Povreda poslovnog ugleda u Rimskom pravu

Abstract

Osim brojnih detaljno uređenih pravnih odnosa, rimsko pravo nije propustilo da reguliše ni materiju povrede časti. Poseban delikt injurije (iniuria) imao je za zaštitni objekt ljudsku čast. Među različitim oblicima na koji je mogao biti učinjen, u kazuistici rimskih pravnika se pominju i načini koji vređaju nečiji poslovni ugled. Oni su tema ovog rada. Rezultati pokazuju da su oblici te specifične uvrede bili vezani ili za lažno ili neosnovano pokretanje naplate u izvršnom postupku, aktiviranje jemstva ili zaloge, te neistinitu tvrdnju da je neko rob, čime bi se implicitno tvrdilo da je jedno lice insolventno. Osim toga, delikt se mogao učiniti i izošenjem neistina da je neko delinkvent, bilo u sudskom postupku ili van njega. Standard odgovornosti je bio umišljaj, a osuda je glasila na kaznu koja se određivala u svakom konkretnom slučaju, uzimanjem u obzir međusobni odnos i društveni rang učinioca i oštećenog. Primenjeni metododi su jezičko, sistemsko i istorijsko tumačenje Gajevih i Justinijanovih Institucija, kao i fragmenata Javolena, Gaja, Pavla, Ulpijana i Modestina, sačuvanih u Digestama.

In addition to many legal relationships which were regulated in detail, Roman law did not omit to regulate the protection of honour. The special delict of iniuria was aimed at protecting human honour and dignity. Among many ways to comit this delict, Roman lawyers mention the injury to someone's business reputation. This is the subject of this article. The research shows that the types of this specific insult were connected with false or baseless initiation of enforcement procedure, use of surety or pledge , or falsely claiming that someone was a slave, which would all imply that someone is insolvent. Apart from this, the delict could be comitted by claiming that someone was a delinquent, whether in judicial proceedings or outside them. The standard of liability was intention and the condemnation was punishment assessed according to the circumstances of the case, taking into account the mutual relationship and the social status of victim and tortfeasor. Applied methods are linguistic, systemic and historical interpretation of the Institutes of Gaius and the Institutes of Justinian, as well as of the fragments by Javolenus, Gaius, Ulpianus and Modestinus, which are preserved in the Digest.