Search

Nepovredivost vlasništva jedna je od najviših vrednota ustavnog poretka Republike Hrvatske te je samim time zabranjeno svako zadiranje u pravo vlasništva njegovim oduzimanjem ili ograničavanjem ovlasti koje čine subjektivno pravo vlasništva. Hrvatski pravni poredak vlasniku omogućuje štititi svoje pravo vlasništva putem nadležne javne vlasti, i to u pravilu sudske, stavljajući na raspolaganje pravu vlasničku tužbu – u literaturi općenito poznatu kao reivindikaciju, zakonski uređenu u glavi VII. Zakona o vlasništvu i drugim stvarnim pravima. Povijesno gledano, rei vindicatio kao najvažnija stvarnopravna tužba nastala je u okviru rimske pravne tradicije. Njezin se razvoj može pratiti počevši od prvih oblika sudske zaštite prava vlasništva u razdoblju legisakcijskog postupka u kojem se rei vindicatio ostvarivala putem legis actio sacramento in rem. Ovaj najstariji civilni proces obilježavao je strogi formalizam, prije svega zbog dužnosti stranaka da se izraze točno određenim riječima, popraćenima određenim gestama te bi i najmanja pogreška vodila gubitku spora. Posebnu važnost imao je vindikacijski ritual stranaka u kojem bi nakon tužiteljevog izgovaranja formule vindikacije kojom se poziva na svoje pravo vlasništva, uslijedila kontravindikacija tuženika. U razdoblju klasičnog rimskog prava rei vindicatio se ostvarivala u obliku formularnog postupka koji zamjenjuje prethodni legisakcijski postupak. Do navedenog dolazi zbog potreba sve razgranatijeg pravnog prometa, posebno sa strancima, popraćenog zahtjevima za bržim i neformalnijim postupkom. S ovom promjenom neraskidivo su povezane i određene izmjene u samoj strukturi reivindikacije, u prvom redu tako što nestaje stari ritualni karakter, a posebnu važnost dobiva formula. U formuli bi pretor surađujući sa strankama imenovao suca, odredio tužbeni zahtjev i ostale važne činjenice potrebne sucu kako bi donio odluku. Tužba se u ovom razdoblju definira kao tužba kviritskog vlasnika neposjednika protiv posjednika nevlasnika, a usporedbom sa suvremenim hrvatskim uređenjem prave vlasničke tužbe (reivindikacije) uočava se značajan utjecaj rimske pravne tradicije. Struktura tužbe uvelike prati rimsko uređenje iste, no neke se razlike ipak jasno uočavaju, u prvom redu zbog prihvaćanja objektivističke koncepcije posjeda. Također, bez obzira na promjene u pojedinim aspektima vindikacijske zaštite koje su se dogodile do vremena nastanka velikih građanskih kodifikacija, upravo rimska rei vindicatio i rješenja klasičnih rimskih pravnika glede njezine primjene predstavljaju osnovu pravne zaštite vlasništva danas i u europskom i u hrvatskom pravu., The inviolability of ownership is one of the highest values of the constitutional order of the Republic of Croatia, and therefore any encroachment on the right of ownership by taking it away or limiting the powers that make up the subjective right of ownership is prohibited. The Croatian legal order allows the owner to protect his right to ownership through the competent public authority, as a rule, the judicial authorities, making available a proper lawsuit for the protection of ownership – in the literature generally known as rei vindicatio, legally regulated in Title VII. of the Law on Property and Other Real Rights. Historically speaking, rei vindicatio, as the most important lawsuit for the protection of property (actio in rem), arose within the framework of the Roman legal tradition. Its development can be traced starting with the first forms of judicial protection of property rights in the period of procedure per legis actiones in which rei vindicatio was realized through legis actio sacramento in rem. This was the oldest civil process, characterized by strict formalism, primarily owing to the duty of the parties to express themselves in precisely defined words, accompanied by specific gestures, and the slightest mistake would lead to the loss of dispute. Especially important was the vindicatio ritual of the parties, in which, after the plaintiff's pronunciation of the vindicatio formula invoking his right of ownership, the contravindicatio of the defendant would follow. In the period of classical Roman law, rei vindicatio was realized within the scope of formulary procedure that replaced the previous procedure per legis actiones. The above occurred due to the needs of increasingly developing modes of legal transactions, especially with foreigners, accompanied by requests for a faster and more informal procedure. This change is inextricably linked to certain changes in the structure of the rei vindicatio itself; first of all, the old ritual characteristics disappeared, and the formula gained special importance. In the formula, the praetor, cooperating with the parties, would appoint the judge, determine the content of the claim and other important facts necessary for the judge to make a decision. In this period, the lawsuit is defined as a lawsuit by a Quiritary non-possessing owner against a non-owning possessor, and a comparison with the contemporary Croatian regulation of a proper lawsuit for the protection of ownership (rei vindication) shows a significant influence of the Roman legal tradition. The structure of the lawsuit largely follows its Roman counterpart, but some differences are still clearly visible, primarily due to the acceptance of the objectivist conception of possession. Also, regardless of the changes in certain aspects of vindicatio protection that occurred up to the time of the creation of major civil codifications, it is precisely the Roman rei vindicatio and the solutions of classical Roman lawyers regarding its application that represent the basis of legal protection of property today in both European and Croatian law.

