Naslov
Stambeni odnosi u svjetlu reintegracije hrvatskog pravnog poretka u kontinentalnoeuropski pravni krug
(The rights on the flat in the context of reintegration of Croatian legal system into Continental European legal family)

Autori
Franić, Milan

Izvornik
Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu (0584-9063) 94 (2009), 4; 813-828

Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Radovi u časopisima, članak, stručni

Ključne riječi
stanarsko pravo; pravo zaštićenog najmoprimca; pravo vlasništva
(the right of flat occupancy; the right of protected tenant; property rights)

Sažetak
Iz analize prikazanih zakonskih rješenja i prijepornih pitanja koja su se pojavila u primjeni ZNS ponavljamo iznesene zaključke: a. u sukobu prava vlasništva i stanarskog prava, kako na nacionaliziranim tako i na privatnim stanovima, zakonsko rješenje ide u prilog stanarskog prava ; b. po pitanju karaktera roka iz čl. 33. st. 2. i tumačenja odredbe čl. 31. st. 2. al. 2. ZNS sudska praksa zauzela je stajališta koja idu u prilog bivšem nositelju stanarskog prava odn. zaštićenom najmoprimcu ; c. ukidanje odredbe čl. 40. st. 2. ZNS koje samo po sebi ide u prilog vlasnicima oslobađajući ih obveze osiguravanja najmoprimcu drugog useljivog stana, u praksi je proizvelo suprotan učinak, stavljajući vlasnika u pogledu otkaza ugovora zaštićenom najmoprimcu u teži položaj no što ga je imao dok je ukinuta odredba bila na snazi. Osvrćemo se opet na obrazloženje citirane Odluke Ustavnom suda , u kojoj se navodi kako su vlasnici «dužni pridonositi općem dobru» i «dužni trpiti i nadalje» ograničenja prava vlasništva, ničim i nigdje ne ulazeći u pravni temelj tih ograničenja, i u kojoj se ukidanje pojedinih odredaba ZNS zasniva na njihovoj usporedbi s odgovarajućim odredbama Zakona o stambenim odnosima SRH iz 1985. godine. Dovođenjem u vezu istaknutih zaključaka i izloženog obrazloženja citirane Odluke Ustavnog suda RH stječe se slika o jednom tretiranju prava vlasništva od strane zakonodavca i sudske prakse koje ni po čem ne nealikuje pojmu i mjestu tog prava u pravnim sustavima zemalja kontinentalnoeuropskog pravnog kruga. Naime, teret prava zaštićenog najmoprimca toliko je jak da seže do negacije vlasništva, jer se vlasničkopravne ovlasti pod njim u stvarnosti ne mogu izrealizirati, a u negaciji vlasništva očituje se karakteristika socijalističkog pravnog kruga, kojem je hrvatski pravni poredak relativno dugo pripadao. Može se reći kako se problematizirana regulativa de lege lata, kao i po njoj stvorena sudska praksa, može opravdati (barem) dvjema argumentima nemale snage. Prvo, opravdiva je u smislu provizornog odn. tranzicijskog rješenja. Drugo, opravdiva je i u svjetlu socijalne težine regulirane problematike, stave li se u kontekst prilika vremena u kojem je nastala. Ipak, s pozicije današnjeg trenutka, kada je prošlo gotovo 19 godina od donošenja Ustava RH i kada je RH u predvorju Europske unije, problematizirana rješenja izrazito su neodrživa. Spomena je vrijedno iskoristivo iskustvo Republike Slovenije. Stanovanjskim zakonom iz 1991. nositelji stanarskog prava stekli su položaj najmoprimaca, dok je novi Stanovanjski zakon iz 2003. regulirao odnos najmoprimac-vlasnik dajući povlastice najmoprimcu u svrhu kupnje stana po tržišnoj cijeni od vlasnika, kupnje drugog stana ili kuće, istodobno time omogućujući vlasniku da u kratkom roku ostvari pravo vlasništva na stanu u punom opsegu. Navedena rješenja koja nudi slovenski Stanovanjski zakon iz 2003., za razliku od pozitivnih rješenja u našem pravnom poretku, na tragu su afirmacije prava vlasništva. Kao takva ona puno više nalikuju i pojmu i mjestu prava vlasništva u kontekstu kontinentalnoeuropskog pravnog kruga. Stoga bi, de lege ferenda, mogla poslužiti kao dobar uzor nezamislivo nužnoj temeljitoj reformi našeg ZNS, kojom bi se, nadati se, hrvatski pravni poredak u segmentu stambenopravne regulacije, (konačno) reintegrirao u kontinentalnoeuropski pravni krug.

