Ko plati dukat da u brak uđe, nudi dva da iz braka izađe

Abstract

Porodični zakon (2005) vraća u srpsko pravo mogućnost da supružnici ugovorom urede bračno-imovinske odnose na način koji odgovara njihovim potrebama. Norme o imovinskim posledicama braka postaju tako dispozitivna pravila, koja se imaju primeniti, samo ako supružnici nisu ugovorili drugačije. Dva su moguća pristupa valjanosti bračnih ugovora. Prema jednoj koncepciji, bračni ugovor je ništav po svojoj prirodi. Ovaj institut je kao takav protivan javnom poretku i moralu, jer vodi komercijalizaciji braka, ohrabruje razvod i narušava ravnopravnost polova (opšta ništavost). Prema drugom stanovištu (koje prihvata i srpski zakonodavac), eventualna ništavost bračnog ugovora mora se ceniti od slučaja do slučaja (konkretna ništavost). Dakle, bračno-imovinsko ugovaranje je zakonom dopušteno, ali je moguće utvrditi ništavost takvog ugovora, odnosno neke njegove odredbe, in concreto. Autor iz ugla srpskog prava analizira sporazume supružnika čija je punovažnost i izvršivost sporna i u ugovornoj praksi SAD, npr. klauzule o bračnoj vernosti i klauzule o učestalosti seksualnih odnosa supružnika. Ovi sporazumi su po svojoj prirodi mešoviti, jer vezuju imovinske posledice za određeni način vršenja ličnih prava supružnika. Kao protivne javnom poretku, autor naročito navodi pogodbe kojim se ugovorne strane trajno odriču prava na reprodukciju ili iz verskih razloga uskraćuju zajedničkoj deci medicinski indikovano lečenje. Bračni ugovor je ugovor među bližnjima, pa sud mora pristupiti njegovom tumačenju sa posebnom obazrivošću. Privatno pravo je ovde prožeto javnim interesom. Stoga pažnja suda kod zaključenja bračnog ugovora i procene njegove valjanosti, mora biti nešto veća nego kod drugih ugovora imovinskog prava. Sud mora voditi računa o zaštiti osnovnih vrednosti i suštine bračne zajednice, a naročito o najboljem interesu dece.

Family Law of 2005 has reintroduced to the Serbian legal system the rule that existed in the Serbian Civil Code (1844) which enables spouses, prospective spouses and extramarital partners to agree on their actual and future property relations according to their needs. The author points out to two possible approaches to the issue of validity of marital (nuptial) agreement. According to the first (older) conception, a marital agreement is void by its sole nature. It is against public policy and good usages since it allegedly leads to commercialization of marriage, it encourages the divorce and destroys the equity of spouses (general nullity). According to the second (lawful) standpoint, a marital agreement is not void (per se). Its potential nullity should be judged on case by case basis. Consequently, the contractual distribution of marital property is generally permitted by the Law, but this does not preclude the court from finding that the contract at hand is null and void (nullity in concreto). The author analyses from the Serbian law perspective the specific terms of marital agreements whose validity and enforceability are often disputed in the United States case-law, e.g. fidelity clause and intimacy clause. One could claim that the nature of these promises is hybrid, since they combine spouses’ personal rights and duties with proprietary consequences. In that context, author expressly identifies as null and void, by reason of public policy, provisions by which parties agree to permanently waive their reproductive rights, as well as the clauses by which parents, for their religious belief, restrict indicated medical intervention on their mutual children. Given that marital agreement is the contract between loved ones, the court should interpret it with special caution. Private law here is intertwined with public interest. Hence, the attention of the court in evaluation of validity of marital agreements should be on the higher level than in the case of other contracts. The court must protect the basic human values, essence of marital relations and pay utmost regard to the best interests of children.