Benevolent intervention in another’s affairs, known in jurisdictions of the civilian legal tradition as negotiorum gestio from Roman law, is a relevant source of obligations, and is in Croatian law regulated with the articles 1121-1129 of the Croatian Law of Obligations (Official Gazette no. 35/2005, 41/2008, 125/2011, 78/2015, 29/2018, 126/2021). One of the actions or claims associated with negotiorum gestio is the claim of the intervener (negotiorum gestor) against the principal (dominus negotii) for the reimbursement of the expenses incurred during the intervention. This claim is similar to another action, the counter-claim of a possessor against the owner, which is an incidental claim alongside rei vindicatio for the return of an object. According to the articles 164 and 165 of the Croatian Law on Ownership and Other Proprietary Rights (Official Gazette no. 91/1996, 68/1998, 137/1999, 22/2000, 73/2000, 129/2000, 114/2001, 79/2006, 141/2006, 146/2008, 38/2009, 153/2009, 143/2012, 152/2014), a possessor may be entitled to a reimbursement of certain expenses he had in association with the possession of the object being claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, theoretically, both claims could be brought on the basis of the same set of circumstances (for example, when an intervention in another’s affairs has been done while possessing an object belonging to another). This possibility has been noticed in literature, and indeed has been recorded in practice. The main practical problems included are different rules regarding the scope of the claim (for example, in rei vindicatio there is a possibility for the owner to deduct any benefits the possessor might have had from his counter-claim ; nothing of the sort exists in the context of the benevolent intervention in another’s affairs) and different limitation period between the two actions (three years for the counter-claim of the possessor or five years for the claim of the intervener). The aim of this paper is to analyse pertinent available case law and extant theoretical considerations, in order to provide a more complete assessment of the competition between the two actions in contemporary Croatian law. This problem is known in the German language countries of the civilian tradition as the Klagenkonkurrenz, and is a doctrinally developed concept. Analysis of judicial decisions and theoretical approach to the problem will be put against the backdrop of the general approach to the problem in the civilian (or Roman legal) tradition. With this, we hope to provide a relevant analysis of an existing practical and theoretical problem, which may be helpful in the future judicial or legislative considerations thereof.

