{"title":"Mihailo Konstantinović i preuređenje građanskog prava u srpskom i ranijem jugoslovenskom pravu","authors":"Miodrag V. Orlić","doi":"10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk02a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk02a","url":null,"abstract":"The Serbian and previous Yugoslav public knows little about Mihailo Konstantinović, one of our greatest jurists. The reason for this is the fact that he published a modest number of scholarly papers. When asked why he had not written more, Konstantinović responded that he did not consider it beneficial to write treatises and commentaries in a situation where the laws did not exist or were not properly drafted. Hence, he decided to focus on writing laws and not books about law. After the Second World War, Konstantinović was the sole redactor of a number of draft laws in the most important fields of private law, i.e. family law, inheritance law and law of obligations. A number of his original texts have been amended or supplemented over time, but the fact remains that even today a significant number of his ideas guide legal relations in the countries of the former Yugoslavia.","PeriodicalId":32310,"journal":{"name":"Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44560654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"O protivpravnosti cesije u blokadi: prilog teoriji o postojanju zabranjenih ugovora koje ne prati sankcija ništavosti","authors":"Nenad Tešić","doi":"10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk13a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk13a","url":null,"abstract":"The author tries to resolve а legal issue raised in Serbian court practice: does the norm that prohibits the settlement of a monetary obligation via assignment of claims, in situations where the assignor’s account is blocked for the purpose of forced collection, represent by nature a norm: lex plus quam perfecta, or a norm: lex minus quam perfecta (Article 5 of the Law on Payments by Companies, Entrepreneurs and Natural Persons). According to the Serbian Supreme Court of Cassation, the misdemeanour liability for infringement of the prohibition of assignment cannot exclude the absolute nullity of legal transaction as a civil sanction, as specified in Article 103 of the Law on Obligations. On the contrary, the author argues that the repressive and preventive purpose of interpreted legal rule is achieved by the enhanced penalty, while the legal transaction undertaken contrary to the prohibition remains valid and in force.","PeriodicalId":32310,"journal":{"name":"Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44643490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Federalist Mihailo Konstantinović","authors":"Dragoljub Popović","doi":"10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk04a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk04a","url":null,"abstract":"Mihailo Konstantinović, together with his colleagues Mihailo Ilić and Đorđe Tasić, served as counsel to Prime Minister Dragiša Cvetković committed by Prince Regent Pavle to reach agreement with Vlatko Maček, the leader of the strongest Croatian political party. The August 1939 agreement resulted in the creation of the Banovina of Croatia, which thus obtained special status within the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Konstantinović took part in the negotiations and significantly contributed to the drafting of the accompanying decree. The intention of the parties to the agreement, in line with the Prince Regent’s, was in the direction of introducing federalism in Yugoslavia. Konstantinović very much engaged in such efforts and drafted a decree that was to create the Banovina of Serbian Lands. Political circumstances, as well as the war, impeded the implementation of such ideas, but Konstantinović nevertheless proved himself a convinced federalist.","PeriodicalId":32310,"journal":{"name":"Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44402557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Prinudni propisi u novijoj domaćoj sudskoj i ugovornoj praksi","authors":"Dragor Hiber","doi":"10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk16a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk16a","url":null,"abstract":"Freedom of contract and non-mandatory statutory rules are characteristics of the law on contracts. Mandatory provisions are exceptional and their violation leads to the invalidity of contract and other consequences. Freedom of contract assumes that the rules are non-mandatory, while the exception is to be determined. In a number of cases jurisprudence wavered, and the courts tend to defend their position that a rule is mandatory by invoking the unacceptable position that the statute has not explicitly allowed different contracting. By contrast, Anglo-Saxon legal institutions representations and warranties and put option are often incorporated in international agreements in which Serbia’s law is accepted as applicable, especially in agreements on the sale of shares in limited liability companies. In such cases the jurisprudence is not always willing to recognise and apply mandatory provisions of Serbia’s law. In the paper the examples of such practice are subject to a critical analysis.","PeriodicalId":32310,"journal":{"name":"Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43629674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Mihailo Konstantinović o radu na građanskom zakoniku u međuratnoj Jugoslaviji","authors":"Z. Mirković","doi":"10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk03a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk03a","url":null,"abstract":"The paper analyses the work on the codification of the civil code in interwar Yugoslavia and Mihailо Konstantinović’s opinion of that work, which lasted almost a decade and a half but did not lead to the adoption of the code. The paper describes the environment and circumstances in which the work on codification began, the main actors, their positions, the method of codification, and the outcome of that work – the creation of The Pre-Draft of the Civil Code for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Mihailo Konstantinović’s opinion on that work begins with the history of the creation of the Serbian Civil Code, and how it happened that the Austrian Civil Code was used as the basis, as opposed to the French Civil Code. Konstantinović’s arguments for why it was wrong to use the Austrian Civil Code, instead of the 1888 Montenegrin General Property Code are