Does the concept of carrier wilful misconduct, which caused damages, applied in CMR case law, contradict the principle of legal certainty?

Tarptautinio krovinių vežimo keliais sutarties konvencijos CMR (toliau - CMR konvencija) susitariančių šalių pagrindinis tikslas - suvienodinti tarptautinio krovinių vežimo sutarties sąlygas, t.y. tokiems vežimams reikalingus dokumentus ir vežėjo atsakomybę. Susidaro įspūdis, jog CMR konvencija tarptautiniu mastu suvienodina krovinių vežimo sutarties sąlygas, tačiau jos taikymas ir aiškinimas paliekamas susitariančių šalių nacionaliniams teismams. Tai lemia skirtingą CMR konvencijos interpretaciją ir rezultatus teismų praktikoje. Viena iš tokių skirtingai interpretuojamų nuostatų – krovinių vežėjo civilinės atsakomybės ribojimas, atsižvelgiant į jo kaltės formą. Nors yra įprasta, jog civilinėje teisėje už padarytą žalą taikomas visiško nuostolių atlyginimo principas, tačiau civilinė atsakomybė, atsiradusi dėl krovinio praradimo ar sužalojimo, yra ribojama vadovaujantis CMR konvencija. Tačiau CMR konvencijoje įtvirtintos nuostatos, kurios riboja galimybę krovinių vežėjui remtis ribotos atsakomybėmis taisyklėmis, atsižvelgiant į jo kaltės formą. Problema atsiranda dėl skirtingo užsienio valstybių teismų vertinimo nustatant tyčinius vežėjo veiksmus, kadangi įvairių užsienio valstybių teisė kaltės formoms suteikia skirtingą turinį ir prasmę. Dėl šios diferenciacijos atsiranda teisinis neapibrėžtumas, kuris neleidžia užtikrinti stabilių teisinių santykių bei kiekvienos sutarties šalių teisėtų lūkesčių. Be to, tai sukuria ir „forum shopping“ problemą. Šiame darbe nagrinėjama tyčinių vežėjo veiksmų (ang. wilful misconduct), kaip kaltės formos, sąvoka bei jiems prilyginamos kaltės forma. Siekiama nustatyti įstatymų leidėjo ketinimus, tyčinių veiksmų bei jiems prilyginamos kaltės formą, jos sampratą ir formavimosi istoriją. Nagrinėjama Varšuvos konvencija, kurios pagrindu buvo formuojama CMR konvencija, taip pat ir Hagos protokolas. Darbo tikslas – detalizuoti probleminę CMR konvencijos nuostatą, kuri įtvirtina krovinių vežėjo tyčinius veiksmus. Darbe analizuojama, ar CMR konvencija yra netinkamai parengta ar klaidingai teismų interpretuojama. Darbe nagrinėjama tyčinio vežėjo veiksmo samprata, sukėlusio žalą, suformuota teismų praktikoje. Pateikiamas Lietuvos Aukščiausiajame Teisme formuojamas aiškinimas, kuris lyginamas su užsienio valstybių teismų praktikoje interpretuojamomis sampratomis. Taip pat, darbe atliekama kaltės formų analizė civilinėje teisėje, kuri leidžia įvertinti kokiai kaltės formai gali būti prilyginami tyčiniai veiksmai vadovaujantis CMR konvencija. Išanalizavus CMR konvencijos nuostatas, Hagos protokolą, Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo bei CMR konvencijos narių teismų praktiką, buvo pasiekta išvada, kad tyčinio vežėjo veiksmo sukėlusio žalą, samprata CMR konvencijos taikymo teismų praktikoje pažeidžia teisinio apibrėžtumo principą bei neužtikrina sutarties šalių teisėtų lūkesčių.The main objective of contracting parties to the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) (hereinafter - CMR Convention) is to standardize conditions governing the contract for the international carriage of goods by road, i.e. the documents used for such carriage and to the carrier's liability. It appears that the CMR Convention gives the impression of full harmonization of the law but its application is left to the national courts of the contracting parties. This leads to a different interpretation and contrasting results of the CMR Convention in the case law. One of these distinctive interpretive provisions is the limitation of the civil liability of the carrier‘s of goods responsibility, taking into account the degree of his fault. The limited civil liability of the carrier is lost if the damage was caused by ones wilful misconduct or by such default on his part in accordance with the law of the court or the seasure of the case by the tribunal, is considered as equivalent to wilful misconduct (art. 29 CMR Convention). Thus the definition given by the international CMR Convention is classified in national terms. Although, it is customary for damage civil liability to be subject to the principle of full compensation, civil liability arising out