espanolResumen El objetivo de este trabajo es someter a examen las estrategias interpretativas subyacentes a la discusion que mantuvo la jurisprudencia clasica romana de los siglos I y II d.C., principalmente, sobre la educacion de los esclavos (doctrina puerorum). Especificamente, trata del problema de su calificacion como una impensa util que diese lugar a una exceptio doli a favor del demandado por una rei vindicatio. El metodo empleado es la exegesis de las fuentes juridicas clasicas a la luz de una perspectiva que no cuestiona su genuinidad y que las asume como expresion de una estrategia interpretativa. Los resultados a los que llega el trabajo apuntan a un importante factor que favoreceria decisivamente la consideracion de la doctrina puerorum como impensa util, a saber, la relevancia adquirida en la interpretatio prudentium del valor economico que ella represento en epoca imperial. EnglishAbstract The main purpose of this article is to analyze the interpretation strategies, which underlie the the discussion maintained by Roman lawyers mainly in the first and second century AD, about the education of slaves (doctrina puerorum). More specifically, it deals with the problem of its qualification as an utilis impensa, which could cause an exceptio doli for the defendant against a rei vindicatio. The method of this article is the exegesis of classical juridical sources under a point of view that does not question its authenticity, and that assumes them as an expression of an interpretation strategy. The outcome of this article addresses to an important factor, which would make stronger the qualification of the doctrina puerorum as an utilis impensa, that is, the relevance acquired in the interpretation by the Roman lawyers of the economic value of the doctrina puerorum in the imperial age.

Resumen El objetivo de este trabajo es someter a examen las estrategias interpretativas subyacentes a la discusión que mantuvo la jurisprudencia clásica romana de los siglos I y II d.C., principalmente, sobre la educación de los esclavos (doctrina puerorum). Específicamente, trata del problema de su calificación como una impensa útil que diese lugar a una exceptio doli a favor del demandado por una rei vindicatio. El método empleado es la exégesis de las fuentes jurídicas clásicas a la luz de una perspectiva que no cuestiona su genuinidad y que las asume como expresión de una estrategia interpretativa. Los resultados a los que llega el trabajo apuntan a un importante factor que favorecería decisivamente la consideración de la doctrina puerorum como impensa útil, a saber, la relevancia adquirida en la interpretatio prudentium del valor económico que ella representó en época imperial. Abstract The main purpose of this article is to analyze the interpretation strategies, which underlie the the discussion maintained by Roman lawyers mainly in the first and second century AD, about the education of slaves (doctrina puerorum). More specifically, it deals with the problem of its qualification as an utilis impensa, which could cause an exceptio doli for the defendant against a rei vindicatio. The method of this article is the exegesis of classical juridical sources under a point of view that does not question its authenticity, and that assumes them as an expression of an interpretation strategy. The outcome of this article addresses to an important factor, which would make stronger the qualification of the doctrina puerorum as an utilis impensa, that is, the relevance acquired in the interpretation by the Roman lawyers of the economic value of the doctrina puerorum in the imperial age.

Lastninska pravica je ena izmed temeljnih pravic civilnega prava in pomemben institut vsakega pravnega reda. Pomembno je, da je zato tudi z ustreznimi predpisi učinkovito varovana, saj kot izhaja iz sodne prakse, posegi v lastninsko pravico niso redki. Njeno varstvo urejajo tako mednarodni predpisi, kot ostale določbe državnega pravnega reda, ki jih najdemo v Ustavi in v zakonih. Pri nas lastninsko pravico vsebinsko opredeljujejo določbe Stvarnopravnega zakonika, vendar pa njenega pravnega varstva ne urejajo celovito. V njem so opredeljeni klasični zahtevki za varstvo lastninske pravice kot so lastninska tožba, publicijanska tožba in negatorna tožba, ostali zahtevki, ki nudijo pravno varstvo lastniku, pa so urejeni drugje. Tako motenjsko tožbo zraven Stvarnopravnega zakonika ureja v procesnem smislu Zakon o pravdnem postopku, izbrisno tožbo Zakon o zemljiški knjigi, obligacijsko varstvo lastninske pravice s popularno tožbo pa ureja Obligacijski zakonik. Obligacijsko varstvo lastninske pravice s popularno