Does the regulation of marriage dissolution in Lithuania implement the principle of marriage preservation?

Nuolatinės diskusijos dėl šeimos sąvokos apibrėžimo ar įvairių socialinių reformų neigiamo poveikio santuokos ir šeimos institutui valstybėje šiuo metu yra labai aktualios. Tačiau siekiant stiprinti vis labiau nuvertėjantį santuokos institutą, šeimą, santuokos nutraukimo reguliavimo funkcija taip pat tampa aktuali. Nors Lietuvoje egzistuoja santuokos nutraukimas dėl sutuoktinio kaltės, tačiau ir be šio santuokos nutraukimo pagrindo yra tvirtinti pakankamai liberalūs santuokos nutraukimo pagrindai, numatantys galimybę nutraukti santuoką ne tik sutuoktinių bendru sutarimu, tačiau ir vieno sutuoktinio iniciatyva. Taip pat, nors ir Lietuvos Respublikos Civilinis Kodeksas įtvirtina sutuoktinių taikinimo institutą, tačiau jo dispozityvaus pobūdžio normos leidžia abejoti jų efektyvumu siekiant išsaugoti santuoką prasidėjus ištuokos procesui. Taigi, šio darbo tikslas atsakyti į klausimą, ar santuokos nutraukimo reguliavimas Lietuvoje įgyvendina santuokos išsaugojimo principą, patvirtinant arba paneigiant iškeltą hipotezę, jog santuokos nutraukimo reguliavimas Lietuvoje neįgyvendina santuokos išsaugojimo principo. Tikslui pasiekti buvo analizuojami santuokos nutraukimo pagrindai tiek Lietuvoje tiek užsienyje santuokos išsaugojimo principo atžvilgiu, atsižvelgiant į darbo metu atskleistas modernias šio principo taikymo ribas. Taip pat buvo išanalizuotos sutuoktinių taikinimo instituto veikimas santuokos išsaugojimo principo atžvilgiu, palygintos kitose šalyse įtvirtintos taikinimo normos. Darbo pabaigoje buvo prieita išvados, jog tiek santuokos nutraukimo pagrindai, tiek sutuoktinių taikinimo normos įgyvendina santuokos išsaugojimo principą liberaliąja šio principo prasme, kuri, dėl pasikeitusių socialinių normų, yra suprantama kaip viešojo intereso įgyvendinimas apsaugant santuoką nuo lengvabūdiško, pirmalaikio, neapgalvoto iširimo, taip stiprinant nuvertėjusį santuokos institutą. Lietuvoje santuokos nutraukimas abiejų sutuoktinių sutikimu apribojamas ne tik vienerių metų santuokos trukmės reikalavimu, tačiau ir teismo pareiga nustatyti santuokos faktinį iširimą. Santuokos nutraukimas vieno sutuoktinio iniciatyva apribojamas vienerių metų ne faktine, tačiau teismine separacija, todėl toks apribojamas lemia šio pagrindo nepopuliarumą, o įtvirtintas santuokos nutraukimo pagrindas dėl kaltės garantuoja santuokos išsaugojimo principą ne tik stiprindamas vedybinių įsipareigojimų prasmę, tačiau ir užskirsdamas kelią bereikšmėms vienašališkoms ištuokoms. Sutuoktinių taikinimo institutas Lietuvoje užtikrina tų santuokų, kuriose egzistuoja susitaikymo galimybė, išsaugojimą ne tik sustabdant bylos nagrinėjimą, tačiau ir aktyviai veikiant teismui santuokos nutraukimo procese.Continuing discussions on the definition of family concept or negative influence of various social reforms on the institute of marriage and family recently are extremely relevant in Lithuania. However, aiming to reinforce constantly depreciating institute of marriage and family, the function of the regulation of marriage dissolution becomes important too. If the regulation of marriage dissolution implements the “effective” marriage dissolution only, leaving the principle of marriage preservation aside, the regulation not only negates the meaning of family and marriage established by the state, but also does not assess the outcome of divorce. Although in Lithuania exists fault-based ground for marriage dissolution, however legitimated enough liberal bases for marriage dissolution enable to dissolve the marriage not only by mutual consent of spouses but also upon the initiative of one spouse. Furthermore, although the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania establishes the institute of the reconciliation of spouses, its dispositive norms are doubtfully effective aiming to preserve marriage when the process of marriage dissolution has been started. Thus, there is a question whether the regulation of marriage dissolution in Lithuania is aimed at the preservation of marriage and family. The main objective of this paper is to analyse whether the regulation of marriage dissolution implements the principle of marriage preservation. In a course of work, it is aimed to prove or deny the research hypothesis that the regulation of marriage dissolution in Lithuania does not implement the principle of marriage preservation. Research subject: the content of marriage dissolution norms and the principle of marriage preservation, their proportions. Aiming to reach the research objective the followings tasks were set: 1) to discuss the genesis of the principle of marriage preservation and limits of its application, 2) identify the preconditions for marriage preservation in Lithuania, 3) define the meaning of legal marriage dissolution procedures, 4) analyse the bases for marriage dissolution in Lithuania and other European states from the perspective of marriage preservation, 5) discuss the implementation of the institute of reconciliation from the perspective of