Whether There Arises Civil Liability for the Flawed Leadership of Mediator During the Mediation Process?

Prieš daugiau nei dešimtmetį pradėtos taikyti mediacijos procedūros Lietuvoje sudarė prielaidas diskusijoms apie mediatoriaus pareigas ir jų apimtį taikinamajame tarpininkavime. Nors mediacija Lietuvoje nėra plačiai taikoma, kyla diskusijų dėl mediacijos procedūrų kokybės ir mediatorių kvalifikacijos tinkamumo. Kol kas šalies teismuose nebuvo spręsta bylų dėl civilinės atsakomybės taikymo mediatoriams, tačiau šias procedūras plačiai taikančiose valstybėse – JAV, Kanadoje – pripažįstama, kad tikslinga analizuoti, ar mediatoriui gali kilti civilinė atsakomybė, jei taip, kokia apimtimi ji gali būti taikoma, bei kokios yra išlygos, kai civilinė atsakomybė mediatoriams negali būti pritaikyta. Magistro darbe keliama hipotezė – ydingai mediacijos procesą vykdančiam mediatoriui kyla civilinė atsakomybė. Preziumuojant, kad tokia atsakomybė gali kilti, magistro darbo tikslas – nustatyti, kokiais atvejais ir apimtimi mediatoriui gali būti pritaikyta civilinė atsakomybė. Atlikus literatūros ir teismų praktikos analizę, buvo padarytos išvados, kad civilinė atsakomybė mediatoriui gali kilti, kai jis tam tikra apimtimi pažeidžia teisės aktais jam numatytas tarpininko pareigas (konfidencialumo, neutralumo ir nešališkumo pareigą, pareigą tinkamai parengti mediacijos dokumentus, mediatoriaus kompetentingumo pareigą, pareigą taikinamojo tarpininkavimo procedūros metu atlikti teisėtus veiksmus). Pareigų, kurių pažeidimas sukelia mediatoriaus civilinę atsakomybę, sąrašas magistriniame darbe nėra baigtinis, nes civilinės atsakomybės atsiradimo klausimas priklauso nuo mediacijos susitarimo, mediatoriaus pareigų šaltinių, mediacijos procedūros tipo bei kitų aplinkybių, vertinamų kiekvienos individualios situacijos kontekste. Magistro darbo hipotezė patvirtinta iš dalies. Prieita prie išvados, kad mediatoriams civilinė atsakomybė nekyla, jei yra taikomas teisinis imunitetas. Darbe pateikiamas toks mediatoriaus imuniteto skirstymas: absoliutus, dalinis, sutartinis. Absoliutaus imuniteto atveju mediatorius savo atliekamomis pareigomis yra prilyginamas teisėjui ar arbitrui ir turi teisinę apsaugą nuo civilinės atsakomybės taikymo. Taikant dalinį imunitetą, mediatorius gali atsakyti civiline atsakomybe, jei mediacijos procedūros metu atlieka neteisėtus veiksmus, tačiau yra saugomas imuniteto tais atvejais, jei klaidos yra netyčinės, buvo atliktos dedant maksimalias pastangas tinkamai tarpininkauti procese. Sutartinis mediatoriaus imunitetas gali būti numatytas mediacijos sutartyje.The problem of the thesis. Mediation procedures started to be applied in Lithuania more than a decade ago. They made premises for discussions about mediators duties and their volume in mediation. Although mediation in Lithuania is not widely applied, discussions about the quality of mediation procedures and the suitability of mediators qualification arise. In the USA and Canada, where these procedures are widely applied, it is acknowledged that it is purposeful to analyse the civil responsibility of a mediator. However, in Lithuania the question of civil responsibility of a mediator has not been comprehensively discussed in the doctrine of law or judicial practice. Because of the situation, master thesis is important and the topic thoroughly corresponds to the criterion of a novelty. A scientific hypothesis has been formed – carrying out a mediation process improperly a mediator takes on a civil responsibility. Supposing that such a responsibility might arise, the aim of the master`s thesis is to ascertain in what cases a mediator can be assumed a civil responsibility. The objectives of the thesis are: 1) To analyse the legal regulation of mediator duties in Lithuania; 2) To establish the legal basis and terms of application of mediator civil responsibility; 3) To survey the practice in the sphere of mediator civil responsibility in Lithuania and foreign countries; 4) To establish reservations of mediator civil responsibility: cases of not assuming a civil responsibility, applications of mediator immunity. The object of the work is the institute of mediator civil responsibility. Methodology. Different research methods have been used in the work : systematic, comparative, analytical. Using systematic method conditions of appearance of mediator civil responsibility and legal regulations have been researched. With the help of comparative method application of civil responsibility in other legal systems have been surveyed. Using analytical method researched