tožbo je sicer zasnovano širše, saj aktivno legitimacijo podeljuje širokemu krogu oseb, saj jo lahko vloži vsakdo, ki mu grozi večja škoda. Tudi dokazovanje predpostavk popularne tožbe je načeloma lažje, saj je dovolj, da škoda samo grozi, ni potrebno, da dejansko nastane. Stvarnopravno varstvo lastninske pravice z negatorno imsijsko tožbo, ki je neke vrste substitut popularni tožbi v določenih primerih, je namenjeno samo lastniku in bonitarnemu lastniku, ki izkažeta svojo pravico na stvari in dokažeta protipravnost dejanskega posega v svojo pravico, zato je v tem pogledu bolj togo od obligacijskega. Stvarnopravna ureditev pa seveda obsega še druge prej omenjene zahtevke. Lastninska tožba je ena izmed najbolj tipičnih tožb za varstvo lastninske pravice, prav tako pa je zaradi hitrosti postopka priljubljena tudi motenjska tožba, ki posestnika varuje pred vznemirjanjem njegove posesti. Tako stvarnopravna, kot obligacijska ureditev je namenjena varstvu lastninske pravice na premičninah in na nepremičninah. Velik pomen pri varstvu lastninske pravice na nepremičninah pa ima zaradi publicitetnega učinka vpisov tudi zemljiška knjiga in s tem povezano načelo zaupanja v zemljiško knjigo. Tako to načelo varuje vsakega dobrovernega pridobitelja lastninske pravice na nepremičnini, ki je zaupal v podatke zemljiške knjige. Institut izbrisne tožbe sanira materialnopravno nepravilne vknjižbe in tako predstavlja učinkovito varstvo tistega, čigar stvarna ali obligacijska pravica je bila s takšno vknjižbo kršena. To je lahko tudi pričakovani lastnik pri vzporednem razpolaganju, ki ima zemljiškoknjižno dovolilo na podlagi veljavnega zavezovalnega pravnega posla, nevknjiženi skupni lastnik proti vknjiženemu skupnemu lastniku preden se je v zemljiško knjigo na tem stanju vpisal dobroverni tretji, na splošno pa se jo lahko naperi proti vknjiženemu neresničnemu lastniku. An ownership right is one of the fundamental rights of civil law and important institute of each legal system. It is important to be effectively protected by the relevant rules, due to frequent violations arising out of the case-law. Its protection is regulated by both, international rules and other provisions of the national legal system that can be found in Constitution and other national law. Our ownership right is defined by the provisions of the Code of Property Act, but its legal protection is not regulated there in a comprehensive manner. The Code defines classic claims for the protection of ownership right, such as rei vindicatio, actio Publiciana and actio negatoria. Other claims that provide legal protection to the owner are regulated also elsewhere. Action for trespass is regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, the cancellation action is regulated by the Land Register Act, the obligation protection is guaranteed by the popular action, which is regulated in the Code of Obligations. The obligation protection of the ownership right with popular action is wider, since it grants active legitimacy to a wide range of people, as it can be claimed by anyone who is threatened with a greater damage. In addition the demonstration of the assumptions of a popular action is, in principle, easier because it is enough that the damage just threatens, it does not really need to be created. The property protection on the other hand is more rigid. It is intended only for the owner and the bonitary owner who prove their right and actual inadmissible interference with their right. The property protection also covers other aforementioned claims. Rei vindicatio is one of the most typical lawsuits for the protection of ownership right. Due to the speed of procedure, the action for trespass is also popular. The property and the obligation protection are intended to protect movable and immovable property. Land register has a great importance for the protection of ownership right on real estates due to publicity effect that the entries in Land register have. The principle of trust is also of particular importance. It protects every bona fide acquirer of ownership right on real estate, who entrusted with data in the Land register. Action for cancellation removes the material inaccurate entry and thus represents the effective protection of the one, whose property or obligation right was violated by such entry. This can also be expected owner in parallel disposal, which has the land registry permit on the basis of valid binding legal transaction, an unregistered joint owner against the registered joint owner before the bona fide third person entered the Land register. In general, it can be filed against registered untrue owner.