of loss or damage to the cargo is limited in accordance with the CMR Convention. However, the CMR Convention also contains provisions restricting the possibility for a carrier to rely on limited liability rules, taking into account the degree of his fault. The problem arises from the fact that courts of CMR Convention members differ in their assessment and wilful misconduct of the carrier, since different countries do not have the same content and meaning for the degrees of fault. The definition of carrier‘s fault varies across different legal systems affecting the assessment of wilful misconduct. This in turn leads to legal uncertainty which prevents the stable legal relationship and legitimate expectations of each contracting party. Moreover, this creates a "forum shopping" issue between members of the CMR Convention. In the pursuit of legal certainty, the CMR Convention is to be applied autonomously, so that all relevant parties would have clear expectations regardless of the country of trial. However, this is only theoretical. The choice of forum should be exercised carefully. The interpretation of the CMR Convention across different countries is often incosistent due the choise of forum. This paper examines the concept of wilful misconduct of the carrier and the degree of form which is considered as equivalent to wilful misconduct. The aim is to identify the intentions of the legislator, the form of wilful misconduct and the degree of fault which is equivalent, its conception and the history of formation. This paper focuses on Warsaw Convention, which built foundations to the CMR Convention, also on The Hague Protocol, where it was drafted that actual knowledge of the carrier is necessary in order to unlimit his civil liability. The purpose of this research is to provide a better understanding of the problematic provision of the CMR Convention, especialy the concept of wilful misconduct in international transport law. This analysis will allow an assessment of the CMR Convention in order to decide whether it is badly drafted or wrongly interpreted by the courts. For the sake of international unification, definitions given by the international conventions should not be classified in national terms, since the main aim by defining the degree of fault instead of referring to national terms is to achieve the uniform application of the provisions regarding the breaking the limits. The second part of this paper deals with the concept, formed in the case law, of carrier‘s wilful misconduct, which cause damage. The Supreme Court of Lithuania made the statement that gross negligence is equivalent to wilful misconduct. Gross negligence necessitates only a objective interpretation, which means that carrier‘s actual knowledge, when causing the damages, is not necessary. The concept, formulated in the Supreme Court of Lithuania, is compared with the concepts formulated in the case law of other CMR Convention countries. In addition, the definitions of the civil law fault concepts analysed and, thereafter, compared with the concept of wilful misconduct so that the equivalent degree of fault under civil law are determined. After analyzing the provisions of the CMR Convention, The Hague Protocol, the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania and the other members of the CMR Convention, it has been concluded that the concept of carier wilful misconduct contradicts the principle of legal certainty and does not ensure legitimate expectations of the parties to the treaty. It was also concluded that it would be purposeful to adopt a new legal interpretation of art. 29 CMR Convention in Lithuanian case law. New legal interpretation should state that only recklessness with knowledge that damage would probably result can be considered as equivalent to wilful misconduct in the context of art. 29 CMR Convention, because it was stated that recklessness is a different concept of fault than gross negligence. The conduct described as “recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result” require a subjective interpretation. In such case it is generally accepted that the awareness requirement of wilful misconduct necessitates actual knowledge of the wrongdoer. If nor – limited liability must be implemented