@inbook{
author = "Cvetković Đorđević, Valentina",
year = "2016",
abstract = "U savremenom pravu, za razliku od rimskog prava, važi načelo slobode
ugovaranja. Prema tom načelu, strane ugovornice slobodne su da u granicima
prinudnih propisa, javnog poretka i morala svoje odnose urede po svojoj volji.
U tom slučaju ugovor je zakon za stranke. Suprotno, ukoliko je sporazum strana
protivan prinudnim propisima, javnom poretku ili moralu, ugovor ne proizvodi
dejstvo. Problem nastaje onda kada na osnovu nedozvoljenog sporazuma
jedna strana ispuni svoju obavezu dok druga odbija izvršenje. Sa istim problemom
susretali su se i rimski pravnici koji su ga rešavali primenom kondikcije
ob turpem causam. U Digestama činjenično stanje koje se u klasičnom pravu
označavalo izrazom datio ob rem turpem poslužilo je za formulisanje posebne
vrste kondikcije, takozvane kondikcije ob turpem vel iniustam causam, koja
je izdvojena u poseban naslov D.12.5. Davanje izvršeno sa nemoralnim ciljem
(dare ob turpem rem) proizvodilo je različite posledice, zavisno od toga koja je
strana postupila nemoralno. Kondikciju je mogla da koristi strana čije davanje
nije bilo nemoralno. Ukoliko su se i davanje i primanje smatrali nemoralnim,
rimski pravnici su odbijali restituciju primenjujući načelo in pari turpitudine
melior est causa possidentis. Problem rimskog rešenja ogleda se u tome što se
u slučaju u kojem obe strane postupaju nemoralno kažnjava samo davalac, ali
ne i primalac, koji zadržava ono što je primio. U savremenoj sudskoj praksi nepravičnost
rimskog rešenja naročito dolazi do izražaja u slučajevima „kupovine
mlade”. Reč je o lokalnom običaju da mladoženja kupuje mladu od njene porodice.
U situaciji da mlada bude kupljena, a brak ne bude realizovan, primenom
pravila in pari causa turpitudinis cessat repetitio kažnjava se samo jedna strana
– mladoženja, koji ostaje i bez mlade i bez plaćene cene, dok druga strana
zadržava ono što je primila. Otuda pojedina zakonodavstva, u koje spada i
srpsko pravo, odstupaju od rimskog rešenja i propisuju da u slučaju kada obe
strane postupaju nemoralno, primalac ne zadržava primljeno već je dužan da
ga preda trećem licu koje zastupa javni interes., The principle of freedom to contract, unlike Roman law, is in effect in modern
law. According to this principle, the parties to the contract are free to arrange
relations at their own will within the limits of compulsory regulations,
public order and moral norms. If this is the case, it is the contract itself that is
law for the parties. And, vice versa, a contract will be without effect if it opposes
the compulsory regulation, public order and moral norms. A problem arises
when on the grounds of an illicit contract one of the parties fulfills its obligation
while the other party refuses the fulfillment of its own obligation. Roman
lawyers used to face the same problem and solved it by applying the condictio
ob turpem causam. In the Digest, state of facts, which, in the classical law was
signified by the term datio ob rem turpem, served to formulate a specific type of
condictio, the so-called condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam, which is set
aside under a separate title of the Digest (D.12.5). The act of giving committed
for an evil purpose (dare ob turpem rem) produced different effects depending
on the party acting for an evil purpose. The use of condictio was possible only
by the contracting party whose giving was not done for an evil purpose. When
both taking and giving were not done for an honorable purpose, Roman lawyers
repudiated restitution by applying the in pari turpitudine mellior est causa posidentis principle. The problem with this solution can be seen in a situation when
both contracting parties acted for an evil purpose but when only the recipient
gets punished, which is not the case with the giver who keeps what he received
for himself. When it comes to modern court practice, the injustice of this Roman
solution is particularly found in cases of „bride-buying”. It is a local custom
under which a groom buys a bride. In a situation when the bride is bought, but
marriage is not finalized by applying the rule in pari causa turpitudinis cessat
repetitio, only one party gets penalized – the groom, who is left both without
his bride and the price he paid for her – while the other party keeps what it
received. This is why legislation in some countries, also including law in Serbia,
deviates from the Roman solution since it prescribes that in case both parties do
not act for an honorable purpose, the recipient will not keep what he received
for himself, but is on the contrary, obliged to hand it over to the third party representing
public interest.",
publisher = "Beograd : Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu Centar za izdavaštvo i informisanje",
journal = "Perspektive implementacije evropskih standarda u pravni sistem Srbije : zbornik radova. Knj. 6 / Perspectives of Implementa tion of European Standards in Serbian Legal System : Volume VI",
booktitle = "Primena kondikcije u svetlu principa in pari turpitudine melior est causa possidentis, Condiction Application in the Light of the Principle in Pari Turpitudine Melior Est Causa Possidentis",
pages = "269-259"
}
