magistrsko delo
Anja Jelen (Author), Vesna Kranjc (Mentor)

Abstract

Magistrsko delo temelji na analizi instituta zastaranja v zvezi s terjatvami iz gospodarskih pogodb, ki je dopolnjena s primerjavo pravil ureditve zastaranja po Obligacijskem zakoniku in po Načelih UNIDROIT za mednarodne gospodarske pogodbe. Slednja zaradi teženj po poenotenju evropskega civilnega prava postajajo vse pomembnejša tudi v našem pravnem redu. S potekom zastaralnega roka dolžnikova obveznost zastara, veljavna pa ostaja naprej v obliki naturalne oziroma neiztožljive obveznosti. To pomeni, da je upnik ne more več sodno uveljavljati, zato pravimo, da je zastaranje institut, ki sili upnika k uveljavljanju svojih pravic. Enako velja tudi v primeru instituta zastaranja terjatev iz gospodarskih pogodb, ki ga v slovenskem pravu ureja Obligacijski zakonik. Ta zastaranju v gospodarskih zadevah namenja posebna pravila, ki so dodelana z obsežno sodno prakso. Institut zastaranja urejajo tudi Načela UNIDROIT za mednarodne gospodarske pogodbe, ki kot modelni zakonik predstavljajo poskus poenotenja gospodarskega pogodbenega prava na ravni EU, s poenostavljenim sistemom zastaranja pa konkurirajo togim določbam Obligacijskega zakonika. Primerjava med njima pokaže, da je ureditev po Obligacijskem zakoniku do gospodarskih subjektov strožja, medtem ko jim Načela UNIDROIT pri sklepanju pogodbenih razmerij puščajo več svobode, predvsem glede možnosti spreminjanja dolžine zastaralnih rokov. Kogentno naravo določb Obligacijskega zakonika, ki omejujejo avtonomijo strank pri oblikovanju obligacijskih razmerij, nekateri teoretiki kritizirajo, medtem ko jo drugi razumejo kot poskus zakonodajalca, da bi preprečil neskončne pravde in povečal pravno varnost. Ne glede na vse, pa se je za problematično pokazalo zlasti vprašanje vezanosti začetka teka zastaralnih rokov na objektivni trenutek. V zvezi s tem bi slovenski zakonodajalec moral slediti ureditvi iz Načel UNIDROIT in vzpostaviti kombinacijo objektivnega in subjektivnega zastaralnega roka. Slovenska sodna praksa, ki bi se nanašala na institut zastaranja po ureditvi iz Načel UNIDORIT, ne obstaja. Vsled navedenega gre zaključiti, da subjekti pravil glede zastaranja iz Načel UNIDROIT v gospodarske pogodbe načeloma ne vključujejo, razlog pa gre iskati prav v prisilni naravi določb Obligacijskega zakonika. Iz Načel UNIDROIT namreč izhaja, da njihove določbe ne morejo nadomestiti kogentnih določb nacionalnega prava.

Keywords

gospodarska pogodba;zastaranje;zastaralni roki;avtonomija volje;ugovori;odpoved zastaranju;pripoznava dolga;Načela UNIDROIT;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization: UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: A. Jelen]
UDC: 347.131.224(043.3)
COBISS: 22233603 Link will open in a new window
Views: 683
Downloads: 105
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: Limitation on claims from commercial contracts under the Code of obligations and UNIDROIT Principles
Secondary abstract: The Master's thesis is based on analysis of the statute of limitation regards to obligations under commercial contracts and supplemented with comparison of regulation rules under the Code of Obligations and UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts. Due to the aspirations to unify European civil law, the latter are becoming increasingly important in our legal system as well. With the expiration of the limitation period debtor's obligation becomes statute-barred. It remains valid in the form of a natural or non-enforceable obligation, meaning that creditor can no longer exercise it in court. Therefore, the statute of limitation is an institution that forces the creditor to exercise his rights. The same applies in the case of the statute of limitation regarding commercial contracts, which is by the Slovenian Code of Obligation governed by special rules and finalized by extensive case law. The statute of limitation is also regulated by the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, which as a model code represents an attempt to unify commercial contract law at EU level. With its simplified statute of limitation system, they compete with the rigid articles of the Code of Obligation. Comparison shows that the Code of Obligation is much stricter to business entities, while the UNIDROIT Principles allows them more freedom in concluding contractual relations, especially with regard to modifying limitation periods. Code of Obligation's mandatary rules are being criticized due to its limits to party autonomy, others see it as an attempt by the legislator to prevent endless lawsuits and to increase legal certainty. Nevertheless, attaching the limitation period to an objective moment shows to be problematic. In this regard, the Slovenian legislator should follow the regulation from the UNIDROIT Principles and establish a combination of objective and subjective limitation periods. There is no Slovenian case law regarding the statute of limitation under the UNIDROIT Principles. Therefore, the subjects do not apply those rules in their commercial contracts and the reason is to be found in the mandatary rules of the Code of Obligation. It is clear from the UNIDROIT Principles that mandatary rules of national origin prevail over the rules laid down in UNIDROIT Principles.
Secondary keywords: commercial contract;statute of limitations;limitation periods;party autonomy;defences;waiver of the statute of limitations;acknowledgment of debt;UNIDROIT Principles;
Type (COBISS): Master's thesis/paper
Thesis comment: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages: 47 f.
ID: 11864766