Diskriminavimo esant civiliniams teisiniams santykiams padariniai

LTPagal Tarybos 2004 metų gruodžio 13 dienos direktyvą (EB) Nr. 2004/113, Lietuva įpareigota nacionaliniuose teisės aktuose įtvirtinti sankcijas už diskriminavimą civiliniuose teisiniuose santykiuose. Nors direktyva nepateikia konkretaus sankcijų sąrašo, pagal Europos Teisingumo Teismo (ETT) praktiką bei Bendrijoje galiojančius ekvivalentiškumo bei veiksmingumo principus sankcijos turi padėti veiksmingai įgyvendinti direktyvų tikslus bei suteikti nukentėjusiam asmeniui realią galimybę apginti pažeistas teises. Žalos atlyginimas neturėtų būti vien simbolinės vertės. Nei LR moterų ir vyrų lygių galimybių įstatyme, nei LR lygių galimybių įstatyme (abejotinas dviejų praktiškai identiškų įstatymų egzistavimas) nenurodyta, ar diskriminuojantį asmenį galima priversti sudaryti sutartį. Remiantis bendrosiomis pirkimo-pardavimo, nuomos sutarčių nuostatomis konstatuotina, kad, kai diskriminuoja viešąją ofertą pateikęs asmuo, jis (kitai šaliai viešąją ofertą akceptavus) atsisako ne sutartį sudaryti, o ją vykdyti. Tai jam užtraukia sutartinę civilinę atsakomybę. Jei invitatio ad offerendum atveju diskriminaciniais pagrindais atsisakoma akceptuoti kitos šalies pateiktą ofertą, sutartis nebūtų laikoma sudaryta, o dėl LR CK 6.156 straipsnio 2 dalies nuostatos diskriminuojamam asmeniui tektų tenkintis žalos atlyginimu. Pagal ETT praktiką, nagrinėjant ieškinius dėl žalos atlyginimo, į asmens kaltę nėra atsižvelgiama. Lyginamuoju aspektu pastebėtina, kad Vokietijos teisės doktrinoje vyrauja tendencija apriboti diskriminuojančio asmens sutarties laisvę ir priversti jį sudaryti civilinę sutartį.

EN[...] The aim on the European level is to guarantee the most effective protection of the discriminated ones. For this purpose on the 13th of December 2004 the Council adopted the Directive 2004/113/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services. The Member States, were obliged to adopt the legal national rules concerning the sanctions for discrimination in the civil legal relations. Though the Directive does not provide for the numerus clausus of the sanctions, it is clear, according to the practice of the European Court of Justice and the Community's principles of equivalence and effectiveness, that the Member State is to adopt such sanctions "which are sufficiently effective to achieve the objective of the directive and to ensure that those measures may in fact be relied on before the national courts by the persons concerned. In case of compensation it must in any event be adequate in relation to the damage sustained". In Lithuania two special legal acts implement the antidiscriminatory provisions of the Directives - The Law on Equal Chances between Men and Women and The Law on Equal Chances as of the 1st January 2005. In comparison with each other they are almost identical laws - thus it raises a question how meaningful is the existence of them both. To this point it would be desirable to regulate the prohibition of the discrimination in one legal act, but to make a clear distinction between the consequences of discrimination in labour and civil legal relations.Neither The Law on Equal Chances between Men and Women nor The Law on Equal Chances clearly indicate the possibility of a force-contract in case of the discriminatory refusal to contract: The Law on Equal Chances only stipulates an abstract obligation of the seller, producer or service provider to ensure equal chances for everybody to get the same products, goods or services. Still on the basis of general provisions of the purchase or lease contract, it is clear that the person who discriminates in case of the acceptance of the public offer refuses to fulfil the contract. In contrast to the refusal to contract, the refusal to fulfil the contract means the contractual civil liability. Thus in case of invilatio ad offerendum the parties do not enter into contract if the party who discriminates refuses to accept the offer. As nobody can be forced to enter into contract, the person who discriminates could not be compelled to contract. Consequently, the discriminated person could only claim damages. However, in comparison with the German legal doctrine it is to be noticed that the German legal authors tend to limit the freedom of contract in such cases and support the possibility of the force-contract. So in cases of the discriminatory refusal to contract, also when the discriminated party loses the interest to require the fulfilment the contract or when it is impossible, the discriminated one could claim damages. According to the practice of the European Court of Justice fault is not a condition of liability. Still it must be noticed that under the actual legal rules only the discrimination of sex gives the legal way to claim moral damage.