information, information presented in the doctrine of law and practice has been analysed, collected facts have been summarised. Sources. In order to accomplish the tasks of the work, different sources have been analysed: legal regulations of mediation in Lithuania, works of scientists and practicians on mediation research. The question of mediation in Lithuania has not been analysed in most aspects, including the theme of civil responsibility. Different foreign sources have been looked through on the topic of this work: books, articles, judicial practice, scientific articles from data base. The work consists of three parts. In the first part regulations of mediator actions in national and European Union law statements have been discussed. The functions of a mediator and the change of role in different stages of mediation procedure have been named. This information is important in order to understand the peculiarities of mediation process that affect the appearance of mediator civil responsibility. In the second part of the work important information about professional civil responsibility and the basics of mediator civil responsibility has been surveyed. Mediator duties in mediation process have been named. Also, cases under what circumstances the breach of duties causes mediator civil responsibility have been analysed. In the third part of the work the most important attention has been paid to the analysis of application of reservations of civil responsibility. Applications of mediator immunity from civil responsibility have been researched. The hypothesis of the thesis has been partly confirmed that a mediator carrying out a mediation process improperly takes on a civil responsibility. It has been stated that legal regulation of mediation procedures points to mediator duties but does not detail the cases of civil responsibility. In Lithuania there is no institute of mediator immunity. Procedures of application of mediator disciplinary responsibility do not exist either. Because of this, two kinds of civil responsibility has been pointed: through the breach of duties according to the law and according to the contract. In the countries of common law, for example, the USA, a separate kind of mediator civil responsibility is often pointed as fiduciary breach of duties. Mediator civil responsibility might arise while breaking the main duties in the process: confidence, impartiality, neutrality, mediator competence, legal actions, proper mediation documents. The list of duties is not complete since the question of civil responsibility might arise while breaking other duties. Civil responsibility has to be considered individually in each situation. Mediator immunity in different countries is different (absolute, partial, contract). Absolute mediator immunity is mostly acknowledged in the states of common law. For example, in some states of the USA. Usually court mediators have absolute immunity, but in some states (Florida) private mediators have such immunity as well. Absolute immunity should be applied in spite of the fact that mediators do not have a decisive power in mediation procedure. In application of partial immunity, sides in mediation procedure have the right to demand mediator civil responsibility because of illegal, deliberate actions. At the same time a mediator is protected from civil responsibility as he cannot be sued for making accidental or unpremeditated mistakes in mediation process. Mediator immunity might be provided in mediation agreement, too. It gives the least protection for a mediator because in some cases the reservations of mediation agreement might be contested. Providing mediator immunity in the agreement, usually it is declared invalid in cases of cheating. On the basis of the analysis of application of mediator civil responsibility and foreign states practice such recommendations can be made: 1. In Lithuania there should exist clearer legal regulations providing the application of mediator civil responsibility. Firstly, disciplinary procedures should judge improper actions of mediators in mediation process. Secondly, the law on conciliatory mediation in civil disputes of the Republic of Lithuania, the regulations of Judicial mediation should provide the breach of mediator duties that might cause civil responsibility and what legal mechanism should be used for its application. 2. The law on conciliatory mediation in civil disputes of the Republic of Lithuania, the regulations of Judicial mediation should include the statute of application of mediator immunity.Vytauto Didžiojo universiteta