Društvena svojina i njena pravna priroda

Abstract

Pitanje pravne prirode društvene svojine oduvek je bilo sporno. Jedna grupa pravnih teoretičara zagovara stanovište po kojem društvena svojina ima karakter prava svojine, dok joj drugi, pak, odriču to pravo, tvrdeći da je ona nesvojinska kategorija. Nasuprot pravnoj teoriji, ekonomska nauka temelji svoje modele društvene svojine isključivo na svojinskoj koncepciji društvene svojine, pri čemu ekonomisti naglasak stavljaju, pre svega, na ekonomsko biće društvene svojine. Neophodno je jasno diferencirati prisvajanje (svojina u ekonomskom smislu) od prava svojine (svojina u pravnom smislu). Društvena svojina je, dakle, u ekonomskom smislu svojina, a pravno nesvojina. Pravi problem društvene svojine se, prema tome, ne ispoljava u pogledu nosioca, već u pogledu sadržine društvene svojine. Zakon o preduzećima je dozvolio pluralitet svojine, ali u našem pravnom poretku i dalje postoji samo jedan oblik prava svojine. Stoga se čini nužnim ublažavanje postojećih nekonzistentnosti između ekonomskog i pravnog bića društvene svojine.

The question of legal nature of social ownership has always been controversial. A group of legal theoreticians is of the opinion that social ownership has the character of the right of ownership, while the others deny that right to it, alleging that it is a non-ownership category. Contrary to the legal theory, the economic science bases its models of social ownership exclusively on the ownership concept of social ownership. The economists, first of all, emphasize the economic entity of social ownership. The author stresses the need for clear definition and distinction between appropriation (the ownership in terms of economy) and the right of ownership (ownership in terms of law). Social ownership is, namely, ownership in terms of economy, and non- ownership in terms of law. The real problem of social ownership is, accordingly, not that of its holder, but the substance of social ownership. The law on Enterprises allows for the different types of ownership, but in Yugoslav legal order there exists only one form of the right of ownership. The author concludes that it is necessary to attenuate the existing inconsistencies between the economic and legal entity of social ownership.