Izvorni jezik
Hrvatski

Znanstvena područja
Pravo

Napomena
ABSTRACT (eng.): From the analysis of the presented solutions and legal controversies that have arisen in the application of Croatian Flat Renting Act (hereafter: ZNS) following conclusions are reached: a) in the conflict between ownership and socialist tenancy right, both on the nationalized and private flats, court decisions are in favor of socialist tenancy right resp. the right of the protected tenant ; b) as to the question of legal character of the deadline prescribed in Art. 33 Paragraph 2 ZNS and interpreting the provisions of Art. 31 Paragraph 2 ZNS, courts have taken the position in favor of the former holders of socialist tenancy right resp. protected tenants ; c) Constitutional Courts suspension of Art. 40 Paragraph 2 ZNS, which had been prescribing that owners were obliged to provide another flat to the protected tenants when terminating protected tenant contract, by itself seems to be in favor of the owners. But, in practice, this suspension has produced the opposite effect, putting the owner in respect of termination of the protected tenant contract in more difficult position than he was while the repealed provision was in force. Another look on the reasons cited in the decision of Constitutional Court, which stated that the owners "are obliged to contribute to the common good" and "must continue to suffer" drives to the conclusion that ownership of the flats under protected tenant is extremely limited, without any further questioning of the legal basis of those restrictions. By linking the conclusions pointed out above (a-c) with the reasons contained in cited decision of the Constitutional Court, one can acquire the image of very specific treatment of ownership, both by the legislative as well as courts. This treatment does not correspond with appropriate concept and place of ownership in contemporary legal systems belonging to Continental European legal family. In fact, the burden of protected tenancy is so strong that goes back to the negation of the ownership, because ownership powers under it cannot be realized. This can be explained as an example of denial of ownership, typical for Socialist legal family, to which Croatian legal system had been belonging for more than 40 years. At least, de lege lata, two arguments are able to justify that problematic legislative regulation, as well as court decisions. As first, those solutions can be justified just in case if one takes them as transitional and temporary. And second, it is truth that one has to take into an account the complex social issues those solutions are connected with. However, from the standpoint of the present moment, when it has been more than 20 years since the enactment of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia and when the Republic of Croatia is in the lobby of the European Union, it has to be clearly said that concerned solutions are extremely problematic and untenable. Worth mentioning is the usable experience of Slovenia. Upon the basis of previous Slovenian Flat Renting Act, that came into force in 1991, socialist tenancy rights holders acquired the position of the protected tenants, while new Slovenian Flat Renting Act, which came into force in 2003, regulates the relationship between protected tenant and owner giving benefits to tenant to purchase the flat at the market price from the owner, to buy another flat or house, thus enabling the owner to realize his ownership of a flat in the full range. The above solutions offered by Slovenian legislator, as opposed to positive solutions in Croatian legal system, are on the way of affirmation of ownership rights. As such, they are much more compatible with the concept and the place of ownership in the context of Continental European legal family. Therefore, de lege ferenda, those solutions could serve as a good role model for implementation of necessary reforms into Croatian ZNS, which would, hopefully, reintegrate Croatian legal system into Continental European legal family, in the context of legislative regulation of flat ownership and flat renting.

POVEZANOST RADA