presented.","PeriodicalId":32310,"journal":{"name":"Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42586906","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Raskid ugovora: Skica i Zakon o obligacionim odnosima","authors":"Damjan Možina","doi":"10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk17a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk17a","url":null,"abstract":"The paper presents an analysis of the regulation of termination of contract due to a breach in the Yugoslav Law on Obligations (1978) and the Draft Code on Obligations and Contracts (1969), prepared by Mihailo Konstantinović. In the area of termination of contract, Konstantinović’s primary source of inspiration was the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods (ULIS, 1964). The regulation of breach of contract in the Draft Code is not based on a uniform notion of breach of contract, rather, there are different types of breaches: non-performance (debtor’s default), defective performance, and impossibility of performance. The Legislative Commission, making changes to the Draft Code, retained its structure, including the regulation of different types of breaches, but made changes with regard to termination of contract. Compared to modern model laws, these changes represent some of the key shortcomings of the regulation of this area in the Law on Obligations.","PeriodicalId":32310,"journal":{"name":"Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45803767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Obrisi ustanove prebijanja u srpskom pravu","authors":"Miloš Vukotić","doi":"10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk15a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk15a","url":null,"abstract":"This article contains a critical review of rules on set-off in Serbian legislation and court practice. The author provides a comprehensive overview of this institution by answering the main issues which arise in connection to set-off from the perspective of Serbian law. The research takes into account leading academic proposals for regulating set-off, as well as legislation, experience and academic discussions from legal systems which are closely related to Serbian law and may serve as a model. The author concludes that the Serbian Obligations Act provides adequate and clear rules, but that the accepted concept of set-off is being abandoned in European legal theory, which should be a reason to contemplate its fundamental reform. As the weakest point of Serbian rules on set-off, the author underlines set-off in judicial proceedings which has developed into a special type of set-off and undermined the idea of a unified substantive law of set-off.","PeriodicalId":32310,"journal":{"name":"Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48511296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Mihailo Konstantinović (1897–1982): pravnik koji je obeležio jednu epohu","authors":"Nina Kršljanin","doi":"10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk01a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk01a","url":null,"abstract":"The article provides a biographical overview of the life and work of Mihailo Konstantinović, professor at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law and corresponding member of the Yugoslav Academy of Arts and Sciences. This contribution covers his education, university and scientific career, political engagement, work on legislation and in professional associations. The article reflects on the contribution of Mihailo Konstantinović to Serbian legislation and jurisprudence and the recognition he deserved, as well as on the controversies of his life and work, concluding that a more detailed study of his character and work is undoubtedly necessary.","PeriodicalId":32310,"journal":{"name":"Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46185459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Oslobađajuće „pristupanje“ dugu: zaboravljeni institut iz Skice za zakonik o obligacijama i ugovorima","authors":"Marija Karanikić Mirić","doi":"10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk14a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk14a","url":null,"abstract":"All the provisions of the Yugoslav, and subsequently Serbian, Law on Obligations of 1978 relating to substitution of debtor, originate from the Draft Code on Obligations and Contracts of 1969. However, the rule according to which the creditor and the third party may expressly discharge the original debtor was omitted from the Law. The reasons for this exclusion have not been recorded. Also, the Draft fails to specify whether the original debtor may protest their own release, i.e., if their consent is necessary for the discharge. This article has two purposes: to explore how the ideas of Mihailo Konstantinović, the sole author of the Draft, on the subject of substitution of debtor developed over time, and to examine the omitted rule on liberatory “accession” to debt or, more precisely, the assumption of debt by agreement between the creditor and a third party.","PeriodicalId":32310,"journal":{"name":"Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46893486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Mihailo Konstantinović o pravu odgovora i zloupotrebi prava odgovora. A kao bonus: moje razumevanje instituta odgovora","authors":"Vladimir V. Vodinelić","doi":"10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk08a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.51204/anali_pfbu_22mk08a","url":null,"abstract":"Mihailo Konstantinović authored the region’s first monography on right of reply in 1926–1927. His monography promoted the French model of right to reply, as opposed to the German model adopted in local literature, the courts and legislation. He argued that French solution was stricter for the press, but less stringent for a rights holder. He defended the position of the relative nature of right, which could be controlled by implementation of the abuse of right doctrine. The author analyzes: the suitability of the terms réponse and others; rights close to right of reply; the purpose and nature of right of reply; exceptions to the right and prohibition of abuse of rights as subsidiary exception; the special place of right of reply among another subjective rights; right of reply not corresponding to legal binary code, representing a juncture of law and legal indifference; possessory protection vs. personality protection through reply.","PeriodicalId":32310,"journal":{"name":"Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45447225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}