Įkeitimo teisės derinimo Europos Sąjungoje problemos

LTSiame straipsnyje atskleidžiama būtinybė vadovaujantis Europos Sąjungos (ES) teise derinti kilnojamojo turto įkeitimo teisę ir aptariamos pagrindinės ES iniciatyvos siekiant užtikrinti, kad vienoje valstybėje narėje sukurtos įkeitimo teisės būtų pripažįstamos kitoje valstybėje narėje ir kreditorius išsaugoti savo išskirtinį statusą bei galėtų deramai patenkinti savo reikalavimus iš įkeitimo objekto vertės. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Civilinė teisė; Europos Sąjungos teisė; Kilnojamas turtas; Kreditorius; Laisvas judėjimas; Steigiamosios sutartys; Turto įkeitimas; Įkeitimo teisė; Civil law; Creditor; European Union law; Founding treaties; Free movement; Movable property; Right of pledge; The pledge of assets.

ENThis article deals with the issues of recognition and enforcement of security interests over movable property that arise once the property charged crosses the border of the jurisdiction other than these interests have been duly created. As a result of inadequate the lex situs rule and greatly divergent substantive laws on security interests, the courts often refuse to recognize in rein rights of the creditor, created in the foreign jurisdiction, or at least neglect their priority. These problems, which might be described as a ,,mobile conflict", are especially acute in the EU, as the Union is based on the concept of the common market. With the inevitable increase of trade after the accession to the EU, Lithuanian business community should be prepared to experience negative effects of the non-recognition of the Lithuanian security interests in another Member State. The author submits that the ,,mobile conflict" in the EU could be solved referring to the provisions of the EC Treaty that set the fundamental principles of the free movement of goods and capital. Even though the possibility to apply Article 28 of the EC Treaty as a means, which secures the recognition of the foreign security interests, especially the reservation of title, is highly questionable after the ECJ decisions in Keck and Krantz, theoretically there are clear grounds to maintain that the problem of "mobile conflict" falls within the scope of Article 56 of the EC Treaty. It is believed that the ECJ would address this question in the nearest future and would finally solve a long-lasting problem of the European law. [Text from author]