O reformi razloga nedostojnosti za nasleđivanje

Abstract

Autor analizira razloge za nedostojnost koje je predložila Komisija za izradu Građanskog zakonika Republike Srbije (koju je imenovala Vlada Republike Srbije 2006. godine) i konstatuje da su učinjene dve izmene. Jedna izmena je učinjena po uzoru na § 2339. st. 1. Nemačkog građanskog zakonika i predviđa da je nedostojan onaj ko umišljajno dovede ostavioca u stanje stalne nesposobnosti za sačinjavanje testamenta. Druga izmena se ogleda u uvođenju novog razloga za nedostojnost koji predviđa da je nedostojan onaj koji je onemogućio ili pokušao da onemogući ostvarenje onog reda nasleđivanja koji je ostavilac odredio ili hteo da odredi ili sa kojim je ostavilac računao. Autor konstatuje da učinjene izmene nisu unapredile postojeći sistem nedostojnosti za nasleđivanje. Predložene odredbe ne poseduju potrebnu preciznost, niti su u stanju da odgovore pravno-političkim ciljevima ustanove nedostojnosti. S druge strane, Komisija je propustila da otkloni nedostatke razloga za nedostojnost koji se tiče težeg ogrešenja o zakonsku obavezu izdržavanja prema ostaviocu. Autor predlaže da se Komisija za izradu Građanskog zakonika osloni na postojeća rešenja, koja su nastala po uzoru na čl. 540. Švajcarskog građanskog zakonika. Najbitnije izmene ticale bi se preciznijeg formulisanja razloga za nedostojnost koji se tiče povrede zakonske obaveze izdržavanja prema ostaviocu. Takođe, predlaže se da lišenje roditeljskog prava prema ostaviocu bude uvršćeno u katalog razloga za nedostojnost, jer bi se time afirmisao princip porodičnopravne pravičnosti i zaštita prava deteta.

The author analyzes the reasons for unworthiness to inherit that are proposed by the Commission working on the Draft Civil Code of the Republic of Serbia (which was appointed by the Government of the Republic of Serbia in 2006) and concludes that two changes have been made. The first change has been done following the example of the § 2339. item 1. of the German Civil Code and it provides that the person is unworthy to inherit if he/she willingly puts the testator in the state of permanent incapability to make a will. The second change relates to the introduction of the new reason for the unworthiness to inherit, proclaiming that the person is unworthy to inherit if he/she obstructs or tries to obstruct the line of inheritance established by the testator or intended to be established by the testator or counted on by the testator. The author concludes that the changes did not improve the existing system of unworthiness to inherit. The proposed changes do not posses a necessary accuracy, and they are not able to respond to the legal and political goals of the concept of unworthiness to inherit. On the other hand, the Commission omitted to remove the shortcoming of the unworthiness reason related to the major infringement of a duty to financially support the testator. The author proposes that the Commission working on the Civil Code shall rely on the existing solutions that were created following the example of Article 540 of the Swiss Civil Code. The most significant changes would relate to a more precise establishment of the reasons for unworthiness to inherit that relate to the infringement of a duty to financially support the testator. In addition to that, a proposal has been made to include the deprivation of the parental right into the reasons for unworthiness to inherit, because that would support the principle of family law justice and child protection.