Uvođenje ugovora o nasleđivanju u srpsko pravo

Abstract

Srpsko pravo zabranjuje ugovor o nasleđivanju. Ta zabrana se pravda njegovom nepotrebnošću, neelastičnošću, špekulativnim karakterom, kao i tvrdnjom da ovaj ugovor preterano komplikuje ostavinske rasprave. Vladina Komisija za izradu Građanskog zakonika predlaže otvaranje šire rasprave o tome da li treba uvesti ugovor o nasleđivanju u srpsko pravo. U radu je ukaza- no na karakteristike ugovora o nasleđivanju kroz analizu rešenja u nemačkom pravu gde je ovaj institut najšire zastupljen. Autor iznosi argumente pro et contra ugovora o nasleđivanju. Analizirane su situacije u kojima postoji opravdanje da zaveštalac bude vezan svojim raspolaganjima za slučaj smrti i negirano je stanovište o nepotrebnosti ugovora o nasleđivanju. Prednosti neopozivih naslednopravnih raspolaganja prećutno su priznate i prilikom donošenja SZON-a iz 1955. godine, koji je pokušao da nadomesti zabranu ugovora o nasleđivanju afirmisanjem ugovora o doživotnom izdržavanju. Autor smatra da ugovor o nasleđivanju ima brojne prednosti u odnosu na ugovor o doživotnom izdržavanju i da ništa manje ne komplikuje ostavinske rasprave od instituta koje poznaje srpsko pravo. Najveći nedostatak ugovora o nasleđivanju je što ne ograničava zaveštaočevu slobodu da preduzima pravne poslove inter vivos. Zbog ograničene pravne zaštite koja se pruža ugovornim naslednicima zaveštalac može, kroz ugovore o poklonu, da izigra njihov naslednopravni položaj. Ovaj nedostatak ugovornog nasleđivanja ne ispoljava se u situacijama gde se kao ugovorne strane pojavljuju supružnici, odnosno članovi porodične zajednice, ukoliko ugovor obuhvata dobra koja predstavljaju njihovu zajedničku imovinu. Zbog toga, autor predlaže da se u srpskom pravu dozvoli sklapanje ugovora o nasleđivanju između supružnika i članova porodične zajednice u pogledu dobara koja se nalaze u režimu zajedničke imovine.

Inheritance contracts are prohibited under Serbian law, due to their alleged uselessness, rigidity, devious nature and propensity to make the probate proceedings overly complicated. However, it has been recently proposed by the Serbian Civil Code Drafting Commission to reconsider such prohibition. The main objective of this article is to examine the arguments for and against introduction of the inheritance contracts into Serbian law. The author starts off with the comparative analysis of German rules on inheritance contracts (Erbvertrag), seeing that German law sets out the most delicate provisions on this type of agreement as to future succession. The author examines situations in which it is justified to hold the testator obliged by his contractual dispositions in prospect of death (mortis causa), and disagrees with the claim that inheritance contracts are useless. Utility of the inheritance contracts was tacitly recognized by the legislator as early as 1955, with the legislative attempt to make up for the ban on inheritance contracts by fostering the rules on contracts for lifelong maintenance. The author shows advantages of the inheritance contract over the contract for lifelong maintenance, and asserts that the inheritance contract would not set hurdles for probate proceedings more than other institutions known to Serbian law. The main shortcoming of the inheritance contract is that it does not prevent the testator from further contractual dispositions between the living (inter vivos). The testator may circumvent the provisions of inheritance contract by subsequent gifts to third parties. Yet, the inheritance contract does not suffer from such shortcoming in cases when it is concluded between the spouses, or between family members, in relation to their community property, i.e. the property which is owned jointly, in equal undivided shares. This is exactly what the author recommends: to allow the spouses and family members to conclude inheritance contracts in respect of the items of their community property.