Įmonės, įstaigos, organizacijos vadovo teisinio statuso problema Lietuvos teisėje

LTLietuvos Respublikos įstatymai lakoniškai kvalifikuoja vadovo ryšį su įmone, įstaiga, organizacija kaip darbo teisinį santykį, o teismų praktikoje buvo išplėtota jo civilinę teisinę prigimtį pabrėžianti doktrina8. Šio straipsnio tikslas - atsižvelgiant į susiklostančiam santykiui būdingą dualumą, kritiškai įvertinti įmonės, įstaigos, organizacijos vadovo teisinį statusą. Tai įgyvendinama tiriant ne visų juridinių asmenų, o tik privačių juridinių asmenų - akcinių bendrovių vienašmenių valdymo organų (vadovų) teisinės padėties įstatyminio reglamentavimo raidą bei teismų praktiką nagrinėjant su bendrovės vadovu susijusias bylas. Vėliau trumpai aptariami viešųjų juridinių asmenų vadovų teisinio statuso ypatumai. Vadovų teisiniam statusui atkleisti reikšmingiausi buvo teisės normos ir teismų sprendimai, susiję su sutarties nutraukimo ir turtinės atsakomybės sąlygomis. Straipsnyje naudojami loginis ir analizės, teleologinis, istorinis, lyginamasis ir lingvistinis metodai.

ENThe present article analyses the position of the head of an enterprise or an institution, or another organization under the Lithuanian law. The question deserves special attention due to a complexity of his relationship with a legal person. As a one-man managing body of the legal person, the head has a wide range of powers and competences to represent the legal person with respect to third parties and to organize its activities. This fact alone implies a greater degree of his personal responsibility and trust of the shareholders or members of the legal person. On the other hand, the head of an enterprise or an institution is a natural person submitting to certain internal regulations and depending on the income from the realization of his professional, intellectual and physical abilities. The character of the employee-like subordination leads to the question of the legal nature of the relationship between the enterprise, institution or organisation and its managing body, or head (director, president, chairman of the board etc.). Would the legal norms of the employee-friendly labour law or civil law be then applicable to his working conditions, responsibility or termination of the relationship? The first section of the article is devoted to the analysis of the development of Lithuanian legislation on the position of the head of company. Since there is no direct stipulation on his position in the labour law, provisions of the corporate law, namely, the law on companies, were investigated in more detail. The research has demonstrated that the Lithuanian legislator has maintained the labour law approach towards heads of companies. The law on companies prescribes the conclusion of the contract of employment with the head of the company but entails specific provisions on the termination of contract, full material responsibility or jurisdiction of grievances.Therefore under today's legislation the head of the company shall be considered an employee with few explicit deviations from the labour law provided by the corporate law. The second section of the article deals with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Lithuania. The investigation of the cases involving heads of companies has shown that the Court has not fully supported the labour law approach. Emphasising the statutory function of representation of the legal person by the head of the company, the Court has taken the view that in essence the relationship shall be considered as having a civil law character and legal provisions governing the contract of mandate shall be applicable. This fundamental finding allows the Court to justify the termination of contract with the head of the company without indicating any reason, merely by the formal decision of a competent managing body. However, the application of the labour law has not been rejected by the Court; however, it has not been specified either. The author criticizes this contra legem doctrine of the Court and points out the difficulties and legal uncertainty concerning applicable provisions of the labour law and inapplicable provisions of the civil law.Examining new cases such as those dealing with the material liability of the heads of companies or the termination of contract with the heads of public legal persons, the Court had to modify its former attitude and to refer to the labour law principles and norms. The author suggests that within current legal regulation the employee status of the head of a legal person should be recognised with some substantial deviations related to his activities as the managing body of the legal person. These specific deviations are already incorporated in the civil law and concern the termination of contract, material responsibility, the level of prudence etc. In all other aspects of employment legal norms of the labour law shall prevail. The author also suggests considering the complementation of the labour legislation by introducing specific norms on the status of the head of the enterprise, institution or organization.