Pričujoča diplomska naloga temelji na opredelitvi osnovnih pojmov iz teorije prava kot so pravno razmerje, pravni subjekt in pravovarstveni zahtevek s poudarkom na stvarnopravnem vidiku posameznih pravnih institutov. Pravovarstveni zahtevek, kot obliko sodnega varstva je namreč možno aktivirati šele tedaj, ko je temeljno upravičenje kršeno oziroma ogroženo. Bralca bo vsebina moje diplomske naloge popeljala skozi kratko predstavitev posameznih institutov stvarnega prava s poudarkom na področju stvarnopravnih zahtevkov (tožbenih zahtevkov) v povezavi z novejšimi odločbami iz sodne prakse slovenskih sodišč. V Stvarnopravnem zakoniku (SPZ) sta za varstvo lastninske pravice predvidena dva zahtevka: zahtevek na vrnitev stvari ali reinvindikacijski zahtevek in zahtevek na prenehanje vznemirjanj oz. negatorni zahtevek. Aktivna legitimacija za obe tožbi pripada lastniku in tudi domnevnemu lastniku. Vrnitveni zahtevek, ureja SPZ v 92.členu. Lastnik lahko od vsakogar zahteva individualno določene stvari. Reivindikacijski zahtevek oz. zahtevek za vrnitev stvari je namenjen lastniku, kateremu je stvar odvzeta iz posesti, tožba na prenehanje vznemirjanj pa lastniku, katerega lastninska pravica je kršena drugače, kot z odvzemom stvari, niti teorija niti sodna praksa pa ne ponujata povsem ostre razmejitve med njima. Ob pregledu sodne prakse bo med drugim izpostavljeno, da v določenih primerih ni mogoče postaviti prave ločnice, kdaj gre za odvzem nepremičnine in kdaj le za vznemirjanje lastninske pravice zaradi morebitnega prisvajanja njenega dela. Posebna vrsta reivindikacije je tudi izbrisna tožba, ki pride v poštev potem, ko je že bila izvršena materialnopravna vknjižba in stremi k vzpostavitvi prejšnjega zemljiškoknjižnega stanja. Z negatornim publicijanskim zahtevkom, pravna podlaga zanj je podana v 99. členu SPZ in opredeljuje zahtevek na prenehanje vznemirjanj, lastnik stvari lahko zahteva od tretjega, ki ga protipravno vznemirja kako drugače, ne pa z odvzemom stvari, da vznemirjanje preneha in se prepove nadaljnje vznemirjanje. Razlikovanje med lastniško in nelastniško posestjo je sicer uzakonil šele SPZ, vendar je naša literatura to razlikovanje poznala že prej. Dobrovernega lastniškega posestnika, ki pridobi bonitarno lastnino, naše pravo varuje z reivindikacijsko publicijansko tožbo, na podlagi 98. člena SPZ. This thesis revolves around basic notions in the theory of law, such as legal relation, legal entity and judicial protection claim, with special attention devoted to the property law aspect of individual legal institutions. A judicial protection claim as a type of judicial protection can only be invoked when fundamental entitlement is either violated or at risk. The contents of this thesis revolve around individual property law institutions, especially claims based on property law, with regard to newer decisions in Slovene case law. The Law of Property Code (SPZ) provides for two actions intended for property rights protection: request to return a possession (rei vindicatio) and request for cessation of disturbance (negatory action, actio negatoria). Both the owner and the hypothetical owner are entitled to active legitimation for both actions. Article 92 of SPZ regulates the request to return a possession. The owner can request individually determined possessions from anyone. The request to return a possession is intended for the owner who has been deprived of his possession, while the request for cessation of disturbance belongs to the owner whose property rights have been violated otherwise than by deprivation. However, neither theory nor case law provide for a clear demarcation between the two institutions. The review of case law shows that in certain cases it is impossible to draw a clear line as to whether a property has been taken away or whether property rights have been disturbed due to potential appropriation of a part thereof. The claim for removal from the land register following substantive entry is a special type of rei vindicatio. It aims at re-establishing the former land registry situation. Negatory action (actio Publiciana) is regulated by Article 99 of SPZ, which also defines the request for cessation of disturbance. The owner of a possession whose property rights have been unlawfully violated by a third person otherwise than by deprivation can request for cessation of disturbance and prohibition of further disturbance. Although it was only SPZ that actually codified the difference between ownership and non-ownership possession, it had been previously discussed in relevant literature. A possessor in good faith who acquires bonetary ownership is protected by law on the basis of Article 98 of SPZ by means of a rei vindicatio actio Publiciana claim.

