Ar Lietuvos Respublikos civiliniame kodekse numatytas fizinio asmens neveiksnumo teisinis sureguliavimas atitinka Jungtinių Tautų neįgaliųjų teisių konvencijos principus?
Magistro darbe tiriamos fizinio asmens pripažinimo neveiksniu ar ribotai veiksniu tam tikroje teisės srityje sąlygos Lietuvoje ir ar toks institutas neprieštarauja Jungtinių Tautų Neįgaliųjų teisių konvencijai, kurią Lietuva ratifikavo 2010m. Atsižvelgiant į šios konvencijos nuostatas nuo 2016 metų...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | , |
| Format: | Master Thesis |
| Language: | Lithuanian |
| Published: |
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eltalpykla.vdu.lt/1/34883 https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34883 |
| Summary: | Magistro darbe tiriamos fizinio asmens pripažinimo neveiksniu ar ribotai veiksniu tam tikroje teisės srityje sąlygos Lietuvoje ir ar toks institutas neprieštarauja Jungtinių Tautų Neįgaliųjų teisių konvencijai, kurią Lietuva ratifikavo 2010m. Atsižvelgiant į šios konvencijos nuostatas nuo 2016 metų sausio 1 dienos keitėsi neveiksnumo instituto reguliavimas civiliniame kodekse ir civilinio proceso kodekse. Lietuvos Respublikos Civiliniame kodekse yra įtvirtintas asmenų turinčių psichikos sutrikimų neveiksnumo nustatymas ar riboto veiksnumo nustatymas, tam tikrose srityse, kurių sąrašas teismo sprendimu yra baigtinis. Darbe analizuojama problema yra ta, kad asmenys turintys psichinę negalią sudaro dalį visuomenės narių, todėl kyla klausimas dėl tokių asmenų gebėjimo suprasti savo veiksmų reikšmę. Nuo Sovietinių laikų Lietuvoje asmenys turintys negalia buvo stigmatizuojami ir išskiriami visuomenėje. Asmens negalia ir neveiksnumas yra skirtingi dalykai, todėl negali būti tapatinami, taip kaip ir teisinio bei psichinio veiksnumo sąvokos. Atribojimo santykio nesupratimas visuomenėje dažnai skatina klaidingą mastymą ir požiūrį į fizinių asmenų pripažinimo neveiksniais ar ribotai veiksniais tam tikrose srityse nusistatymą Lietuvoje, todėl priimant Lietuvos teisės aktus, formuojant Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo praktiką šiais klausimais turi būti gerai išmanoma ne tik teisinė pusė, bet ir tai, ar asmuo turintis psichinę negalią turi būti būtinai pripažintas kaip negalintis suprasti ir kontroliuoti savo veiksmų. Veiksnumo instituto reguliavimas tarptautiniuose teisės aktuose ir juose numatytų teisės principų perkėlimas į Lietuvos nacionalinę teisę yra sudėtingas, kadangi valstybė neatsisako neveiksnumo instituto, todėl numatyti įsipareigojimai atliekami neįvykdant jų iki galo. Jungtinių Tautų Neįgaliųjų teisių Komitetas pateikė rekomendacijas ir pastabas Lietuvos atžvilgiu, kuriose buvo daug kritikos, dėl Konvencijos įgyvendinimo. Nors Lietuvoje yra paliktas neveiksnumo institutas, tačiau juo siekiama minimizuoti galimybę asmenį pripažinti neveiksniu. Konvencijoje numatytas pagalbos suteikimo modelis, asmenims turintiems negalią – nėra vystomas, kadangi Lietuvoje palikus neveiksnumo institutą liko globos/ rūpybos paskyrimas, kurių tikslas skiriasi nuo pagalbos suteikimo modelio. Tai patvirtina civiliniame kodekse numatyti globos ir rūpybos institutų veikimo principai. The Master thesis focuses on the conditions of acknowledgment of incapacity or limited capacity of a natural person in a certain field of law in Lithuania and on the issue of such institute being in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability ratified by Lithuania in 2010. According to the provisions of this Convention, the regulation of the incapacity institute in the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Code changed in 2016, January 1. The Civil Code of the Lithuanian Republic includes the specification of incapacity or limited capacity of persons with mental disability in certain fields, the list of which is finite under the court decision. The problem analysed in the paper is that persons with mental disabilities comprise a significant part of the society; therefore, a question is raised in connection to the ability of such persons to understand the meaning of their actions. Since Soviet times, in Lithuania, disabled people have been stigmatised and excluded from the society. The disability and incapacity of a person are different things and thus they cannot be treated as identical, as well as the concepts of legal and mental capacity. In Lithuania, the misconception of the difference of the above mentioned concepts in the society often leads to erroneous understanding and attitude to the acknowledgement of natural persons as incapable or partially capable in certain fields; therefore, when adopting Lithuanian legal acts and forming the practice of the Lithuanian Supreme Court concerning these questions, the knowledge of the legal aspect of the problem, as well as the understanding if the person with mental disability is to be acknowledged as unable to realise and control his/her actions are obligatory. The regulation of the capacity institute in the international legal acts and transfer of the principles stipulated there into the Lithuanian National Law is a complicated process, as the state does not refuse the institute of absolute incapacity and, therefore, the provided obligations are not fully accomplished. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Disabled introduced recommendations and observations regarding Lithuania with substantial criticism on the implementation of the Convention. Though the incapacity institute remains in Lithuania, it aims at minimising the opportunity to acknowledge the person as incapable. The model of decision support for the disabled people is not developed, because with the incapacity institute remaining, the assignment of care is still preserved, the aim of which is different from the model of decision support. It is confirmed by the principles of activity of care and welfare institutes provided in the Civil Code. The hypothesis that legal regulation embedded in the legal acts of the Lithuanian Republic does not correspond with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of person with Disabilities was confirmed. Lithuania coordinates and changes provisions of laws, but they are still not in line with the aims of the Convention. According to the valid norms of the Civil Code, the Civil Process Code and court practice, the fact that a person has a mental disability does not allow by itself the acknowledgement of such a person as incapable or with limited capacity as the entirety of evidence have to be taken into consideration. Just a medical criterion that is not supported by the conclusions of social workers in relation to the person’s ability to make decisions independently and expert opinions cannot be a sole reason to acknowledge a person’s incapacity. The comparison of legal principles regulating the institute of incapacity at the international level shows that the commentaries of the Convention and the Committee on the Rights of person with Disabilities consolidated the idea that legal capacity of a person cannot be discriminated and taken away just on the basis of his/her mental disability. Lithuania has partly regulated national legal acts that should be in line with the Convention, but legal norms contradicting legal principles of the Convention that regulate legal capacity still remain. The Convention stipulates that the states have to eliminate the incapacity institute as it opposes the fundamental principles of the Convention – the equality of the disabled persons in the society, creation of equal rights and living conditions for all individuals. Lithuania has to allot financial and human resources when implementing the principles of the Convention, creating the support model that would give the disabled persons an opportunity to independently implement their legal capacity and their own will. The creation of the decision support model has to involve the examples of good practice in the countries like Latvia, Iceland, the Czech Republic where the model has already been implemented and is efficiently employed. At the national level, judges, attorneys and employees of various institutions have to be trained and introduced to the new legal regulation which, on the basis of the Convention, has changed and reinforced legal capacity of the natural persons with disability and their status in the society. These changes pose a number of theoretical and practical challenges when incorporating support institutes into the Lithuanian legal basis. |
|---|