Upotreba tuđe stvari kao oblik pravno neosnovanog obogaćenja

Abstract

Institut pravno neosnovanog obogaćenja prvi put je regulisan u švajcarskom pravu u XIX veku. Njegova svrha predstavlja sprečavanje neosnovanog sticanja imovinske koristi na tuđ račun. Lice koje je neosnovano ostvarilo imovinsku korist na tuđ račun dužno je da je preda licu kome ona pripada. Da bi ostvario restituciju osiromašeni je dužan da dokaže obogaćenje tuženog koje je u korelativnoj vezi sa osiromašenjem i za koje ne postoji pravni osnov. Zakon o obligacionim odnosima uređuje institut pravno neosnovanog obogaćenja pod nazivom „Sticanje bez osnova“ u čl. 210-219. Opšte pravilo o neosnovanom obogaćenju (čl. 210, st. 1 ZOO) formulisano je tako da obuhvata samo slučajeve u kojima je neosnovano sticanje nastupilo usled prelaza dela imovine osiromašenog u imovinu obogaćenog lica. Upotreba tuđe stvari u svoju korist može dovesti do neosnovanog obogaćenja koje je nastupilo bez imovinskog prelaza. ZOO upotrebu tuđe stvari u svoju korist uređuje u čl. 219. Potencijalna primena tog člana je široka i može obuhvatiti ne samo upotrebu tuđe telesne stvari već i vršenje tuđeg prava koje je podobno za ekonomsko iskorišćavanje. Stoga se upotrebom tuđe stvari u svoju korist može smatrati i neosnovano vršenje: prava intelektualne svojine, ličnog prava čije vršenje se može preneti na drugo lice uz naknadu i prava potraživanja. Za razliku od nacionalnih pravnih poredaka u kojima element obogaćenja nije iscrpno zakonski regulisan, Principi evropskog prava pravno neosnovanog obogaćenja u čl. 3:101 taksativno navode njegove pojavne oblike. Osim povećanja aktive, smanjenja pasive, primanja usluge ili rada obogaćenje se može ogledati i u upotrebi tuđe aktive koja obuhvata sve ono što ima novčanu vrednost bilo da se radi o pravu ili određenoj poverljivoj informaciji čiji imalac je ovlašćen da ograniči njenu upotrebu.

The institute of Unjust Enrichment was regulated for the first time in the 19th century in Swiss law. The aim of this institute is to prevent ungrounded enrichment at the detriment of another. A person who is enriched at the detriment of another is required to make restitution to the other. Restitution is, therefore, a tool of corrective justice. To successfully claim unjust enrichment against another person, a claimant must prove: the existence of other party`s enrichment which is in correlation with the disadvantage on the part of the claimant and the absence of a legal basis for such enrichment. In Serbia the Law of Contract and Torts regulates the institute of Unjust Enrichment using the name „Acquiring without ground” in Articles 210-219. General enrichment action should be applicable to all cases of unjust enrichment. However, its formulation in Serbian law (Art. 210, para. 1) applies only to the enrichment occurring as a consequence of a transfer of a part of a claimant`s property into a property of a defendant. If benefit is acquired without transferring the property, Art. 210, para. 1 cannot be applied. Use of another`s thing without authorization can be an example of acquisition of benefit without transferring the property. The Law of Contract and Torts in Art. 219 regulates using another person’s object to one’s own benefit. The term object should embrace not only a corporal thing but every right (absolute or relative) susceptible of commercial exploitation. Unlike national rules which usually regulate a general clause of unjust enrichment in which elements of unjust enrichment are not regulated in detail, Principles of European Law on Unjustified Enrichment set out a definition based on an exhaustive enumeration of the types of enrichment and disadvantage. Both enrichment and disadvantage can occur in different forms. A person is enriched by: an increase in assets, decrease in liabilities, receiving a service (or having work done), use of another`s assets. On the other side, a person is disadvantaged by: a decrease in assets or an increase in liabilities, rendering a service (or doing work), or another`s use of that person`s assets. Transfer of property is, therefore, not decisive for application of general rule of unjust enrichment. Use of another`s assets could lead to the acquisition of benefit relevant to the application of Pel. Unj. Enr. if assets can be used. In principle, all transferable absolute rights are thus encompassed, such as property rights including rights to intellectual property. However, the right need not be capable of transfer and it will suffice that the right is one which another person might be licensed to use. This will therefore embrace relative rights and nontransferable absolute rights, such as contractual rights and rights of personality. Moreover, use of another`s assets will cover one person`s exploitation of another`s confidential information or an invention or design which might be, but has not yet been, converted into fully-fledged intellectual property right.