Pravo na regres roditelja koji je sam izdržavao dete

Abstract

Osoba koja je faktički davala izdržavanje, a nije imala pravnu obavezu da to čini, na osnovu člana 165. Porodičnog zakona ima pravo na naknadu od lica koje je po tom zakonu bilo dužno da daje izdržavanje. Sve donedavno, u dugogodišnjoj sudskoj praksi redovnih sudova u Srbiji nikada nije bilo dovedeno u pitanje tumačenje prema kome se to pravilo ima primeniti i na onog roditelja koji je sam izdržavao dete, što znači da i taj roditelj ima pravo na regres od drugog roditelja. Međutim, Vrhovni kasacioni sud nedavno je doneo odluku koja nije u skladu sa prethodnim opšteprihvaćenim stavom u pogledu takvog tužbenog zahteva. Nasuprot takvom stanovištu, ovaj tekst prikazuje argumente koji, s jedne strane, pokazuju da se pojam „osobe koja je faktički davala izdržavanje, a nije imala pravnu obavezu” nesumnjivo mora primeniti i na roditelja koji jeste bio obavezan da doprinosi za izdržavanje svog deteta, ali ne i da bude jedini dužnik izdržavanja. S druge strane, roditelji solidarno odgovaraju za obaveze preuzete radi podmirenja potreba zajedničkog života u braku, kao i za obaveze koje po zakonu terete oba supružnika, pa je i njihova obaveza da podmiruju potrebe izdržavanja zajedničkog deteta zajednička i solidarna.

According to the Article 165 of the Serbian Family Act a person who has actually provided support without being legally obliged to do so has the right to recovery from the person who, according to this Act, was under the obligation to provide support. Until recently, it was never challenged in the long-standing jurisprudence of the Serbian regular courts that this rule should be also applied to the only parent who maintained the child and that he/she should have the right to recovery from the other parent. However, the Supreme Court of Cassation announced the decision which is not in line with the former common understanding of such a claim. Contrary to this attitude, this text reveals the arguments that, on one hand, the notion of „person who has actually provided support without being legally obliged to do so” is without any doubt applicable also to the parent who was legally obliged to give support to his/her child, but not as a sole parent-support debtor. On the other hand, spouses are jointly and severally liable with their joint and separate properties for obligations undertaken to satisfy the needs of cohabitation in marriage, as well as for obligations which, by law, burden both spouses, and following the rule that if more than one person were under the obligation to provide support at the same time, their obligations are joint and several.