Приказ основних података о документу

Konstantinovićs concept of Limitation of Claims: Have the ideas about the times influence on law withstood the influence of time?

dc.creatorZupan, Nina
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-21T11:20:18Z
dc.date.available2024-05-21T11:20:18Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.issn0003-2565
dc.identifier.urihttps://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1834
dc.description.abstractMihailo Konstantinović je idejni tvorac Zakona o zastarelosti potraživanja iz 1953. godine. U ovom članku se istražuje na koji način je nadogradio i premašio austrijski Opšti građanski zakonik, koji je do tada važio na velikom delu jugoslovenskih teritorija, bilo neposredno bilo posredstvom koncepata usvojenih u Građanskom zakoniku za Kraljevinu Srbiju. Njegove temeljne ideje su kasnije, uz manje (delimično neosmišljene) izmene, preuzete u Zakon o obligacionim odnosima, tako da nekoliko decenija nije bilo potrebe za većom reformom oblasti zastarevanja. Savremene tendencije u toj oblasti teže unekoliko drugačijoj koncepciji zastarevanja, kojom se još veća pažnja posvećuje uravnoteženju položaja poverioca i dužnika, kao i objedinjavanju sistema. Međutim, treba uzeti u obzir da su one posledica savremenijeg diskursa o ljudskim pravima u privatnom pravu i problema sa primenom delimično zastarelih i nepreglednih pravila o zastarevanju u evropskim pravnim sistemima, gde - za razliku od zemalja nekadašnje Jugoslavije - pravila ponegde nisu osavremenjena sto i više godina.sr
dc.description.abstractMihailo Konstantinović was the author of the 1953 Act on Limitation of Claims. The article explores how he improved and surpassed the rules on limitation set forth in the Austrian Civil Code which had previously been directly or indirectly applicable in a large part of the former Yugoslavia. His cornerstone ideas were later also copied with minor changes (partly not well thought through) into the Law on Obligations, ensuring there was no need for a comprehensive reform for decades. Admittedly, modern guidelines on limitation propose somewhat different concepts, focusing increasingly on the balance between the creditor and the debtor and on the simplification of the system. However, these guidelines are based on the modern discourse on human rights in private law and on the negative experience of some European jurisdictions with outdated and untransparent rules on limitation which - as opposed to the former Yugoslavia - remained unchanged for a century or more.en
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.sourceAnali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu
dc.subjectzastarevanjesr
dc.subjectZakon o zastarelosti potraživanjasr
dc.subjectuporedno pravosr
dc.subjectpravo na sudsku zaštitusr
dc.subjectMihailo Konstantinovićsr
dc.subjectright to fair trialen
dc.subjectMihailo Konstantinovićen
dc.subjectlimitation of actsen
dc.subjectextinctive prescriptionen
dc.subjectcomparative lawen
dc.subjectAct on Limitation of Claimsen
dc.titleKonstantinovićeva koncepcija uređenja zastarelosti - da li su ideje o uticaju vremena u pravu izdržale uticaj vremena na pravo?sr
dc.titleKonstantinovićs concept of Limitation of Claims: Have the ideas about the times influence on law withstood the influence of time?en
dc.typearticle
dc.rights.licenseCC BY
dc.citation.epage352
dc.citation.issueposeban
dc.citation.other70(poseban): 325-352
dc.citation.spage325
dc.citation.volume70
dc.identifier.doi10.51204/Anali_PFBU_22MK12A
dc.identifier.fulltexthttps://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/bitstream/id/1905/1827.pdf
dc.identifier.rcubconv_3410
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion


Документи

Thumbnail

Овај документ се појављује у следећим колекцијама

Приказ основних података о документу