1. Interesno ravnotežje med zastaviteljem in zastavnim upnikom v rimskem pravu
- Author
-
Vid Žepič
- Subjects
pravna zgodovina ,favor debitoris ,limits of freedom of contract ,zavarovanje terjatve ,komisorni dogovor ,mortgage ,udc:34(37):347 ,omejitve pogodbene avtonomije ,hipoteka ,credit relationship ,collateral security ,lex commissoria ,kreditno razmerje - Abstract
Rimska hipotečna zastavna pravica je zastavnemu upniku ob odsotnosti drugačnega dogovora po zapadlosti zavarovane terjatve zagotavljala zgolj zahtevek za prepustitev zastavljene stvari v nelastniško posest do poplačila zavarovane terjatve. Zaradi svojih šibkih upravičenj si je zastavni upnik prizadeval z dodatnimi dogovori okrepiti pravni položaj. Da bi preprečili zlorabe praviloma gospodarsko in družbeno močnejšega ter pogajalsko spretnejšega upnika, so rimski klasični juristi zasledovali ideal uravnoteženja pravic in obveznosti udeleženih strank. Bistveni prvini njihovega prizadevanja sta priznanji upnikove pravice do prodaje zastavljene stvari kot tudi zastaviteljeve pravice do zahtevka za vračilo presežka kupnine. Kaserjeva teza o okrepljenem pravnem položaju zastavnega upnika, ki naj bi bil nekakšna posebnost rimskopravnega razvoja, se že pri obravnavi razvoja zastavne pravice v klasičnem pravu izkaže za pretirano. Poseben pravnopolitični obrat je opazen v postklasični cesarski zakonodaji, ko se je ustalila zahteva po olajševanju zastaviteljevega pravnega položaja. Ta ustreza težnji postklasičnega obligacijskega prava po privilegiranju dolžnika kot stereotipno šibkejše stranke. Med novosti tega obdobja na področju razvoja zastavne pravice štejemo zlasti omejitve predmeta zastavne pravice, nove razlagalne pristope k zastavni pravici na prirasti zastavljene stvari, prepoved komisornega dogovora, omejevanje upnikove proste presoje pri unovčenju zastavne pravice in okrepitev državnega nadzora pri upnikovi prodaji zastavljene stvari. Varstveni ukrepi cesarske zakonodaje, ki jih lahko štejemo za odsev nazadujočega gospodarstva, so sicer izboljšali zastaviteljev socialni položaj, vendar prispevali k nižji kreditni ponudbi. The Roman hypotheca, unless agreed otherwise, originally bestowed upon the creditor (pledgee) merely a claim to transfer the pledged object into his possession, when the payment was due. Owing to the weak protection, the creditor strived to strengthen his pecuniary interests by supplementary covenants. To prevent abuses by the economically and socially superior creditor, the classical jurists sought to attain a balance of interests of the contracting parties. The fundamental elements of their effort were the recognition of pledgee’s right of sale as an essential element of the pledge contract on the one hand, and the recognition of the pledgor’s right to the surplus of purchase price on the other. Kaser’s thesis that the Roman pledgee enjoyed a particularly strong legal position as a distinctive character of Roman law has been proved to be an exaggeration even in the light of the development of classical law. In the post-classical period, a shift towards prioritising the position of the pledgor is noticeable. It corresponds to a general tendency of post-classical law to favour the debtor as a stereotypically weaker party. Among the innovations of the period, the limitations regarding the object of the pledge were introduced, new interpretative approaches concerning the pledge of the increments were accepted, lex commissoria was entirely prohibited, the creditor’s discretion over the realisation of the pledge was restricted, and the State’s control over the sale of the object of pledge was strengthened. The protective safeguards established through imperial legislation can be seen as a symptom of the declining economy and although they improved the pledgor’s social standing, they reduced the supply of the credit.
- Published
- 2022