Ljubav na prvi potpis - o moralnosti bračnih ugovora

Abstract

Porodični zakon (2005) vraća u srpsko pravo mogućnost da supružnici izjavama volje urede bračno-imovinske odnose, na način koji odgovara njihovim potrebama. Norme o imovinskim posledicama braka postaju tako dispozitivna pravila, koja se imaju primeniti, samo ako supružnici nisu ugovorili drugačije. Bračni ugovor, dakle, doživljava svoju renesansu u srpskom pravu što otvara čitav niz moralnih, ali i pravnih dilema: Zašto se parovi uopšte odlučuju da svoje imovinske odnose urede ugovorom? Vodi li mogućnost zaključenja bračnog ugovora komercijalizaciji braka? Unosi li bračni ugovor seme razdora u brak i da li se takvim stipulisanjem narušava ravnopravnost polova? Autor ukazuje na dva moguća pristupa valjanosti bračnih ugovora. Prema jednoj koncepciji, bračni ugovor je ništav po svojoj prirodi. Ovaj institut je kao takav protivan javnom poretku i moralu, jer vodi komercijalizaciji braka, ohrabruje razvod i narušava ravnopravnost polova (opšta ništavost). Prema drugom stanovištu nije svaki bračni ugovor ništav eventualna ništavost takvog ugovora ili nekih njegovih odredbi mora se ceniti od slučaja do slučaja (konkretna ništavost). Dakle, bračno-imovinsko ugovaranje je zakonom dopušteno, ali je moguće utvrditi ništavost takvog ugovora in concreto. Autor dalje zaključuje da bračni ugovor, niti ohrabruje sklapanje braka, niti ga ruši. Bez obzira na određene nedoumice moralne prirode, bračni ugovor je društveno koristan institut, jer ide u susret potencijalnom problemu; imovinske odnose supružnika izmešta iz sudnice i ublažava uticaj bračnih nesuglasica na zajedničku decu.

Under Serbian Civil Code (1844), prospective spouses and extramarital partners were permitted to agree on their actual and future property relations according to their needs. Serbian legislator re-introduced this possibility in 2005. The norms that regulate the proprietary consequences of marriage have thus become default rules that apply only if marital partners did not agree otherwise. This so-called renascence of marital (nuptial) agreements in Serbia raises the whole line of related legal and ethical issues: Why the couples decide to govern their property relations by the agreement? Does the possibility of the marital agreement induce the commercialization of the marriage? Do the marital agreements implant the seeds of discord in marriage, or do they jeopardize the gender equality? The author points out two possible approaches to the issue of validity of marital agreement. According to the first conception, marital agreement should be null and void by its sole nature. It is against public policy and moral, as it allegedly leads to commercialization of marriage, encourages divorce and destroys the equity of spouses (general nullity). According to the other opinion, not all marital agreements should be null and void (per se). Its potential nullity be judged from case to case. Consequently, the contractual distribution of marital property is generally permitted by the Law, but this fact does not preclude the court from finding that the contract at hand is null and void (nullity in concreto). The author concludes that marital agreements neither encourage the conclusion of marriage, nor destroy its prospects. Regardless of some moral controversies concerning the marital agreements, it is without a doubt a socially useful phenomenon, since it regulates before hand the potential sources of problems between the spouses it displaces court resolution of property issues between ex-spouses and mitigates the negative effects of divorce on mutual children.