Search

The paper sheds light on the articles of Serbian press from Hab sburg Monarchy related to the codification of law in Serbia. The authors shall discuss the columns of Serbska novina (Magazin za knjižestvo, hudokestvo i mo du), Serbske narodne novine, Srbski dnevnik, Svetovid, Srbobran and Napredak in relation with the long way paths to the introduction of civil, criminal and com mercial code, as well as codes of civil and criminal procedure for the Principality of Serbia. The trueness of the news shall be subject to examination, and the necessary explanations on the unclear spots of the newspaper articles shall be provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reveals new data on first attempts of codification of civil law in the Prinipality of Serbia. The attempts lasted from 1S27, the year in which prime codification works are recorded, to 1837, when French Civil Code was rejected as a role model offuture Serbian code. The revelations came from archive materials and non-Serbian literature and press. They are related to the work of the first and second codification committee, draft civil code composed between 1834 and 1837 and some details regarding the engagement of expert lawyers for the purpose of drawing up civil code. [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]

The article sheds light on the first attempts to codify civil procedure in Serbia, in the period between 1829 and 1844. Predominantly focused on the earliest code-preparing works in the fields of penal and civil law, Serbian legal history neglected the third, equally important compilation -- code of civil procedure. The quantity of hitherto established data on this subject did not suffice. It was known, for instance, what foreign code served as a model in the very beginning of lawgiving work. Serbian legal history was also acquainted with the fact in what manner two future codifiers -- a member of Novi Sad City Council Jovan Hadžić and the mayor of Zemun Vasilije Lazarević, declared on the contents of the draft produced prior to their arrival in Serbia in 1837. Likewise, legal historian were familiar with the datum that Hadžić and Lazarević had been initially drafting new code in concert, but later divided jobs, so that thenceforth Lazarević alone was tasked with its creation. Exclusive of certain data of lesser significance, nothing was determined in relation to his work whatsoever. Leaning on disposable information, the author made an effort to deepen knowledge on prime codificatory works in this field. In terms of the earliest phase of codification, he expected to acquire new data with the help of foreign literature. Regarding Lazarević's work on the code, however, the author undertook a research in the archives believed to possess valuable documents. Having attentively scrutinized some allegations presented in the correspondence between the president of so-called Legislative Commission (established in 1829 and tasked with production of the code) and Serbian language reformer Vuk Karadžić and his associate Jernej Kopitar, the curator of Austrian Court Library, the author sought for unidentified volumes cited as recourse in the process of code-preparing. By reason of some publications showing a large extent of consistence with the unfamiliar works referred to in Karadžić and Kopitar's letters, the author proposed the hypothesis that the indicated were supplementary literature in Legislative Commission's work. Nonetheless, he failed to obtain any data as for the contents of subsequently prepared Legislative Commission's draft code. Research through archival materials was fecund solely to a degree. A number of utile details were ascertained, among which one should accentuate the terms of contract between Lazarević and Serbian government on the preparation of the draft code, more circumstantiating disclosures on the dispute over the interpretation of the aforementioned agreement and consignment of the compendium. Per contra, very few findings pertain to the contents of Lazarević's draft. Save new discoveries appertaining the very outlook of the produced draft codes, further progress in the scientific research on this topic can not be made. New materials enabling continuance of undertaken exposition of the inceptive codification ought to be found in Croatian State Archives (Hrvatski državni arhiv) and Austrian State Archives (Österreichisches Staatsarchiv), whose documents are oftentimes cited in antecedent works concerning this question. Withal, one may never exclude the possibility of detecting unexposed documents in Serbian archives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critiques of Serbian Civil Code of 1844 were presented in this paper. Namely, Serbian Code was not an original work, but rather abridged version of Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch). Critics objected to author of the Code Jovan HadžIć that he took himself too much liberty in his redaction work, so that some provisions become unclear. HadžIć was also criticized for very difficult language and style of codification and sometimes inaccurate legal terminology. But mostly HadžIć was criticized for miscomprehension of the legal nature of so-called zadruga (extended family, common among South Slavs), product of customary law. The entire institute of zadruga was regulated rather superficially, so that sometimes it was considered as a legal entity and sometimes as a condominium. Therefore, critiques of the provisions on zadruga were particularly examined in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article sheds light on some unfamiliar details related to Penal Code Draft for Serbia from 1839, authored by the mayor of Zemun Vasilije Lazarevic. As this document to a large extent remained neglected in monographs and articles in relation with codification of criminal law in Serbia in 19th century, the author resolved to explore this topic thoroughly. Archival materials provided solid basis to learn more information in terms of what occurred to forgotten draft after Ministry of Justice had received it. Lazarevic consigned his draft to Minstry of Justice between the end of July and beginning of October 1839. Not long afterwards, the Ministry proposed State Council to form a committee tasked with revision of the draft. State Council rejected the proposal, instructing the Ministry to appoint persons to revise the draft on its own. Only when they have finished revision, the draft would be examined by the State Council's committee. In the following year, 1840, Ministry of Justice requested Prince Mihailo Obrenovic (1839-1842, 1860-1868) to elect members of the committee to revise Lazarevic's draft. Not having jurisdiction over fullfillment of such request, the prince recommended State Council to do so. State Council opted for Minister of Justice Stefan Stefanovic-Tenka, legislator Jovan Hadžic, judge of Appellate Court Lazar Zuban and head of Department of Police and Economics in Ministry of Internal affairs Stefan Radicevic. However, due to turbulent political climate in Serbia, the committee was unable to execute its duty. In 1841, a new committee was formed by State Council. It was made up of member of State Council Golub Petrovic, Minister of Justice Stefan Radicevic, head of Department of Quarantine and Sanitation in Ministry of Internal Affairs Jovan Stejic and professor of law Jovan Raic. Existing historical sources and literature reveal contradictory data regarding the committee's activity. The last commission was appointed in 1843, and it included member of State Council Lazar Zuban, head of Department of Ministry of Justice Sava Šilic, president of Belgrade District Court Lazar Arsenijevic-Batalaka and legislator Jovan Hadžic. The committee had only partly revised the draft, after which it lied in the archives of State Council. At initiative of Department of Justice, State Council adopted the resolution that new drafts of Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure should be composed, which meant Lazarevic's work ceased to represent basis for codification of criminal law. Lacking information on the contents of the draft and observations of committees, available archival materials do not allow to draw resolute conclusions on the topic. Nevertheless, the records of Petrovaradin Border Regiment kept in Croatian State Archives in Zagreb, some of which contain data on early codification of criminal and civil law in Serbia, may potentially offer more explanations to this subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]