Darbe atliekamas Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio kodekso (CK) ir Europoje vyraujančių deliktų teisės vienodinimo tendencijų – Europos deliktų teisės principų (PETL) ir Bendros principų sistemos projekto (DCFR) civilinės deliktinės atsakomybės sąlygų palyginimas, siekiant skirti ir įvertinti jų atitiktį dabartiniame Europos deliktų teisės harmonizavimo ir unifikavimo etape. Atliekant tyrimą apibendrinamos pagrindinės Vakarų Europos deliktų teisės tradicijos, pateikiama bendra PETL, DCFR ir Lietuvos deliktų teisės sistemos charakteristika. Daromos išvados, kad PETL ir DCFR grindžiamos generalinio delikto principu. Juose skiriamos ir detaliai konkretizuojamos visos, būdingos ir Lietuvos deliktų teisės sistemai, sąlygos, kurioms esant gali būti taikoma civilinė deliktinė atsakomybė – žala, kaltė ir priežastinis ryšys. Konstatuojamas esminis CK skirtumas nuo PETL ir DCFR nuostatų, apibrėžiant trečiųjų asmenų, turinčių teisę į neturtinės žalos atlyginimą, ratą. CK trečiųjų asmenų teisė į neturtinės žalos atlyginimą įtvirtinta tik nukentėjusiojo gyvybės atėmimo atveju. PETL ir DCFR tokią trečiųjų asmenų teisę numato ir nukentėjusiojo sveikatos sužalojimo atvejais. Kaltė pagal PETL ir DCFR nuostatas gali turėti ir tyčios formą. Pabrėžiama, jog tokia nuostata prieštarauja CK. Vertinant priežastinio ryšio sąlygą daroma išvada, jog CK įtvirtinta jos samprata neprieštarauja PETL ir DCFR nuostatoms. / Work carried out the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania (CC) and Europe prevailing trends in the convergence of tort law – the Principles of European Tort Law (PETL) and the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) civil tort liability in terms of comparison in order to allocate and assess their compliance with current European tort law harmonization and unification stage. The study summarizes the main Western European tradition of tort law, the general PETL, DCFR and Lithuanian tort law system performance. Conclude that PETL and DCFR based on the general tort principle. They are awarded and all the details down specific characteristic of the Lithuanian tort law system and the conditions, under which may be subject the civil tort liability – damage, fault and causation. Finding the essential difference between CC and the PETL, DCFR provisions under definition the circle of third parties, who are entitle to non-pecuniary damages. The right of the third parties by CC consolidated only the victim’s death. PETL and DCFR provide the third party under victim’s death and personal injury cases. Fault by PETL and DCFR provisions could have the form of intentional. Emphasized that such a provision is contrary to CC. Assessing the condition of causality, it is concluded, that the CC provides its conception in compliance with the PETL and DCFR provisions.

No description available.

Swedish property law, when it comes to acquisition of movable property, the transferee does not acquire ownership as such, instead, the sale is considered protected against the claim of the seller’s creditors (borgenärsskydd). This is achieved through the delivery principle (traditionsprincipen), meaning in its Swedish sense that movable property must not necessarily be delivered into the trans- feree’s possession, but rather that the transferor’s possibility to dispose over the movable is severed. This principle has been subjected to considerable alterations, mainly due to allowing situations where the delivery principle would otherwise be practically impossible. These alterations raise the question of how far these legal solutions can be detached from the fundamental principle. Therefore, it is relevant to ponder, if these solutions, which can merely be considered as artificial solutions to satisfy a formal requirement, are like the constitutum possessorium of civil law orders This thesis will attend to this issue, addressing the following three questions: Question (i): how does the concept of ownership apply to legal questions in relation to the delivery principle in Swedish property law and the Draft Common Frame of Reference respectively? Question (ii): does Swedish property law grant protection against the transferor’s creditors although the movable is detained with the transferor? Question (iii): is there any systematic compatibility in relation to the delivery principle in Swedish property law and DCFR respectively? Espe- cially when the movable is detained with the transferor. In relation to question (i), it has been found that in DCFR, ownership is closely linked with possession, which means that ownership follows the delivery of possession. This is not necessarily the case in Swedish property law. Question (ii) is answered in connection to a study of Swedish case-law, which results in that the movable can be detained with the transferor, provided that some require- ments are fulfilled, only if it is a result of a physical action and not solely due to a contract. However, case-law has evolved this general rule to be subjected to a propensity of looking past, or creating new, requirements in order not to create unnecessary complications of compliance as far as it concerns honest transac- tions. This has resulted in a kind of peculiar flexibility. In answer to question (iii), due to the new types of solutions created not to complicate certain transactions, the possibility of reaching similar results as the continental principle is more prominent than one might have thought. Despite certain resemblances, the sys- tematic compatibility must be seen as limited, due to the difference in the respec- tive rules’ aim.

La comparaison des principes directeurs du droit des contrats dans les ordres internes (français et libanais), européen et international permet de déceler, d’une part, une convergence sur le plan de l’identification des principes directeurs du droit des contrats et, d’autre part, une divergence sur le plan de la mise en oeuvre de ces principes. La convergence se manifeste par le fait que les mêmes principes - à savoir les principes de liberté contractuelle, de loyauté contractuelle et de sécurité contractuelle - sous-tendent la théorie générale des contrats dans les trois ordres. Cette convergence s’explique par deux principaux facteurs : d’une part, un facteur logique à savoir le raisonnement par induction qui permet de dégager les principes directeurs du droit des contrats, et, d’autre part, un facteur politique en l’occurrence la concordance des objectifs généraux du droit des contrats dans les trois ordres. Quant à la divergence sur le plan de la mise en oeuvre des principes directeurs,elle se manifeste pratiquement par le renforcement, en droits européen et international,des principes directeurs de la liberté contractuelle et de la loyauté contractuelle ainsi que par l’aménagement du principe directeur de la sécurité contractuelle. Cette divergence a pu être expliquée par l’existence de besoins propres du commerce international. Toutefois, elle devrait plutôt être rattachée à l’influence de droits nationaux étrangers aux droits français et libanais. / The comparison of the guiding principles of contract law in French, Lebanese, European and international laws reveals on one hand a convergence in terms of identifying the guiding principles of contract law and on the other hand a divergence interms of implementing these principles.The convergence arises from the same principles - namely the principles of contractual freedom, contractual security and contractual “loyalty”2 - underlying the general theory of contracts in all three laws. This convergence is due to two mainfactors: firstly, a logical factor that is the inductive reasoning that allows extracting the guiding principles of contract law, and, secondly, a political factor based on the similarity of the general objectives of contract law in the three laws. As for the divergence in terms of guiding principles implementation, it is revealed through reinforcing in European and international laws, the guiding principles of contractual freedom and contractual “loyalty” as well as the adjustment of the guiding principle of contractual security. This divergence could be explained by the existence of specific needs of international trade. However, it should rather be related to the influence of foreign national laws different from French and Lebanese laws.