Whether the claim of the delictual liability has the priority over the concurrence of the contractual and delictual liability in the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania?

Šiame darbe analizuojama civilinės atsakomybės rūšių: deliktinės ir sutartinės atsakomybės taikymo problematika konkurencijos atveju, siekiant nustatyti ar deliktinės atsakomybės reikalavimas Lietuvos teisinėje sistemoje turi prioritetą sutartinės ir deliktinės atsakomybės konkurencijos atveju. Deliktinės ir sutartinės atsakomybės konkurencija teisės doktrinoje yra pripažįstamas atvejis, kai galimas nukentėjusios šalies reikalavimas taikyti tiek sutartinę, tiek deliktinę atsakomybę. Pirmojoje šio darbo dalyje nurodoma civilinės atsakomybės rūšių samprata, jų panašumai ir skirtumai, civilinės atsakomybės rūšių atsiradimo pagrindai. Antrojoje šio darbo dalyje analizuojama sutartinės ir deliktinės atsakomybės konkurencija, pateikiami teisės doktrinoje nurodomi ir siūlomi konkurencijos sprendimo būdai. Trečioje darbo dalyje analizuojami atskirieji civilinės atsakomybės konkurencijos atvejai: ikisutartiniuose santykiuose, šaliai pažeidus pareigą derybų metu elgtis sąžiningai ir pažeidus ikisutartinių santykių metu pasirašytą susitarimą. Nustatyta, kad civilinės atsakomybės rūšių konkurencija egzistuoja ikisutartiniuose santykiuose, tarp šalių vykstant deryboms ir pasiekus susitarimą, pasirašius organizacinius dokumentus – preliminariasias sutartis. Atlikta teismų praktikos ir teisės doktrinos analizė patvirtino, kad nacionalinėje teisėje nėra vieningos nuomonės, kuriomis civilinės atsakomybės taisyklėmis: sutartinės ar deliktinės, nukentėjusioji šalis turi vadovautis, reikšdama ieškinį dėl ikisutartinių santykių metu patirtų nuostolių. Taip pat analizuojamas atvejis dėl profesionalų atsakomybės už padarytą žalą, šalis siejant sutartiniams santykiams. Teismų praktikos analizė patvirtino, kad sprendžiant klausimą dėl profesionalų atsakomybės, formuojama praktika nėra vieninga ir galimi atvejai, kai profesionalui pažeidus sutartimi prisiimtus įsipareigojimus ir jo veiklą reglamentuojančius įstatymus, egzistuoja atvejai, kai taikoma tiek deliktinė, tiek sutartinė atsakomybė. Gydytojų civilinės atsakomybės ypatumai, siekiant atsakyti į klausimą ar net ir esant tarp paciento ir gydymo įstaigos pasirašytai paslaugų sutarčiai, gydytojui savo veiksmais padarius žalą paciento gyvybei ar sveikatai ar pažeidus sutartimi prisiimtus įsipareigojimus ir pažeidus įstatyme nustatytą pareigą elgtis atidžiai ir rūpestingai, pagal jo profesinei veiklai keliamus reikalavimus, visuomet bus taikoma deliktinė atsakomybė. Atlikus tyrimą, hipotezė pasitvirtino iš dalies. Lietuvos teisinėje sistemoje civilinės atsakomybės rūšių konkurencija egzistuoja ir deliktinės atsakomybės reikalavimas turi prioritetą sutartinės ir deliktinės atsakomybės konkurencijos atveju.This work analyzes the problems of application of the types of civil liability – delictual and contractual – in case of concurrence, in order to determine whether the demand for delictual liability in the Lithuanian legal system has priority in case of contractual and delictual liability. The case of concurrence of civil liability is when the demand for application of contractual and delictual liability is possible in presence of legal violation between the same parties and under the same circumstances. It is especially important when the aggrieved person defends the violated rights in the judicial proceedings and files the claim for adjudgment of damage and losses. Therefore it is always important to determine the material legal relations between the parties. With regard to the applicable type of civil liability, different interests of the aggrieved party will be defended in each particular case, the different averment duty will arise in the judicial proceedings and it will result in the right of different scope to reimbursement of damage or losses. This work analyzes special cases of concurrence when the rules of delictual liability are applicable and when the parties are related contractually in absence of the statutory grounds. The first part of the work is used to provide the concept of the types of civil liability, their similarities and differences and the grounds for appearance of the types of civil liability – delictual and contractual. The concurrence between the contractual and delictual liabilities is analyzed in the second part of the work, and the modes, how to solve conflict specified and offered in jurisprudence are presented. The case law of the Lithuanian Supreme Court and cases about application of civil liability have confirmed that the tendency is getting more and more evident that the case law is not unanimous and that there are situations, when the concurrence between the types of civil liability becomes clear. Usually these are the cases when the parties are related by the contracts, however the damage caused to the person may be originated from the delict, as well. The analysis of foreign jurisprudence and case law, as well as analysis of cassation court of domestic law confirmed that even when the non-cumul principle regarding concurrence of types of civil liability is present, the problem still remains and the domestic law provides different interpretation of this problem. In such a way non-unanimous case law is formed and priority is given to one of the types of civil liability, regardless to the contractual relations between the parties. The third part of the work is used to distinguish and analyze special cases of civil liability. These are the cases of conflict in pre-contractual relations, when the party violates the obligation to act fairly in the course of negotiations and violates the agreement signed in the course of pre-contractual relations – preliminary contract. It has been determined that the conflict between the types of civil liability is present in pre-contractual relations, when the parties are negotiating and reach the agreement, and when the organizational documents – preliminary contracts – are signed. The conducted analysis of the case law and jurisprudence confirmed the absence of unanimous opinion in the domestic law, which rules (those of delictual or contractual civil liability) the aggrieved party should apply when it files the claim regarding the losses incurred during the pre-contractual relations. The case of liability of professionals for the damage cause during contractual relations is also analyzed. The analysis of case law has confirmed that in order to solve the issue about responsibility of the professionals, the practice under formation is not very unanimous and the case are possible when both – delictual and contractual liabilities may be applied when the professional violates the contractual obligations and laws regulating his/her activities. This means that the concurrence between the types of civil liability is present. This work also analyzes peculiarities of application of civil liability on professional doctors. It was attempted to determine whether the delictual liability is applied even when the contract for services between the patient and medical institution has been signed, i.e. when the contractual relations exist between the parties and the doctor causes damage to the patient’s life or health and violates the obligations undertaken by the laws, as well as statutory duty to act attentively and carefully. The analysis of case law and jurisprudence performed in this research allows making the conclusion that the ground of the damage origin is essential for different grounds in case of concurrence of delictual and contractual liabilities. It was determined that usually when the damage (losses) is caused to tangible rights, the damage is considered to be of material-economic character and the rules of contractual liability are applied. In the cases when damage is caused to personal values, especially to health and life, the rules of delictual liability are applied, even if the parties are related by the contract. The research of the present work was carried out following the set goals and objectives, upon having analyzed the domestic jurisprudence and case law, and with the aim to answer the set hypothesis, which was approved partially. It was determined that the concurrence between the types of civil liability is present in the Lithuanian legal system and the demand for delictual liability has priority over contractual liability in case of their concurrence