Whether a mandatory requirement from 2015, to approve the contracts of loan in a notarial form, is considered to be proportional?

Nuo 2015 m. sausio 1 d. Lietuvos Respublikos civiliniame kodekse įsigaliojo paskolos sutarties formą reglamentuojančio straipsnio pakeitimas. Šis straipsnis papildomas 4 dalimi, kurioje numatoma, kad paskolos sutartys, kurių suma viršija 3000 eurų ir jos vykdomos grynaisiais pinigais, turi būti notarinės formos. Taigi atsirado nauja sutarties rūšis, kuriai nuspręsta taikyti privalomą notarinės formos reikalavimą. Atsižvelgiant į tai, šio darbo problema yra ta, kad notarinės formos reikalavimas yra varžanti priemonė, kuri šiuolaikinėje sutarčių teisėje turėtų būti taikoma tik išimtinais atvejais, kai kitokiais būdais negalima pasiekti norimų rezultatų. Pažymėtina, kad ši problema dar nėra analizuota Lietuvoje, o kitose valstybėse neanalizuojama, nes nėra numatyto tokio formalaus reikalavimo paskolos sutartims. Šio darbo tikslas išsiaiškinti, ar notarinės formos reikalavimas paskolos sutartims, kurios vykdomos grynaisiais pinigais nuo 3000 eurų, yra proporcingas, nevaržo subjektų daugiau nei reikia, siekiamiems tikslams pasiekti bei, ar bus pasiekti norimi tikslai. Tikslui įgyvendinti darbe analizuojami Lietuvos ir užsienio šalių teisės aktai, moksliniai straipsniai ir teismų praktika. Buvo padaryta išvada, kad bendrame kontekste notarinės formos reikalavimas paskolos sutartims yra neproporcingas, tačiau kai jas sudaro fiziniai asmenys, galima teigti, kad visuomenės ir fizinių asmenų apsaugos interesų tikslais šis reikalavimas yra proporcingas. Tačiau, dėl to kad yra galimybių kitokiomis sutartimis, sukčiauti ir pagrįsti neteisėtą praturtėjimą, tik teoriškai norma yra veiksminga, o praktiškai nebus pasiekiami norimi rezultatai, todėl kategoriškai negalima teigti, kad fiziniai asmenys paskolos sutartis sudarytų notarine forma yra proporcinga. O reikalauti, kad juridiniai asmenys sudarytų paskolos sutartis notarine forma yra neabejotinai neproporcinga, nes juridiniai asmenys turi fiksuoti savo dokumentuose atliekamus finansinius veiksmus, taip pat Lietuvos Banke turi registruoti užsienio paskolas. Toks reikalavimas yra nenaudingas ekonomiškai, todėl galima daryti išvadą, kad juridiniai asmenys yra suvaržomi labiau negu to reikia.The title of this work is: Whether a mandatory requirement from 2015, to approve the contracts of loan in a notarial form, is considered to be proportional? From 1 January 2015, the new loan agreement form entered into force in the 6.871 article of Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which requires that: the loan agreements for an amount in excess of EUR 3000 and it have to be in cash, must to be made in notarial form. Thus, is the new type of contract to which it was decided to apply the compulsory notarial form requirement. It should be noted that this problem has not yet been analysed in the Republic of Lithuania and in other countries, because in the other countries there is no formal requirement for notarial form of loan contract. The main reasons why it was decided to apply the requirement of notarial form to a loan contracts is named as follows: first, the requirement of notarial form would reduce the possibilities of fraud in the country, on the other hand, impeded the work of law enforcement authorities, the loan contracts in an attempt to justify the unlawful income, and thirdly, to ensure that no unlawful, retrospective or fictitious contracts enter in to the civil circulation. However, whether these reasons are sufficient to require strict notarial form, to both natural and legal persons of concern is analyzed in this work. In view of this problem is that the requirement of notarial form is a restrictive measure, which in modern contract law should be applied only in exceptional maters, when other means don't achieve the desired results. Therefore, practicing lawyers raises a number of discussions, whether or not such a strict requirement is required for loan contracts, i.e. whether it is proportional, do not restrict more than is a need, and that will be a tool to achieve the desired objectives, the more, that in other countries there is no such requirement. The purpose of this work is to find out whether the requirement of notarial form of loan agreements, which are carried out in cash from 3000 Euros is proportional, do not restrict more than is a need, to achieve the objectives pursued. As a result of research work the conclusion can be made that the hypothesis – that the requirement to the loan agreement, which are carried out in cash, to be made in a notarial form is proportional to the natural persons, however to the legal persons disproportionate – confirmed in part. It was concluded that the overall context of the requirement of notarial form of loan contracts is disproportionate, but when contracts is made by natural person, it can be said that for the society and the protection of natural persons interests the purpose of this requirement is proportional. However, due to the fact that there is scope for other contracts, which can be used in fraud and illegal enrichment, based on this argument this is effective only in theory, but in practice, the results will not be reached, so it cannot be categorically said that the loan agreement written by a natural person in a notarial form is proportional to. For the second part of a hypothesis to require that legal persons constitute a loan agreement in a notarial form is absolutely disproportionate, because legal persons should capture in the documents theirs financial operations, also they must to register loans in the Bank of Lithuania, moreover the requirement is economically useless, and therefore be concluded that the legal persons are restrict more than is need to.Teisės fakultetasVytauto Didžiojo universiteta