Neutralni pravni poslovi

Abstract

Član 64 Porodičnog zakona predviđa da svaki maloletnik može samostalno da preduzima neutralne pravne poslove, tj. poslove kojima ne stiče ni prava ni obaveze. Ovo pravilo, nastalo po uzoru na nemačko pravo, izazvalo je brojne kontroverze među srpskim pravnicima. Dok jedni negiraju kategoriju neutralnog pravnog posla, smatrajući da on predstavlja contradictio in adjecto, autori koji ga ne osporavaju nemaju jedinstven stav u pogledu toga za koje pravne poslove se može kazati da su neutralni. U prvom delu rada izložena su shvatanja o neutralnom pravnom poslu koja su razvijena u uporednom pravu, analizirane su situacije u kojima se takvi poslovi pojavljuju, kritikovana je definicija neutralnog pravnog posla predviđena u čl. 64 Porodičnog zakona i zauzeto je stanovište da neutralne pravne poslove treba razumeti kao pravne poslove koji ne donose nikakvu pravnu korist niti pravni uštrb licu koje ih preduzima. Pošto konstatuje da je preduzimanje svakog pravnog posla skopčano za određenim uštrbima (pravnim, vaspitnim direktnim, indirektnim, izvesnim i neizvesnim), autor u drugom delu rada analizira koje uštrbe treba smatrati relevantnim. Nakon izlaganja različitih shvatanja koja postoje u stranoj teoriji i sudskoj praksi (teorija o razlikovanju neposrednih i posrednih uštrba, teorija o ekonomskom načinu posmatranja, teorija o starateljskom načinu posmatranja), autor zauzima stanovište da su relevantni svi izvesni pravni uštrbi, tj. oni uštrbi koji se ispoljavaju u pravnoj sferi i koji nastaju na osnovu činjenica koje su objektivno utvrdive u momentu preduzimanja pravnog posla.

Under Article 64 of the Serbian Family Law Act (2005), a minor can independently undertake neutral legal transactions (neutrale Rechtsgeschafte), i.e. the transactions by which he or she does not assume any rights or obligations. This rule, shaped after a similar rule of German law, caused a number of controversies amongst Serbian lawyers and legal scholars. While some of them negate the idea of neutral legal transaction claiming that it represents a contradiction in terms; others do not reject the notion of neutral legal transactions, but have no settled catalogue of the legal transactions which qualify as neutral. The author offers a scrupulous and detailed comparative analysis of the rules on, and theoretical readings of, the neutral legal transactions; and lays open some practical situations in which these rules may apply. The author disapproves of the way in which the abovementioned rule of Serbian law is phrased, and argues that the term 'neutral legal transaction' should correspond to a legal transaction which does not produce any relevant legal advantage or disadvantage to the person who is undertaking it. The focal point of the notion of neutral legal transactions is the absence of any relevant legal benefits or drawbacks to the subject entering into such transaction, and not merely the fact that he or she does not assume any rights or obligations. The author asserts that every legal transaction causes certain drawbacks (legal, instructional, direct, indirect, certain, uncertain) to the subject and thus tries to detect the drawbacks which should be deemed relevant. To this end, the author scrutinizes different theories developed in some foreign legal doctrines, such as the theory of direct v. indirect drawbacks the theory of economic drawback, the custodian theory. He concludes that relevant legal disadvantages (drawbacks) should be those which are certain that is those which manifest themselves in the legal sphere, and originate from the facts which are objectively detectable at the moment of entering a neutral legal transaction.