marriage preservation in Lithuania and foreign countries. The first part of the paper, after the review of the history of the regulation of marriage dissolution in the Unites States, highlights that the absolute principle of marriage preservation has changed after the liberalisation of the regulation of marriage dissolution, which meats private, not public, interests. Modern attitude towards the state and the marriage from the liberal concept of marriage preservation: in a process of marriage dissolution public interest manifests in marriage preservation from light-minded, premature, reckless dissolution, in such a way reinforcing the depreciated institute of marriage. The second part of the paper discloses that the implementation of the principle of marriage preservation is limited by personal right to divorce and the preservation of personal decisions of spouses; thus unlimited intervention of state into private family interests, notwithstanding undisputable value of the institute of family and marriage, would be unreasonable. The third part of the paper sets the preconditions for marriage preservation in Lithuania. Based on national family concept and the established family relationship regulation objectives, it has been identified that in Lithuania family is considered as top priority institute which wellbeing, thus and the preservation in a process of marriage dissolution, is the interest of state. The fourth part of the paper first defines that legal marriage dissolution procedures established in Lithuania are one of the main elements influencing the implementation of the principle of marriage preservation. Also, it has been concluded that all marriage dissolution bases established in Lithuania ensure the implementation of the liberal principal of marriage preservation in both, reinforcing social meaning of marriage institute and preserving it from light-minded, premature, and selfish divorce. Marriage dissolution by mutual agreement of spouses is limited not only by the requirement on the duration of marriage, but also by the duty of judicial institutions to become clear of factual dissolution of marriage during the oral court process. Marriage dissolution upon the initiative of one spouse is the most dangerous from the perspective of the principle of marriage preservation, however in Lithuania such basis is quite rear due to the requirement of one year legal separation. Finally, marriage dissolution due to the fault of a spouse (spouses) conditions the specificity of this basis, implementing the principle of marriage preservation in Lithuania. This way of marriage dissolution not only educates the spouses, reinforces the institute of family, motivating not to violate marital obligation, but also preservers from light-minded and selfish divorces without mutual agreement of spouses. The fifths part of the paper discloses that the concept of the principle of marriage preservation varies from country to country; such states as Spain and Sweden understand the function of marriage dissolution as the implementation of the interests of spouses only. Such states as Ireland and Malta strictly limit the dissolution of marriages, thus the principle of marriage preservation means strong public interest. However, in most of the European countries, including Lithuania, the establishment of liberal basis for marriage dissolution, limiting it by the separation, duration of marriage, or actual dissolution, is understood as modern implementation of the principle of marriage preservation. The sixth part of the paper concludes that dispositive norms of the reconciliation of spouses established in Lithuania ensure proportional implementation of the principle of marriage preservation. The imposing of compulsory reconciliation procedures, detailed and imperative establishment of reconciliation procedures, taking into account that every marriage and its environment is different, would not correspond to the concept of the institute of reconciliation of spouses, while the implementation of public interest aiming to preserve marriage by any means would become unreasonable taking into account modern relationship between the state and the marriage. In foreign countries, norms of reconciliation of spouses are not of compulsory nature, with the exception of some cases, such as minimum time to final solution on the dissolution of marriage in some states of the USA and compulsory consultations with the judge in Europe. Only few European states, including Lithuania, have established the possibility of postponing the case on marriage dissolution as a norm of the reconciliation of spouses, most often giving maximum term for the reconciliation of spouses. However, many countries do not have any norms of reconciliation of spouses at all. The research hypothesis that the regulation of marriage dissolution in Lithuania does not implement the principle of marriage preservation failed. The bases of marriage dissolution and norms of reconciliation of spouses do implement the principle of marriage preservation in its liberal meaning.Vytauto Didžiojo universiteta