Keliauti ar nekeliauti? Štai koks klausimas

LTŠiame straipsnyje analizuojama valstybės atsakomybė dėl netinkamai įgyvendintos Europos Sąjungos direktyvos Nr. 90/314/EEB turizmo teisiniams santykiams reguliuoti, jos ribos ir apimtis, lyginama Europos Sąjungos ir Lietuvos nacionalinių teismų neturtinės žalos priteisimo turistams, nukentėjusiems dėl kelionių organizatorių nemokumo, praktika, aptariama sėkminga užsienio šalių patirtis ir pateikiama pasiūlymų, kaip nustatyti protingą ir proporcingą teisinį reguliavimą, kuris, viena vertus, užtikrintų visišką vartotojų dėl kelionių organizatorių nemokumo patirtos žalos atlyginimą, antra vertus, taikomų ribojimų bei reikalavimų pobūdžiu ir apimtimi pernelyg nepasunkintų šios ūkinės veiklos sąlygų, reikšmingai nepadidintų kelionių, atostogų ir organizuotų išvykų paketų savikainos ir tokiu būdu nepadarytų jų neįperkamų. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Direktyva Nr. 90/314/EEB; Turistai; Neturtinė žala; Valstybės atsakomybė. Keywords: Directive no. 90/314/EEC; Tourists; Non-pecuniary damage; State responsibility.

ENThe member state has an obligation to aim for the goals set out by the EU policies, the EU legislation is an integral part of the legal system of the member state, which shall guarantee the rights established in the EU legislation to persons. Failure to fulfil this obligation, wherein the directive that guarantees the refunding of money and repatriation to the travellers is not being implemented, is intolerable and causes direct material consequences to the member state that failed to implement the directive - the member state has to directly compensate the damages incurred by the subjects due to the improper transfer of the EU directive. The mechanism for compensation of incurred losses currently established in Lithuania is clearly ineffective and compensates a mere quarter of the damages incurred by the travellers. Thus, disputes arise regarding the compensation of material and immaterial damages. Despite the fact that Lithuanian national courts, when awarding immaterial damages, prioritise the countervailing rather than retributive function of this institute, the prevailing circumstances show that the courts tend to interpret the compensation of immaterial damages in an overly narrow and conservative way.In Lithuanian case-law, it is not easy to prove the responsibility of the state regarding material damages, however, in terms of immaterial damages, the options of the victims are limited by the absolute provision that immaterial damages are only compensated in cases defined by law, therefore suing the state for immaterial damages is practically impossible. In the meantime, in the Court of Justice, compensation of immaterial damages is unquestionable. The Court of Justice undoubtedly regards the improper transfer of the Directive as a violation of the law of the European Community and obligates to compensate both material and immaterial damages. The successful traveller protection mechanism of other member states, which operates based on solidarity, would be a more efficient way to properly achieve the outcome set out in the Directive in the field of traveller protection, compared to the insurance-based method operating in Lithuania to this day. [From the publication]