Teisių kolizijos teorijos neleistinos informacijos skelbimo internete kontekste: greitkelis pelkėje

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjama taikytinos teisės nustatymo problema užsienio elementą turinčiose bylose. Interneto atsiradimas suteikė postūmį diskusijoms dėl teisių kolizijos, bet problemos esmės nepakeitė. Darbe lyginamos taikytinos teisės pasirinkimo teorijos, apžvelgiama pasiūlymų įvairovė, išryškinami JAV ir ES požiūrių koncepciniai skirtumai. Atliktos analizės pagrindu siūlomas teorijų klasifikavimui skirtas erdvinis trimatis modelis, kuriame yra trys ašys – teisių kolizijos įveikimo būdo ašis, arba lex fori (F) ir lex causae (C) dichotomija, interesų vertinimo ašis, arba vienašališkumo (V) ir daugiašališkumo (D) dichotomija, bei taikomos teisės pobūdžio ašis, arba materialumo (M) ir pasirinkimo (P) dichotomija. Sukurtas modelis pritaikomas byloms dėl neleistinos informacijos skelbimo internete. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Deliktas; Internetas; Taikytina teisė; Teisių kolizija; Applicable law; Choice of law; Conflict of laws; Delict; Internet.

ENPurpose of the paper is to analyze the issues of conflict of laws in the context of cases related to posting unallowable information on the Internet. The rise of new technologies has hightened discussions about well-known problems of choice of law but has not changed their substance. The suitability of the rules of private international law does not depend on technology. Roma II regulation provides lex loci damni as a general rule of law applicable to a non-contractual obligation, although in cases where the circumstances clearly show that a delict is obviously more closely connected with another country, the law of that country should be applied. Furthermore, the obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights related to personality are excluded from the scope of Regulation, whereas the posting of unallowable information on the Internet usually offends personal rights. Lex loci delicti commissi as established by the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania needs additional interpretation, and the choice-of-law methods and theories should eliminate uncertainty.The paper offers a comparison of the most popular theories of conflict of laws, such as vested rights (territorialism), governmental interest (parochialism), better law (Leflar, choice influencing factors), substantivism, cosmopolitanism, the most significant relationship (the closest connection), multilateralism and unilateralism, and proposes a spatial 3-D model with three perpendicular x-y-z axes for navigating this "dismal swamp". Lex fori (F) and lex causae (C) dichotomy lies on the abscissa axis, unilateralism (U) and multilateralism (M) dichotomy, on the ordinate axis, and substantivism (S) and selectivism (E) on the applicate axis. Each theory finds its place in the model. The coordinates of the applicable choice-of-law theory for cases related to unallowable information on the Internet should usually be C-M-E. [From the publication]