Nuosavybės teisės išlaikymo sandoriai

LTŠiame straipsnyje yra nagrinėjama Lietuvos teismų praktika panaudojant nuosavybės teisę sandorių įvykdymui užtikrinti. Konferencijos tema šiam nuosavybės teisės panaudojimo aspektui yra itin aktuali - per Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio kodekso galiojimo laikotarpį XXI amžiuje teko susidurti ir su ekonomikos pakilimo ir su jos nuosmukio periodais. Kaip parodė praktika, nuosavybės teisė patvirtino savo universalumą sandorių įvykdymo užtikrinimo funkcijos prasme. Ekonomikos nuosmukio laikotarpiu pagrindinis akcentas buvo skiriamas norui apsisaugoti nuo kontrahento nemokumo rizikos. Tuo tarpu ekonomikos pakilimo laikotarpiu nuosavybės teisės panaudojimas prievolių įvykdymui užtikrinti buvo siejamas su galimybe sumažinti papildomų (kitų) prievolių įvykdymo užtikrinimo būdų panaudojimą, tokių, kaip kito, ne sandorio dalyku esančio turto įkeitimas, laidavimas, banko garantijos ir pan. Todėl šiame straipsnyje, atsižvelgiant į konferencijos iškeltą problemą, yra nagrinėjama Lietuvos teismų praktika pritaikant ir atskleidžiant nuosavybės universalumą prievolių vykdymo užtikrinimo institute.

ENThis study is devoted to the analysis of the Lithuanian case law in which the right of ownership is used for the security of agreements. The topic of the conference is especially relevant to this aspect of the exercise of the right of ownership - during the period of the validity of the Lithuanian Civil Code we have had to face both periods of economic — expansion and contraction - in the XXI century. As the practice has shown, the right of ownership has confirmed its versatility in terms of its security function. During the economic downturn, the main focus was based on the desire to protect against the risk of counterparty's insolvency. Meanwhile, during the period of economic expansion, the use of the right of ownership for the security of obligations was associated with the possibility of reducing the use of additional (other) security measures of obligations, such as a pledge of other assets, warranty, bank guarantee, etc. Therefore, taking into consideration the problem raised in the conference, this article examines the case practice of Lithuanian courts in applying and disclosing the versatility of the right of ownership at the institute of securing of obligations. The article states that in the law enforcement practice in Lithuania the main attention is paid to the traditional security measures of the execution of obligations, and first of all - to the mortgage. That was also related to the fact that in the case law of Lithuanian courts the retention of title clauses were interpreted very formally. For example, a deferred payment clause was bound to the need to settle with the creditor over several times. Meanwhile, one-off deferred payment was not acknowledged as a sufficient circumstance for the application of the clause of the retention of title.However, following the relocation of the regulation of the institute of the retention of title to the level of the European Union Law and having envisaged its application in the Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, it may be expected that the conditions for the application of this institute will be uniformed among the member states and that a good practice of the implementation of this institute shall be adopted in Lithuania. It should be also noted that the practice relevant to this institute is being formed by applying the Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements. After examination of the application practice of the institute of the retention of title in Lithuania, it shall be concluded that this practice lacks a functional approach to the application of this institute so far. Amending of the practice regarding the interpretation of legal norms would lead to a wider use of the ownership right in financing agreements.