Poslovodstvo bez naloga i pravno neosnovano obogaćenje

Abstract

Razvoj poslovodstva bez naloga bio je uslovljen potrebom rešavanja slučajeva koji su imali sličnosti sa tipičnim slučajevima te ustanove, ali im je nedostajao subjektivan element – animus aliena negotia gerendi, koji je, prema mišljenju značajnog broja romanista, bio suštinski element poslovodstva bez naloga. I sami rimski pravnici su u svrhu rešavanja tih slučajeva odustajali od subjektivnog elementa, čime su proširivali domen primene poslovodstva bez naloga. U radu se ističu pojedina sporna pitanja i odgovori povodom instituta poslovodstvo bez naloga, čime se posredno utvrđuje njegov odnos s pravno neosnovanim obogaćenjem.

Negotiorum gestio is a complex institute as it combines opposite tendencies: on one hand it promotes undertaking of business in order to gain benefits in the interest of another, while on the other hand sanctions the unjust gaining of benefits at the detriment of another. In modern legal systems an indispensable element of negotiorum gestio is an intervener’s intention to act in the interest of another. This subjective element is an important criterion of demarcation between the benevolent intervention of another’s affairs and unjust enrichment. Unlike contemporary law, in Roman law there was no legal basis for unjust enrichment as a general and independent institute. Therefore cases of unjust gaining of benefit were solved by the application of individual procedural resources such as condictio, actio negotiorum gestorum and actio de in rem verso. All three resources are based on the idea of prohibition of unjust enrichment, while they differ from each other according to conditions of application reflected in different causes of their legal creation. However Roman jurists did not strictly establish the conditions of application of these institutions as any requirement of absolute fulfillment of all conditions would be an obstacle to their freedom for a fair solution to be reached in a specific case. Therefore in some cases condictio is granted without the existence of datio or actio negotiorum gestorum in the lack of intention of a gestor to act in the interest of a dominus. As just solutions required prevention of unjust enrichment at the detriment of another, the reason of given decisions should be sought in the idea of unjust enrichment. Every attitude which aims at establishing absolute and precise conditions of application of actiones negotiorum gestorum in Roman Law is an unhistorical approach to the historical phenomena. Roman jurists primarily tried to find just solutions whereas existing institutions served as a means to achieve that aim. Insisting on the subjective conception of negotiorum gestio which takes into account intention of a gestor to act in the interest of another or objective conception which neglects such an intention is contrary to both the Roman Law resources and methods Roman jurists worked with. On the contrary, various cases of application of action negotiorum gestorum gave incentive to the development of the existing and creation of new institutes.