Naslov
Stjecanje bez osnove, s posebnim osvrtom na razlikovanje od izvanugovorne odgovornosti za štetu
(Unjust enrichment, with special reference on diferentiation from tort liability)

Autori
Franić, Milan

Izvornik
Hrvatska pravna revija (1330-9145) 5 (2010), Svibanj 2010.; 35-45

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

Ključne riječi
stjecanje bez osnove; izvanugovorna odgovornost za štetu
(unjustified enrichment; tort liability)

Sažetak
Stjecanje bez osnove je izvanugovorni obveznopravni odnos na temelju kojeg je stjecatelj obvezan na povrat ili naknadu vrijednosti onog dijela imovine ili imovinske koristi koje je stekao bez pravom priznate osnove odnosno po osnovi koja se nije ostvarila ili je kasnije otpala. Povijesne korijene ovaj institut pronalazi u istoimenom rimskom kvazikontraktu i actio de in rem verso, a pandektno učenje o kondikciji kao jedinstvenom i općem sredstvu pravne zaštite utjecalo je na kasniju pozitivizaciju ovog instituta u europskim građanskim zakonicima. Ipak, postoje nemale komparativne razlike u regulaciji ovog instituta, pogotovo obzirom na sredstva pravne zaštite. U tom smislu mogu se razlikovati monistički sustavi (koji priznaju kondikciju kao opće sredstvo pravne zaštite) i dualistički sustavi (koji priznaju kondikciju i verziju). U našem pravu, povijesno gledano, pronalazimo oba sustava. U vrijeme važenja OGZ, kao pozitivnog prava i kao pravnih pravila, stjecanje bez osnove bilo je dualistički uređeno. ZOO 78, regulacijom kondikcije kao općeg sredstva pravne zaštite, uveo je monistički sustav. Isti je prihvatio i ZOO, regulirajući ovaj institut gotovo identično kao i ZOO 78. Zakonska definicija instituta u našem pozitivnom pravu sadržana je u čl. 1111. ZOO. Odredba čl. 1111. st. 1. propisuje da kada dio imovine neke osobe na bilo koji način prijeđe u imovinu druge osobe, a taj prijelaz nema osnove u nekom pravnom poslu, odluci suda, odnosno druge nadležne vlasti ili zakonu, stjecatelj je dužan vratiti ga, odnosno, ako to nije moguće, naknaditi vrijednost postignute koristi. Odredba st. 2. istog članka propisuje kako se pod prijelazom imovine smatra i stjecanje koristi izvršenom radnjom. Pod citirane odredbe podvode se platež neduga, stjecanje obzirom na osnovu koja se nije ostvarila, stjecanje po osnovi koja je kasnije otpala, uporaba stvari u tuđu korist, uporaba tuđe stvari u vlastitu korist i izdatak za drugog, kao tradicionalni tipični slučajevi. Tri su pravna učinka stjecanja bez osnove. Prvi regulira čl. 1111. st. 1. ZOO, propisujući stjecatelju dužnost vraćanja stečenog, ako je to moguće, a u protivnom dužnost naknade vrijednost postignute koristi. Kao drugi pravni učinak pojavljuje se stjecateljeva obveza vraćanja plodova i plaćanja zakonskih zateznih kamata, u ovisnosti o tome je li bio pošten ili ne. Treći pravni učinak je stjecateljevo pravo na naknadu troškova. Pored općih, postoje i posebna pravila o vraćanju stečenog bez osnove, sadržana u ZOO i drugim propisima. U pogledu odnosa stjecanja bez osnove i izvanugovorne odgovornosti za štetu, izložen je stav o materijalnopravnom odnosu isključenja te tri moguća procesnopravna odnosa kondikcijskog i odštetnog zahtjeva, a to su odnos isključenja, konkurencije u vidu naknadnog odštetnog zahtjeva nakon pravomoćno priznate kondikcije i odnos eventualne kumulacije.

Izvorni jezik
Hrvatski

Znanstvena područja
Pravo

Napomena
ABSTRACT (eng.) Unjust enrichment is an extra-contractual legal obligation on which the acquirer is obliged to restitute or compensate the value of that property or material benefit he had acquired without legal basis or upon the basis that were not actualized or were subsequently fallen off. The historical roots of this institute are found in the Roman quasicontractus condictio sine causa and in actio de in rem verso. Pandectists developed their theory of condictio as single and universal legal remedy in the context of unjust enrichment, which had a great influence on the later positive regulation of this institute in the European civil codes. However, there are some considerable comparative differences in the regulation of this institute, especially considering the legal remedies. Hence, there is a room for making difference between monistic systems (recognising condictio as single and universal legal remedy in the context of unjust enrichment) and the dual systems ( recognizing condictio, as well as actio de in rem verso, as legal remedies which can come into account in the context of unjust enrichment). In Croatian Private Law, historically speaking, both systems can be found. As to the time when OGZ (Austrian Civil Code) was into force in Croatia, firstly as positive law, and later, under early phase of socialism, as particular legal rules- if not in disharmony with the main principles of socialist political and legal order, unjust enrichment was dually regulated. On the other hand, Law on Obligations Act 1978 (hereafter: ZOO78), being into force from 1 October 1978 till 1 January 2006, introduced monistic system regulating condictio as single and universal legal remedy in the situations of unjust enrichment. The same concept was accepted by Law on Obligations Act 2006 (hereafter: ZOO06), which is actually into force and regulates this institute almost identically as the previous ZOO78. The legal definition of unjust enrichment in Croatian positive law is contained in Art. 1111 ZOO06. The provision of Art. 1111 Paragraph 1 provides that when a piece of property of a person in any way exceed the assets of another person, and this transition has no basis in any legal transaction, the decision of the court or other competent authority, the acquirer is obliged to restitute it, or if not possible, to the recoverable value of the benefits achieved. The provision of paragraph 2 stipulates that the transition of property means also the acquisitions caused by committed actions. Under cited provision following situations are traditionally subsumed: paying the amount not owed in error, the acquisition upon the basis later not actualized, the acquisition upon the basis later fallen off, the use of the object in someone else's benefit, the use of other person's object in own benefit and expense made for someone else. There are three different legal effects of unjust enrichment. The first one is regulated by Art. 1111 Paragraph 1 ZOO06, prescribing the duty of restitution, if possible, otherwise the duty to reimburse the value of the achieved benefits. As another legal effect occurs the acquirer obligation to return the fruits and to pay the penalty interest, depending on whether he is fair or not. The third effect is acquirer’s legal right to compensate the costs he suffered in situation of unjust enrichment. In addition to general rules described above, there are also special rules regulating unjust enrichment, contained in ZOO06, as well as in other regulations. As it comes to the key issue of this paper, which is the positive analysis of the relationship between unjust enrichment and tort, the conclusion reached is that of substantive exclusion between those institutes, as the consequence of different legal preconditions of those institutes, prescribed by substantive law. In other words, when there is a place for applying unjust enrichment (quasi-contractual private law liability) there can be no place for applying tort liability (extra-contractual private law liability). But, as we come at procedural point, the solution is not so simple. Practically, three different relationships between restitution claim and tort claim can be recognized, and those are exclusion between those claims (1), subsequent competition between both claims caused by later restitution claim raised in another case after tort case related to same situation has been concluded (2) and cumulation of both claims in the same case.

POVEZANOST RADA