Datio kao pretpostavka primene kondikcije u rimskom pravu

Abstract

Kondikcija predstavlja tužbu koja je nastala u rimskom pravu koja je služila za povraćaj stvari koju je tuženi neosnovano stekao na teret tužioca. Formula kondikcije sadržala je tužiočevo tvrđenje da je tuženi dužan da da (dare oportere) koja pretpostavlja da je tuženi prethodno stekao stvar tako što mu je tužilac preneo u svojinu (datio). U radu se analiziraju fragmenti iz Digesta u kojima se formularna kondikcija primenjuje iako ne postoji datio to jest predaja stvari tužioca u svojinu tuženom. Zaključak do koga se dolazi jeste da su rimski pravnici u cilju sankcionisanja što većeg broja slučajeva neosnovanog sticanja na tuđ račun proširivali polje primene kondikcije. To proširenje ostvareno je na nekoliko načina. Jurisprudenti su dodeljivali kondikciju u određenim slučajevima u kojima prenos svojine nije bio punovažan (condictio de bene depensis). Pored toga oni su primenjivali kondikciju i kada je tužilac neosnovano izvršio neku drugu činidbu u korist tuženog koja nije bila usmerena na prenos svojine i tako proširivali pojam datio. Najposle, rimski pravnici su dodeljivali kondikciju i u određenim slučajevima u kojima neosnovano sticanje tuženog nije prouzrokovano činidbom tužioca (condictio sine datione). Sankcionisanje neosnovanog sticanja tuženog do koga je došlo ne samo činidbom tužioca već i radnjom tuženog, trećeg lica ili prirodnim događajem govori u prilog shvatanja kondikcije kao preteče savremenog instituta neosnovanog obogaćenja čija svrha je upravo sankcionisanje imovinske koristi neosnovano stečene na bilo koji način.

Condiction represents an action that was created in Roman law and was used for the restitution of a thing which the defendant had acquired without legal grounds at the plaintiff's expense. The formula of condiction contained a plaintiff's claim that the defendant was obliged to give (dare oportere), suggesting that the plaintiff had previously transferred the ownership of a thing to the defendant (datio). This paper analyzes the fragments from Digesta in which condiction applies even without datio, i.e. transfer of ownership to the defendant. The conclusion we arrived at stipulates that Roman jurists, in order to sanction as many cases as possible of acquisition without legal grounds at the expense of another, expanded the scope of condiction application. Such expansion was accomplished in several ways. Roman jurists granted condiction in certain cases where the transfer of ownership was not valid (the so-called condictio de bene depensis). In addition, they applied condiction when the plaintiff executed some other act other than the transfer of ownership at the benefit of the defendant. In that way they extended the concept of datio. Finally, Roman jurists granted condiction even in the cases when the defendant's acquisition was not caused by the performance of the plaintiff (the so-called condictio sine datione). Imposing sanctions on acquisition without legal grounds at the expense of another, which occurred not only by the act of the plaintiff but also by the act of the defendant, the third person, or a natural cause, speaks in favor of understanding condiction as a predecessor of the modern institution of unjust enrichment, whose purpose is exactly the prohibition of acquisition of an economic benefit without legal grounds at the detriment of another.