Cilj rada istražiti je temeljne aspekte publicijanske tužbe (actio Publiciana) kao stvarnopravne tužbe u klasičnom rimskom pravu. U tom će se kontekstu u radu osvrnuti na pitanje geneze i određenja publicijanske tužbe te raščlaniti problematika aktivne i pasivne legitimacije, kao i pitanje predmeta dokazivanja kod navedene tužbe. Nadalje će se analizirati formula publicijanske tužbe te istražiti sadržaj tužbenog zahtjeva, kao i tuženikovih prigovora i protuzahtjeva. Na temelju navedene analize, zaključno se sažeto uspoređuje pravna narav klasične actio Publiciana i klasične rei vindicatio s jedne strane te klasične actio Publiciana i suvremene publicijanske tužbe s druge strane., In this article, the author investigates the basic aspects of actio Publiciana as a real property lawsuit in classical Roman law. In this context, the article first looks at the issue of genesis and definition of actio Publiciana, and analyses the problem of active and passive legitimation, and that of thema probandi in this kind of lawsuit. Further, the author analyses the formula of actio Publiciana and the content of the claim, as well as the defendant’s objections and counterclaims. On the basis of this analysis, the author compares the legal nature of the classical actio Publiciana and the classical rei vindicatio. Although similar in many respects, these two classical Roman lawsuits differed in one important characteristic: rei vindicatio was based on proven Quiritarian ownership, while actio Publiciana on fi ction as to such ownership. In the final part of the paper, the author compares the legal nature of the classical and present-day actio Publiciana. The author concludes that the Roman actio Publiciana was based on the fiction that, to the benefit of the claimant as the qualified possessor, the period for usucapion had lapsed, making the claimant a Quiritarian owner of the disputed property, while today’s actio Publiciana is based on the rebuttable presumption (praesumptio iuris) that the claimant as the qualified possessor is at the same time its owner. Therefore, the Roman and present-day actio Publiciana are based on different types of legal fact, which differ with regard to their function., In der Arbeit untersucht der Autor die Grundaspekten von publizianischen Klage (actio Publiciana) als sachlich-rechtliche Klage in dem klassischen römischen Recht. In dem Kontext beschäftigt man sich in der Arbeit zunächst mit der Frage der Genese und Begriffsbestimmung von publizianischen Klage und man zergliedert die Problematik der aktiven und passiven Legitimation, sowie auch die Frage des thema probandi bei der genannten Klage. Weiterhin wird die Formel der publizianischen Klage analysiert und der Inhalt des Klageanpruchs untersucht, genau wie die Einsprüche und Gegenansprüche des Angeklagten. Aufgrund der durchgeführten Analyse vergleicht der Autor die rechtliche Natur von klassischen actio Publiciana und klassischen rei vindicatio. Neben allen Ähnlichkeiten, die zwei genannten römischen Klagen haben sich in einem wichtigen Kennzeichen unterscheidet: rei vindicatio basierte auf bewiesenen quiritischen Eigentum, und actio Publiciana auf Fiktion der Bestand solches Eigentumsrechts. In dem Endteil der Arbeit wird die rechtliche Wesensart der klassischen actio Publiciana und der gegenwärtigen publizianischen Klage kompariert. Der Autor kommt zu Schluss, dass die römische actio Publiciana auf Fiktion basierte, dass zugunsten des Klägers als qualifizierten Besitzers die Ersitzungsfrist schon gelaufen ist, und er wurde deshalb der quiritische Eigentümer des umstrittenen Gegenstandes, während die heutige publizianische Klage auf der widerlegbare Rechtsvermutung (praesumptio iuris) basiert, dass der Kläger als qualifizierter Besitzer des bestimmten Gegenstandes gleichzeitig auch seiner Eigentümer ist. Deshalb basieren die römische actio Publiciana und die heutige publizianische Klage auf verschiedenen Arten von Rechtstatsachen, die sich gegenseitig angesichts ihrer Funktion unterscheiden.

