is related to proceedings concerning partnership or other family forms. This part also wider analyses regulation of partnership institute as well as conditions, caused consequences in another country where this institute is already legalized. The investigation showed that not only in the case of marriage but also partnership, individuals seek legal family relationship on their free will, both institutes require registration under mandatory rules in order to establish a legal fact of the emergence of rights and duties, as the state is obliged to protect such relations. Moreover, the standards of marriage and partnership institutes are the same in terms of their content i.e. they protect the same values and create the same expectations to protect the weaker party of the relationship. As a result it can be concluded that marriage and partnership are identical and the presence of identical institutes is unnecessary. It was also found that in the absence of partnership institute and having not concluded a marriage, the property and non-property relations of such individuals are regulated much narrower. Under legislation which establishes the rights of these individuals to the property for individuals who have not concluded a marriage, the total joint property regime cannot be applied. This means the assets will be subject to common ownership regime which will be determined only under certain conditions and only for specific property. Meanwhile regarding moral rights, people who do not choose marriage and not having an opportunity to conclude partnership are granted fewer rights. One of the examples would be absence of right to a surname or limited adoption rights and similar. Thus, it can be argued that in the absence of partnership institute and individuals having not concluded a marriage, the property and non-property relations of such individuals are regulated much narrower. It was also determined that legislation currently existing in Lithuania as well as institutes regulating relationships between individuals do not provide the right to acquire the status of family for one of the law subjects (individuals of the same sex). It was further found that there is no specific list of family forms in the practice of European Court of Human Rights relating to other forms of family relationship which would be created at the basis of marriage but would be protected by the Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights. Certainly, it should be noted that the concept of family relations is perceived not only as a formal legal relationship which requires a certain degree of formality (registration), but also as a de facto relationship. Therefore, it must be noted that in determining whether people's interests and rights are protected under the Convention, the Court in each case must assess a number of factors: whether the individuals' interpersonal relations are close, whether the state has not breached the framework of interference into the private life. This shows that the partnership institute is not directly protected by the Convention. Based on the analysis of countries where partnership is regulated, it was found that usually partnership institute does not provide subjects of the relationship full protection of rights and interests in contrast to marriage. it can be stated that partnership institute covers only part of the rights and responsibilities and thus is designed for regulating same-sex relations but not as an alternative to marriage. Of course, European Court of Human Rights distinguishes that partnership institute is named as one of the ways of protection but not as the only and mandatory. Thus, in accordance with the stated above, it was found that non-legalization of civil union institute in the Republic of Lithuania does not infringes the principle of equality.
Internet: https://eltalpykla.vdu.lt/1/34440
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34440
Appears in Collections:2017 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
tomas_vilimas_md.pdf619.83 kBAdobe PDF   Restricted AccessView/Open   Request a copy

Show full item record

Page view(s)

92
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Download(s)

6
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


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