doktorska disertacija
Karmen Lutman (Author), Damjan Možina (Mentor)

Abstract

Neupravičena obogatitev je samostojen vir obveznosti, ki temelji na okoliščini, da nekdo na škodo drugega neutemeljeno pridobi določeno korist. Za tem relativno preprostim načelom, ki ima v številnih pravnih redih vlogo generalne klavzule, stoji razvejan sistem obogatitvenih zahtevkov in restitucijskih pravil. Zgodovinsko gledano je pravo neupravičene obogatitve doživljalo številne spremembe. V rimskem pravu ni bilo enotnega pojma neupravičene obogatitve, temveč so obstajale različne vrste kondikcijskih zahtevkov ter verzijski zahtevek, ki je prišel v poštev v tristranskih obogatitvenih razmerjih. Obče pravo je obudilo idejo o naravni pravičnosti in tako se je pojavila težnja po oblikovanju splošnega pravila, ki bi združilo zahtevke iz neupravičene obogatitve. Ta ideja je dozorela v pandektistiki in tako je bila generalna klavzula uzakonjena v nekatere civilne zakonike, denimo v nemški BGB in švicarski OR. Tudi slovenska ureditev danes sloni na modelu generalne klavzule. Na zakonski ravni slovensko pravo sprejema unitaristični model, v teoriji in sodni praksi pa je v veljavi pluralističen pristop. Še vedno je namreč uveljavljena delitev na kondikcijske in verzijske zahtevke, ki kljub uvedbi generalne klavzule ni bila presežena. Delo obravnava slovensko pravo neupravičene obogatitve v primerjalnopravnem kontekstu. Z namenom kritičnega ovrednotenja naše ureditve so predstavljeni nemško, švicarsko, avstrijsko in francosko pravo neupravičene obogatitve ter ureditvi modelnih zakonikov DCFR in PEL Unj. Enr. Delo sledi delitvi na kondikcije in verzije, ki se je uveljavila pri nas, in obravnava značilnosti posameznih obogatitvenih zahtevkov. Pri tem ugotavlja, da presoja skozi prizmo obstoječih predpostavk generalne klavzule ni ustrezna. Delo vključuje tudi pravila restitucije. Pri tem se osredinja na problem vračanja, ko vrnitev v naravi ni mogoča. Analizira aktualno problematiko odvzema (protipravno pridobljenega) dobička in ponudi možnosti za njegov odvzem v okviru prava neupravičene obogatitve. Opredeli se do uveljavljenega obogatitvenega načela in ponudi predloge za njegovo interpretacijo v okviru ugovora odpada obogatitve.

Keywords

neupravičena obogatitev;restitucija;kondikcije;verzije;odvzem dobička;ugovor odpada obogatitve;razveza dvostranskih pogodb;evropsko zasebno pravo;primerjalno pravo;doktorske disertacije;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.08 - Doctoral Dissertation
Organization: UL PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [K. Lutman]
UDC: 347:341(043.3)
COBISS: 16622929 Link will open in a new window
Views: 1795
Downloads: 902
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: Unjustified enrichment in comparative and Slovenian law
Secondary abstract: Unjustified enrichment occurs when one person is enriched at the expense of another without valid legal ground. Behind this rather simple rule, there is a complex system of claims for unjustified enrichment and rules of restitution. Historically, the law of unjustified enrichment has been subject to many changes. In Roman law, the concept of unjustified enrichment was unknown. However, there were many different performance-based enrichment claims (condictiones) and actio de in rem verso, which was used in three-party situations. During the time of ius commune the scholars emphasized the importance of natural justice and defined it as a common core of all enrichment claims. Influenced by the theory of pandectists, the general enrichment clause was introduced in the German and Swiss civil code. Rules of unjustified enrichment as contained in the Slovenian Code of Obligations are based on the general enrichment claim as well. Despite the unitary approach, a variety of enrichment claims is recognised in legal theory and practice. It could be noticed that the historical distinction between performance-based enrichments and non-performance-based enrichments was not abolished. The work analyses the Slovenian law of unjustified enrichment in comparative perspective. Its critical assessment is based on a comparison with the German, Swiss, Austrian, French law and model rules of DCFR and PEL Unj. Enr. The analysis follows the taxonomy of enrichment claims based on the division between performance-based enrichments and non-performance-based enrichments, which is already established in our legal system. However, it concludes that the current interpretation of general clause is problematic and offers solutions for its interpretation de lege ferenda. Furthermore, the work deals with restitution for unjustified enrichment. It focuses on situations, when restitution in kind is impossible due to various reasons. The issue of disgorgement of (illegally gained) profits is also presented, whereas the work proposes solutions for the disgorgement of profits within the law of unjustified enrichment. Additionally, the principle of enrichment is analysed. An approach is proposed that this principle shall be applied in a form and within the limits of the defence of disenrichment.
Secondary keywords: unjustified enrichment;restitution;performance-based enrichment;non-performance-based enrichment;disgorgement of profits;change of position defence;unwinding of failed contracts;european private law;comparative law;
Type (COBISS): Doctoral dissertation
Study programme: 0
Embargo end date (OpenAIRE): 1970-01-01
Thesis comment: Univ. v Ljubljani, Pravna fak.
Pages: 420 str.
ID: 11036748