magistrsko delo
Nataša Brunčič (Author), Renato Vrenčur (Mentor)

Abstract

Neupravičena pridobitev kot samostojen vir obveznosti je neposlovno obligacijsko razmerje, katerega udeleženca sta neupravičeno obogatena oseba in neupravičeno prikrajšana oseba. Zakon določa, da kdor je bil brez pravnega temelja obogaten na škodo drugega, je prejeto dolžan vrniti, če je to mogoče, sicer pa nadomestiti vrednost dosežene koristi. Podobno kot nemško pravo, tudi slovensko pravo obveznosti iz naslova neupravičene pridobitve ureja enotno, tj. z generalno klavzulo, v pravni teoriji in sodni praksi pa je dodelana in uveljavljena delitev obogatitvenih obveznosti na kondikcije in verzije. Predpostavke, skupne vsem obogatitvenim obveznostim, so: prikrajšanje, obogatitev, vzročna zveza in neobstoj pravnega temelja. Pravni učinki prisilnih stvarnopravnih pravil o prirasti v povezavi z načelom povezanosti zemljišča in objekta povzročijo nastanek pravnega razmerja neupravičene pridobitve, ki je urejeno v Stvarnopravnem zakoniku, glede nekaterih vidikov pa se uporabijo splošna pravila iz Obligacijskega zakonika. Stvarnopravni zakonik ureja tri položaje neupravičene pridobitve, in sicer: povečanje vrednosti nepremičnine, prenehanje stavbne pravice in spojitev ter izdelavo nove premičnine. Obogatitveni zahtevek neupravičeno prikrajšane osebe napram neupravičeno obogateni osebi je verzijski zahtevek. Za razliko od prejšnje pravne ureditve, v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo, oseba, ki s soglasjem nepremičnine poveča njeno vrednost, ne more pridobiti lastninske pravice na nepremičnini, lahko pa od lastnika nepremičnine zahteva tisto, za kar je bila obogatena, pri čemer se glede obsega verzijskega zahtevka uveljavi obogatitveno načelo in metoda tržne vrednosti nepremičnine, verzijski zahtevek pa začne teči od trenutka izgube posesti. Vlagatelj in lastnik nepremičnine se lahko dogovorita, da na nepremičnini, ki je predmet vlaganj, nastane solastnina. Vlaganja so lahko izvedena s soglasjem lastnika ali ob odsotnosti soglasja, pri čemer na nastanek stvarnopravnih posledic sam obstoj soglasja ne vpliva. Položaj vlagatelja v primeru odsotnosti soglasja glede vlaganj del pravne teorije približa položaju nedobrovernega posestnika, kar je predvsem pomembno z vidika obsega verzijskega zahtevka. Do položaja neupravičene pridobitve pride tudi v določenih primerih prenehanja stavbne pravice, in sicer v primerih, ko se imetnik stavbne pravice in lastnik zemljišča za primer prenehanja ne dogovorita, da imetniku stavbne pravice pripada nadomestilo (v višini povečanja vrednosti nepremičnine) oz. drug zakon tega ne določa. Stavbna pravica namreč zaradi uveljavitve načela povezanosti zemljišča in objekta ob njenem prenehanju ponovno priraste k zemljišču. Zaradi stvarnopravnih učinkov pravnih pravil, ki urejajo spojitev, pomešanje ter izdelavo nove premičnine, pride do pravnega položaja neupravičene pridobitve tudi na premičninskem področju, in sicer v primeru, ko prikrajšani izgubi lastninsko pravico na stvari (ki je ni mogoče šteti za glavno stvar), ki je s spojitvijo, pomešanjem ali izdelavo nove stvari, postala last nekoga drugega, pri čemer se glede obogatitvenega zahtevka smiselno uporabijo splošna pravila iz Obligacijskega zakonika.

Keywords

neupravičena obogatitev;obogatitveni zahtevek;verzija;verzijski zahtevek;obogatitveno načelo;vlaganje v tujo nepremičnino;načelo superficies solo cedit;prirast;prenehanje stavbne pravice;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization: UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [N. Brunčič]
UDC: 347.2:332.624(043.3)
COBISS: 125937923 Link will open in a new window
Views: 19
Downloads: 6
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: Enrichment obligations in the field of proprety law
Secondary abstract: Unjustified acquisition as an independent source of liability is a non-business obligation relationship, the participants of which are an unjustly enriched person and an unjustly disadvantaged person. The law stipulates that anyone who has been unlawfully enriched to the detriment of another is obliged to return what has been received, if possible, otherwise to compensate for the value of the benefit obtained. Like German law, Slovenian law regulates unfair acquisition obligations with a single general clause, and in legal theory and case law the division of enrichment obligations into conditions and versions is well-elaborated and established. The assumptions common to all enrichment obligations are deprivation, enrichment, causation, and the lack of a legal basis. The legal effects of enforced law of property increment rules related to the principle of land result in a legal relationship of unfair acquisition governed by the Law of Property Code, while the general rules of the Code of Obligations apply to some aspects. The Law of property Code regulates three cases of unjustified acquisition, namely: increase in the value of land, termination of building rights, and merger and creation of new movable property. Contrary to the previous legal regulation, in accordance with the current legislation, a person who, with the consent of the property, increases its value, cannot acquire the property right to the property, but can demand from the owner the property for which he was enriched, and for the scope of the property right the principle of enrichment and the method of the market value of the property apply and the right to claim begins to run from the time of loss of possession. The investor and the owner of the property can agree that the property that is the subject of the investments will be jointly owned. Investments can be made with the consent of the owner or without consent, whereby the mere existence of consent does not affect the emergence of legal consequences. The position of the investor in the absence of consensus about the investments brings legal theory closer to the position of an unscrupulous owner, which is particularly important in view of the scope of the claim of composition. The situation of unjustified acquisition also occurs in certain cases of termination of the building right, namely in cases where the holder of the building right and the owner of the land do not agree in the event of termination that the holder of the building right is entitled to compensation (in the amount of the increase in the value of the real estate) or another law does not stipulate this. Namely, due to the enforcement of the principle of connection between the land and the building, upon its termination, the building right is attached to the land again. Due to the law of property legal effects of the legal rules governing the merging, mixing and creation of new movable property, the legal situation of unjustified acquisition also occurs in the movable property area, namely in the case where the disadvantaged person loses the ownership right to things (which cannot be considered as the main thing), which has become the property of someone else by joining, mixing or making a new thing, whereby the general rules from the Code of Obligations shall apply mutatis mutandis with regard to the enrichment claim.
Secondary keywords: unjustified enrichment;enrichment claim;non-performance-based enrichment;enrichment principle;investment in foreign real estate;superficies solo cedit principle;accession;termination of building right;Univerzitetna in visokošolska dela;
Type (COBISS): Master's thesis/paper
Thesis comment: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Source comment: Sistemske zahteve: Acrobat reader
System comment: Sistemske zahteve: Acrobat reader
Pages: 1 spletni vir (1 datoteka PDF (62 str.))
ID: 16300203