Whether the Fair Damage Compensation is Ensured to an Individual Involved Into Judicial Process According to Unfairly Brought Unfounded Claim?

Magistro darbe atliekamas mokslinis tyrimas, kuriuo siekiama nustatyti, ar teisės aktai, reglamentuojantys piktnaudžiavimo teise institutą, sukuria prielaidas asmens teisėms į teisingą žalos atlyginimą, atsiradusį pagal nesąžiningai pareikštą nepagrįstą ieškinį. Darbe bus pateikti siūlymai kaip tobulinti esamą teisinį reguliavimą šiuo klausimu. Pirmojoje darbo dalyje gilinamasi į bendrąją piktnaudžiavimo teise sampratą, apžvelgiamos šio instituto būtinosios sąlygos ir formos, taip pat tiriamas piktnaudžiavimo teise instituto taikymas užsienio šalyse. Antrojoje darbo dalyje analizuojami žalos dėl pareikšto nepagrįsto ieškinio atlyginimo būdai ir problematika. Šioje darbo dalyje pateikiamos bendros problemos, su kuriomis gali būti susiduriama siekiant teisingo žalos atlyginimo, esant piktnaudžiavimo teise atvejams. Trečioje darbo dalyje gilinamasi į priemones prieš piktnaudžiavimą teise, jų efektyvumą ir pakankamumą. Nagrinėjant šias priemones iškyla deliktinės atsakomybės taikymo problematika, bylinėjimosi išlaidų pakankamo reglamentavimo ir neturtinės žalos priteisimo galimumo klausimai. Ketvirtoje dalyje analizuojami galimi Lietuvos Respublikos teisės aktų tobulinimo pasiūlymai. Kalbama apie privačios baudos dėl nepagrįstai pareikšto ieškinio skyrimo reglamentavimą ir jo tobulinimą, taip pat aptariamas galimas viešojo intereso sąvokos tikslesnis apibrėžimas ir taikymas, esant piktnaudžiavimui teise pareikšti nepagrįstą ieškinį atvejams. Šiame darbe pateikiamos išvados, jog nėra suformuota nuosekli piktnaudžiavimo teise instituto taikymo praktika. Dažniausiai šis institutas yra taikomas kaip pagalbinė priemonė spręsti tam tikrus klausimus. Tačiau toks piktnaudžiavimo teise taikymas nėra visiškai tinkamas, nes tai yra atskiras ir savarankiškas institutas, kurio panaudojimo galimybės nėra visiškai atskleistos. Darbe siūloma teoriniu ir praktiniu lygiu apsvarstyti piktnaudžiavimo teise instituto tobulinimo problematiką, atsižvelgiant į asmeninių neturtinių teisių gynimą, bylinėjimosi išlaidų skirstymo reglamentavimą, privačios baudos instituto tobulinimą, bei viešojo intereso apibrėžimą, esant piktnaudžiavimo teise atvejams.This Master’s thesis presents a performed scientific study in order to determine whether Lithuanian legislation on abuse of rights makes assumptions for fair damage compensation caused by fraudulently brought unfounded claim. In this regard the paper puts forward proposals to improve the existing legal framework. Individuals exercising their civil rights may dispose freely, but their behavior can not do harm to other persons. Evolving complex social relationships constitute a situation in which regulation is necessary in order not to make possible for one person violate the rights of others. The important thing is abuse of law principle that ensures fair and legitimate civil rights enforcement mechanism implies a harmonious society dispute resolution procedure and retains the overall expansion of the moral norms of legal relations. Abuse of rights institute in general is enshrined in the Constitution, the Civil Code Article 1.2 of Lithuanian law. Prohibition of abuse of rights defined in Civil Procedure code Article 1.137 paragraph 3. Everyone has the right to fair compensation for damage sustained. That is clear from Articles 30 and 109 of Constitution, also from the Civil Code Article 6.250, 6.263, 6283-285 and others. When victim apparently receive property damage, fair compensation for this do not create greater uncertainty. But the damage remuneration caused by the bad faith claim is quite tricky. There are cases that person who suffered damages of unfair judicial process seeks for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. In this case, there arise problems of fair damage compensation (pecuniary and non-pecuniary) caused by the process of improper procedural rights. Violate the procedural rights of judicial proceedings being consequences under Code of Civil Procedure Article 95 paragraph 1. The same Article paragraph 2 enables the court to take private penalty for abuse of procedural rights. And there are no clear criteria for suffered non-pecuniary damages and private penalty institutes in this matter. Also the question arises whether the nature of damages is enough for large-scale cases. However, case law assumes, that court focusing on the main objective - to direct compensation of person losses. There is requirement for more precise investigation of penalty size and purpose of sanctions. Under these circumstances, the amount of damage assessment and compensation problems of unfairly brought unfounded claims become acute. Part One reveals the common conception of abuse of rights; prerequisites and forms of this legal framework are reviewed as well as legal framework of abuse of rights in foreign countries is studied. Part Two analyses the damage compensation practices and problems caused by fraudulently brought unfounded claim. This part determines the common problems that may be encountered when a fair compensation in cases of abuse of rights is tried to receive. Part Three focuses on the means against abuse of rights, their effectiveness and adequacy more closely. When analysis these means problems of non-contractual liability and sufficient regulation of litigation cost as well as feasibility issues of non-pecuniary damage compensation are faced. Part Four analyses the possible suggestions for improvement of legislation of the Republic of Lithuania. This part deals with a private penalty regulation and development for fraudulently brought unfounded claim, also discusses the more precise definition of public interest in cases of abuse of right. This Master’s thesis results would have indirect impact on judicial practice and social environment. There would be suggestion how to get fair compensation from those parties, whose are unjustified abusing of judicial process and how to reduce number of fraudulently brought unfounded claim. Objectives of the study are as follows: 1. to investigate when abuse of rights doctrine may be determined, search for existence of any forms of abuse of rights, search for conditions that must be required to determine abuse of procedural rights, as well as the legal regulation of foreign countries in this regard; 2. to identify any ways that we can recover damages and losses due to the abuse of rights and analyse problems of recovery of these kind of damages; 3. to analyze measures against abuse of the process rights and to determine the effectiveness of these measures; 4. to propose the offer that could improve compensation of damages suffered for unfairly brought unfounded claim and create new proposals for establishing new standards or adjust previously formed norms. This paper research results could be used to improve development for abuse of rights problems solving in legal doctrine and case law. Research methods. This work uses traditional methods of jurisprudence - document analysis, linguistic, logical, comparative, systematic, historical and teleological analysis of legal phenomena. Used teleological study method that invoked the interpretation of Lithuanian and foreign laws and regulations, and court documents. Document analysis research method was used to analyze the works of theorists, and various procedural documents. A comparative study method used in comparison of the Republic of Lithuania and other countries legislation in the field of abuse of rights. The logical method of analysis served by analyzing the concept of abuse of rights and proposals to improve this concept. Also linguistic analysis reveals in examining the legal text and abuse of legal terminology. The conclusion of this work is that the practise of abuse of rights is inconsistent. In most cases this institute is applied as a secondary one to deal with certain issues. Such an application of abuse of rights is not entirely appropriate; however, it is a separate and independent institution use of what is still not fully disclosed. The paper proposes to consider the improvement of abuse of rights institute on theoretical and practical levels, according to defence of moral rights, regulation of litigation cost distribution, improvement of private penalty regulation and the definition of the public interest in cases of abuse of rights.Teisės fakultetasVytauto Didžiojo universiteta