Search

Romuald Hube was one of the most prominent Polish legal historians of the 19th century. He was also a very active jurist who was a member of several governing authorities in the Kingdom of Poland. As a very distinguished lawyer, characterized by a loyalistic attitude towards the government of the Kingdom of Poland, he was appointed to a Commission whose goal was to codify Russian law and unify with it the law in force in the Kingdom of Poland. The most significant of these codifications the result of Romuald Hube’s work was the Code of Principal and Corrective Penalties issued for Russia in 1845, and in 1847 for Poland. The introduction of this Code, which was very critically received by the Polish society, brought down a wave of criticism on Romuald Hube, related not only to the legal solutions adopted in this Code itself, but above all to the role he played in the repressive policies of the Russian authorities against the Polish population. Romuald Hube’s participation in the creation of the Code still raises many controversies in Polish academic circles.

The article provides a comparative analysis of the legislative proposals contained in the Draft Code on Obligations and Contracts and the Predraft of the Civil Code of the Republic of Serbia. The text explains the historical development of the life care contract in Serbian legislation and the circumstances that formed it and placed it into codification devoted to law on inheritance. The author is strongly critical of the proposals in the Predraft because its authors did not take advantage of the opportunity to create new rules that would be adequate in contemporary circumstances, but rather copied the existing rules of the Law on Inheritance, which have long been recognized as deficient in certain aspects. The author concludes that the life care contract deserves a new and more comprehensive legislative regime, which would respond to practical needs and solve existing dilemmas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The history of creation of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, its current status and prospects of further development are investigated in the article. Chapter «The Past» describes how the Civil Code was drafted, its major achievements and meaning for the creation of the legal system of Kazakhstan as well as a number of the Civil Code failures. Chapter «The Present» addresses the main stages of development of civil legislation and suggests that Kazakhstan has entered the fourth stage - the stagnation, elements of which are the corruption, prevailing of the municipal over the state interests, impossibility of adoption of any significant amendments to legislation. Chapter «The Future» indicates three main ways of the civil law development: 1) improvement of the Civil Code; 2) adoption of the Fundamental Principles of Civil Legislation of EuroAsian Economic Community member countries; 3) adoption of the Entrepreneurial Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The first way of the civil law development is examined as the primary one, the second way is criticized but analyzed as a quite possible, and the third way is defined to be a deadend. The article suggests that the Entrepreneurial Code cannot achieve the aim of unification of all the existing laws related to the entrepreneurial activity and criticizes the developed Entrepreneurial Code, proposes to draft a Law on Entrepreneurial activity instead of the Entrepreneurial Code. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issues on the creation of Galician Civil Code in 1797 are covered in the article. Galician Civil Code is proved to be one of the first civil law codifications in the world. The author suggests the analysis of historical and legal background in creation of Galician Civil Code and investigates its structure and content of separate articles. The comparison of the provisions of the Galician Civil Code with modern civil law is stated in the article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses fiduciary agreements, which, as a form of contract, that is the means of securing obligation and legal claims, are regulated by provisions of specific laws and codifications in some of the European Union countries. Even the Montenegrin legislator enacted a special law governing these legal matters, however in the Serbian law fiduciary agreements fall into the category of innominate contracts. Fiducia originates in the Roman Law and constitutes the first common form of the pledge law. The Latin term fiducia means „trust“, since these legal matters were, first of all, based on the trust between contractual parties. This paper addresses the institution of „trust“ as it is the Anglo-Saxon counterpart of the fiduciary agreement. Etymologically, „trust“ has the same meaning as the term fiducia - trust. Due to their advantages, fiduciary agreements are not even uncommon in the domestic legal practice, while there are certain, as we have already announced, theoretical, but also practical concerns arguing admissibility of this legal matter. These arguments mainly come down to the thesis (mentioned above) that entering into the fiduciary agreement results in violation of the ban on performance of contract lex commissoria in the pledge law. Nevertheless, I provided explanation that differences between contracts of pledge and fiduciary agreements clearly point to the conclusion that fiduciary agreements may not be treated as a pledge, hence they are admissible, that is, they are concluded on the principle of contractual freedom as an imperative norm of the Law on Obligations. Fiduciary agreements (in relation to the realistic means of security) offer to the creditor a higher level of security, reduce the period of payment of his claims, also providing practical benefits for the debtor himself. The paper presents the reasons supporting the view that it would be advantageous for the Serbian legislator, in the process of harmonisation of the legislation in the field of Civil Law with the European Union law, to regulate the institute of fiduciary agreements under the special law, integrate it into the Law on Obligations or make it a part of the future Civil Code of the Republic of Serbia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Republic of Serbia has built an extensive and comprehensive system of inspection control in the field of environmental protection. Through the specialization on various environmental issues in different areas of social life it is provided the comprahensiveness of inspection control, and through the establishing a wide network of environmental inspection services, it is created a fundamental prerequisite for the good functioning of the inspection in the field of environmental protection. The current organization of inspection services, however, represents only the initial legal basis, which should be further improved, for the possibility of effective exercise of the inspection in this area of ??social life. First of all, it should be made a detailed codification of legal rules on inspection control, by adoption a general law on inspection control, and then pass a special law on inspection control in the field of environmental protection, by which it would be introduced all standards set by Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 4 April 2001 providing for minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the Member States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After the Serbian Civil Code came out of force, property law in Serbia has not been systematically regulated. A number of statutory lacunae, a long-term practice of inadequate regulatory acts for property relations, poor quality of certain regulations, overwhelming number of pieces of legislation where property legal norms have been scattered, brought about the legal uncertainty in matters of property law. The most prospective solution for the given problem would be a new civil code or a new statute (code) which would comprehensively regulate property law. Despite the fact that these problems and the need to codify property law have been known, and that solutions have been advocated together with some efforts to achieve them, no significant progress has been made. The reason might be far simpler than it could seem at the first glance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Serbia as a member of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia had the Law on General Administrative Procedure since 1930, only five years after Austria who was the first country in the world which codified administrative procedure 1925. This Law was applicable till the end of the World War II. A socialist Yugoslavia adopted its first law on general administrative procedure in 1956. This Law was amended several times, but never substantial. Instead, they carried out minor changes and amendments to this Act, mostly concerning only terminology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]