Two divergent systems are usually differentiated between when it comes to the way in which real rights are transferred from one person to another, namely abstract and causal systems. In this article the features of each system, the respect in which they differ from each other, and the practical implications of the distinction are established. It appears that in a causal system real rights are transferred by conclusion of the obligatory agreement, which should be valid and enforceable. The mutual intention to transfer and to receive real rights is not construed as an independent real agreement as it is contained in the obligatory agreement. In a causal system the transferor finds himself in a favourable position in relation to other parties while bona fide third parties undoubtedly get the worst of the deal since they have no protection against the disadvantageous consequences of delivery owing to a void obligation. In an abstract system the obligatory agreement is not sufficient for the transfer of real rights, the thing should also be delivered and there should be a valid real agreement which consists merely of the mutual intention to transfer and to receive real rights. The real agreement is a characteristic of an abstract system which distinguishes it from a causal system. Compared with the position of those in the causal system, the transferee and third parties find themselves in a favourable position vis-à-vis the transferor. In a causal system the concept iusta causa refers to a valid and enforceable obligatory agreement or other juridical fact which obliges the transferee to deliver thething. In an abstract system it serves no purpose to describe the causa with reference to the obligatory agreement, since it is not a substantive law requirement for the transfer of real rights. The causa concept refers rather to the mutual intention to transfer and to receive real rights, which is nothing less than the real agreement. Since the causa is contained in the real agreement it is no longer of any use in an abstract system and should be abandoned. The Dutch system displays the characteristics of an abstract system in that a separate act of delivery should exist and a valid real agreement is a requirement for the transfer of real rights. On the other hand it also displays characteristics of a causal system, since a valid obligatory agreement is a requirement for the transfer of real rights.

Tužitelj u reivindikacijskom sporu nastupa kao vlasnik sporne stvari te traži od tuženika kao posjednika sporne stvari predaju posjeda te stvari. Da bi uspio sa svojom reivindikacijom ili "pravom vlasničkom tužbom", tužitelj mora dokazati: a) svoje pravo vlasništva na spornoj stvari ; b) tuženikov posjed te stvari ; c) identitet te stvari . Prema tome, treba ustvrditi da teret dokazivanja (onus probandi), sukladno rimskom pravilu actori incumbit probatio, leži na tužitelju, dok tuženik kao posjednik ne mora dokazivati svoje pravo na posjed (ius possidendi). Polazeći od navedenih činjenica, ponajprije se analizira dokazivanje tužiteljeva prava vlasništva na spornoj stvari u reivindikacijskom sporu u klasičnom rimskom pravu kao temelju današnjih privatnopravnih sustava. U središnjem dijelu rada analizira se navedeno dokazivanje u reivindikacijskom sporu u suvremenim europskim stvarnopravnim poretcima. U tom će se kontekstu nastojati raščlaniti njegovo uređenje u hrvatskom Zakonu o vlasništvu i drugim stvarnim pravima (dalje u tekstu: ZV) u usporedbi sa najvažnijim europskim građanskim zakonicima.

Jedan od važnih aspekata reivindikacijskih parnica jesu protuzahtjevi posjednika za naknadu troškova. Preciznije rečeno, posjednik je ovlašten odgovoriti na reivindikacijski zahtjev svojim protuzahtjevom za naknadu troškova koje je za vrijeme svog posjedovanja imao na vlasnikovoj stvari. Kako je opće poznato, pravo postaviti takav protuzahtjev ima kako pošteni posjednik (bonae fidei possessor), tako i nepošteni posjednik (malae fidei possessor). Polazeći od navedenih činjenica, u prvom dijelu sljedećeg rada analizira se uređenje protuzahtjeva posjednika za naknadu troškova u reivindikacijskim parnicama u klasičnom rimskom pravu kao temelju današnjih privatnopravnih sustava. U središnjem dijelu rada analizira se regulacija i primjena tog protuzahtjeva u suvremenim europskim stvarnopravnim poretcima. U tom se kontekstu nastoji raščlaniti njegovo uređenje u hrvatskom Zakonu o vlasništvu i drugim stvarnim pravima (dalje u tekstu: ZV) u usporedbi sa najvažnijim europskim građanskim zakonicima.

