Ar gali būti perleista teisė į neturtinės žalos atlyginimą

LTNors neturtinės žalos instituto teisinio reguliavimo ir praktinio įgyvendinimo problematika yra nepaprastai plati ir įvairi, turi daugybę aspektų, kuriuos reikėtų aptarti ir atlikti nuodugniųjų mokslinę analizę, tačiau, įvertinus dabartinio jo funkcionavimo Lietuvos teisėje, o ypač jurisprudencijoje, realijas, būtų galima teigti, jog viena iš sudėtingiausių, nedelsiant spręstina yra teisės į patirtų fizinių ir dvasinių kančių bei išgyvenimų kompensavimą perėjimo - paveldėjimo ar kitokio perleidimo tretiesiems asmenims leistinumo - problema. Šis kompleksinio pobūdžio klausimas, daugiausia susijęs su neturtinės žalos, kaip teisinės kategorijos, samprata, prigimtimi ir kitais aspektais, tampa itin aktualus tiek moksliniu, tiek praktiniu požiūriu, ir materialinei, ir procesinei civilinei teisei. Pažymėtina, kad tais atvejais, kai dėl artimo žmogaus gyvybės atėmimo ar sveikatos sužalojimo dvasines bei fizines kančias išgyvenantys giminaičiai ir artimieji reiškia piniginius reikalavimus žalą padariusiam asmeniui', apie jokį teisių į neturtinės žalos atlyginimą perėjimą negali būti kalbama, nes šių trečiųjų asmenų teisė į piniginį atlygį atsiranda dėl kančių, kurias jaučia tiesiogiai jie patys, tad laikytina savarankiška teise.

ENThe possibility to transfer or inherit the right to compensation of non-pecuniary damages is one of the most actual and most complicated questions, arising during legal regulation and practical implementation of the institute on non-pecuniary damages in Lithuania. This problem hasn't been scientifically analyzed in legal doctrine, and Lithuanian courts' practice (including constitutional jurisprudence) in this field is very uncertain and divergent, because there is no clear position and consensus concerning the nature of non-pecuniary damages and admissibility to pass any legal requirement, arising from suffering physical pain or mental distress, caused by a tortfeasor. Different positions, concerning the issue, met in doctrine and jurisprudence of foreign legal systems, are presented, discussed and evaluated in the article. Taking into consideration the fact, that the main function of monetary redress for physical pain and emotional distress, suffered by a person, is to compensate negative feelings, mitigate unpleasant emotions, relatively recover infringed psychical or physical balance, give some satisfaction to a victim, it can be stated that the right to compensation of such immaterial damages can't be transferred to a third party by contract or be inherited after the victim's death. In order to deal with such kind of legal requirement and justly compensate non-pecuniary harm, identify the existence of it, evaluate its range, intensity and consequences, finally - estimate the sum of material redress, the participation of direct victim, who experienced all these immaterial troubles, is necessary.On the other hand, requirement to compensate non-pecuniary damage can be treated as pecuniary one, because it is a claim for concrete sum of money and differently from other usually untransferable requirements (for example, from requirement to maintain), it is not connected with negative changes in material field of live or pointed to provide material support, which had been lost. Besides this, the death of infringed or pained person should not be advantageous to the tortfeasor and always eliminate his pecuniary responsibility. So that requirement to compensate non-pecuniary damages should be accepted as transferable by contract or be inherited in any case or only if it is clearly defined (for example, in court decision or peaceful agreement) or if the court proceeding, concerning recovering of such damages, has been started by the victim before his death, or if such claim has been acknowledged by the defendant, or in any other situations, when the will of the victim to reach compensation is definitely expressed.The relevance of these possible positions, concerning the nature of non-pecuniary damages, to Lithuanian legal system is analyzed in the article, taking into consideration Article 6.210 part 3 and article 5.1 part 3 of Lithuanian Civil Code (regulating untransferable rights and requirements) as well as tends of quite divergent Lithuanian courts' practice, including uncertain constitutional jurisprudence, finally - important aspects of the concept of the institute of non-pecuniary damages itself and its development features in national law. It is concluded, that at present stage of evolution of the institute of non-pecuniary damages in Lithuanian civil law the possibility to transfer the right to compensation of non-pecuniary damages to a third party by contract or inherit it should be recognized in cases, when such right is clearly defined in court decision or legal agreement, reached by the parties of legal relationship. Besides this, the admissibility to inherit such right should be accepted even in cases, when it is nor clearly defined, but the aggrieved party has taken some active legal measures - brought the claim for compensation before the court, and enough information about the existence of such right as well as its possible monetary shape has been selected.