Primena kondikcije u svetlu principa in pari turpitudine melior est causa possidentis

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.