Na temelju analize relevantnih pravnih vrela (posebice D. 47,2) u radu se obrađuju dva glavna pitanja povezana s krađom (furtum) u rimskom privatnom pravu. Tako se u prvom dijelu rada prikazuje specifi čan razvoj poimanja protupravnog djela furtum promatran od razdoblja Zakonika XII ploča (oduzimanje tuđe pokretnine sankcionirano dvojako, javnopravnim i privatnopravnim mjerama), preko republikanskog odnosno pretorskog razdoblja (privatnopravni delikt bilo kakvog nepoštenog ponašanja koje rezultira imovinskim gubitkom), do kasnoklasičnog razdoblja (konačno ograničenje i precizacija delikta pomoću contrectatio i animus furandi/animus lucri faciendi). U drugom se dijelu rada obrađuju sredstva pravne zaštite, pri čemu se najprije prikazuju osnovna obilježja actio furti (penalnost, pasivna neprenosivost, kumulativnost, noksalnost, infamirajući karakter), te osvrće na pitanje aktivne i pasivne legitimacije kao i na određivanje kriterija za postavljanje tužbenog zahtjeva. Potom se izlažu obilježja ostalih, reipersekutornih sredstava pravne zaštite dostupnih okradenome (rei vindicatio, condictio ex causa furtiva te eventualna actio in personam iz krađom povrijeđenog ugovornog odnosa), According to the analysis of the relevant legal sources (especially D. 47,2) two main issues connected to theft (furtum) in Roman private law are elaborated in this article. In the fi rst part the specifi c development of the conception of wrongful act of furtum is presented as observed from the period of the XII Tables (deprival of someone’s movables sanctioned in two ways, by public-law and private-law measures), through the Republican namely praetorian period (private-law delict of any dishonest behaviour reasulting in patrimonial loss), to the late-classical period (fi nal restriction and stating precisely the delict by contrectatio and animus furandi/animus lucri faciendi). In the second part of the article the means of legal protection are dealt with, where basic features of actio furti are presented fi rst (liability to punishment, passive intransmissibility, cumulative and noxal liability, infamous character), and then issues of who can sue and be sued are referred to as well as determining criteria for setting up the action. After that the features of other reipersecutory means of legal protection available to the victim of the theft are described (rei vindicatio, condictio ex causa furtiva and potentially actio in personam which derives from the breach of contract due to the theft).

Na temelju analize pravnik vrela (posebice D. 47, 2) u radu se obrađuju dva glavna pitanja u svezi s krađom u rimskom privatnom pravu.U prvom se dijelu rada prikazuje specifičan razvoj poimanja protupravnog furtum-a od razdoblja Zakonika XII ploča preko pretorskog do kasnoklasičnog razdoblja. U drugom se dijelu rada obrađuju sredstva pravne zaštite, pri čemu se najprije prikazuju obilježja actio furti, te osvrće na pitanje aktivne i pasivne legitimacije kao i na određivanje kriterija za postavljanje tužbenog zahtjeva. Potom se izlažu obilježja ostalih, reipersekutornih sredstava pravne zaštite dostupnih okradenom (rei vindicatio, condictio ex causa furtiva te actio in personam iz krađom povrijeđenog ugovornog odnosa).

In the present article author deals with problems, arising from the use of rules of limitation in the vindication of objects by the arbitration courts. Particular attention is paid to the determination of the initial moment of the limitation period, when real estate is reclaimed from others unlawful possession. Author notes, that there is some uncertainty, due to the beginning of term from the statute of limitations to claim vindication. The difficult is due to the fact that for the time of search of the lost (stolen) things the owner cannot apply to the court for protection of violated rights, because the defendant, whose actions violated authority ownership, personally is not defined. At the same time the fact of the expiry of the limitation period is a separate ground for refusal in the lawsuit, in which case any of the other arguments in support of the declaration of the claim are not subject to review. Consequently, there is a question of how to define the starting point of the limitation period, when the owner was aware of the disposal of its ownership of certain things, but could not determine exactly who owns his thing, and to whom you must bring vindication requirement. Author analyzes existing legal acts, legal position of the judiciary branches. Author also examines views of Russian jurists. Author concludes that the moment of the period of limitation for the vindication of the claim has to be determined from the date, when the claimant knew of actual disposal of things from his possession, or when he found about the ground for challenging the registration of the property rights of the defendant.