Vežėjo civilinės teisinės atsakomybės, reglamentuojamos CIM IR SMGS tarptautiniais susitarimais, lyginamoji analizė

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjami probleminiai vežėjų civilinės atsakomybės aspektai, pasireiškiantys tiek geležinkeliais vežant krovinius, tiek tiesiogiai nesusiję su krovinių gabenimu. Vadovaujantis tarptautiniais susitarimais (konvencijomis), teismų praktika ir kitais šaltiniais, straipsnyje siekiama visapusiškai išanalizuoti vežėjo civilinę teisinę atsakomybę, reglamentuojamą dviejų tarptautinių teisės aktų – COTIF ir SMGS. Lyginamoji vežėjų atsakomybės analizė atliekama pagal tam tikras atsakomybės sąlygas (neteisėti veiksmai, kaltė, priežastinis ryšys ir žala). [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Vežėjai; Civilinė atsakomybė; Carrier; Civil liability.

ENFreight traffic by rail between Europe, Russia and Asia has an enormous potential. Unfortunately, this traffic is not only hindered by technical difficulties such as differing track gauges and electrification systems but also by legal difficulties. In Europe, the CIM Uniform Rules apply; in Russia and Asia, the SMGS Convention applies. Eliminating these problems is the task of the joint CIT/OSJD project to make the CIM and SMGS legally interoperable, however, before these two laws are harmonised, a huge amount of rail transportation contracts in Lithuania are made under different provisions. Analyzing the conditions of carriers’ civil liability, the author concludes, that although there are some similarities in regulation, CIM and SMGS have many differences, which may and in practise do have a negative effect, especially if the legal aspects are not certain enough. Taking into account the content of two mentioned agreements, it is obvious, that SMGS conditions are more detailed but strict, whereas CIM is more liberal and lets [allows?] the contracting parties decide on some aspects (change the grounds and boundaries of the liability). CIMs liberalism arise from the fact, that this agreement is much newer and all the conditions are made compatible with the CMR convention, except for the legal aspects, which cannot match due to the specifics of the rail sphere. In addition, CIM limits the carrier’s liability to 17 SDR for 1 kilogram of lost freight, whereas under SMGS regulation, the carrier is liable for the whole value of the freight. However, after having examined all the conditions of both international agreements, the author discovered that SMGS conditions are still more in favour of the carrier, as it has more grounds (rights) for limiting the liability, better civil process rules (burden of proof) or the payment of interest and etc.This comparative analysis should be taken into account when harmonizing CIM and SMGS and creating a new international railway transport regulation. [From the publication]