Search

Several topics are covered in the paper. Firstly, a list of sources of law which regulates the issue of the jurisdictions of provincial governors is given form the broader ones to the narrower ones. Jurisdiction of а provincial governor used to come into being in the moment of his entrance to the province. In case he leaves it, his jurisdictions would stop and he would become a private individual. The substitution of the personal jurisdiction of provincial governors, which was significantly shaken by the constitution of Caracalla in 212, with the territorial one, appears to be obvious at the end of the Dominate. The governor used to have civil and military jurisdictions. The former included judicial and administrative powers. Judicial jurisdictions were comprised of those in criminal and those in civil matter. Out of scope of the civil matter, only the examples of the jurisdictions of provincial governors in the matter of property law have been covered in this paper, which, according to the tripartition of Gaius, amounts to ius quod ad res pertinet. Provincial governors were authorised to adjudicate on almost all disputes arising from the everyday life during the formation, protection and termination of rights, not only those related to possessio, dominium, and iura in re aliena, but also those in the matter of obligationes and inheritance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article sheds light on provisions of legislation on civil procedure of Serbia from 1865 concerning evidence in civil lawsuits, such as: testimony of witnesses, documentary evidence, experts testimony that is often necessary so that the trial judge can properly understand scientific or technical issues relevant to the lawsuit, and different kinds of oaths. Evidence is fundamental to the outcome of any civil litigation because, ordinarily, the facts in a civil lawsuit must be proved by evidence, and the judge will decide the civil case on the evidence adduced by the parties. As being fully aware of its significance, the author of the Code, minister of justice Rajko Lešjanin dedicated 125 paragraphs to evidence in civil lawsuits. They had been very carefully drafted after thorough and detailed discussion between the author of the draft and the State Councilʹs Commission. In 1872, minister of justice Stojan Veljković drafted amendments and supplements to a certain number of articles regarding proofs in litigation but, since Veljkovićʹs document was never enacted, these articles were left unrevised. However, a few paragraphs concerning evidence in civil cases were altered in 1885 and 1901. All aforementioned amendments and supplements, as well as provisions that remained intact during the whole period that the Code was in force, were meticulously scrutinized in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article sheds light on regulations regarding civil procedure issued in Montenegro at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. They deal with various subjects, above all with jurisdiction of civil courts, with deadlines for filing an appeal and with the issue of the finality of judgments as these are the most important questions in civil lawsuits, and, as such, above-mentioned rules were carefully scrutinized in the paper. These first written procedural rules adopted by the Ministry of Justice, the State Council and the Grand Court were very important considering the fact that they introduced modern principles in civil litigations, such as the principles of orality, immediacy, publicity, contradiction, material truth and free judicial evaluation of evidence. However, without the unification of procedural law a speedy and efficient trial and adequate protection of the subjective rights of parties to the proceedings could not be ensured. Only a proper Code of civil procedure could entirely meet these requirements. Montenegrin lawmakers had been fully aware of this fact and so in November 1905 the Code on Judicial Proceedings in Civil Lawsuits for the Principality of Montenegro was enacted. When the aforementioned Code entered into force, the codification endeavor in the field of civil procedural law was completed. Its content, structure and general features were meticulously analyzed in the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In civil law, a complaint is the very first formal action taken to officially begin a lawsuit. It contains the allegations against the defense, the specific laws violated, the facts that led to the dispute, and any demands made by the plaintiff to restore justice. If a complaint is incomplete in a way that it does not comprise all the necessary facts and legal reasons sufficient to support a claim against the defendant, it can lead to judicial errors and breaches of laws. That is a reason why precise and detailed legal regulation regarding initial document in a lawsuit is of great significance for plaintiff′ s success in litigation. The author of Code of Civil Procedure from 1865 was fully aware of this fact and therefore complaint was meticulously regulated in 23 paragraphs. As these provisions were in all respects satisfactory, they were not amended during the whole period that the Code was in force. Minister of Justice Stojan Veljković, however, proposed amendments to a few paragraphs concerning complaint in his draft from 1872 but, since this document was never enacted, aforementioned provisions remained unrevised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article sheds light on provisions of legislation from 1865 concerning retrial as sole extraordinary legal remedy, its amendments and supplements, as well as judicial practice regarding repetition of judicial proceedings. Party in a civil lawsuit entitled to remedy was the plaintiff who had been considering himself aggrieved by a court decision from which no appeal was longer allowed, and who came into possession of new and important matter of evidence. It is necessary that, at the time when a decision was passed, that evidence, after the excercise of due dilligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him. Party might apply for a retrial only if there is strict proof for such allegation. Otherwise, when it appears to the court that there was not sufficient ground for a retrial, application would be rejected. Besides additional evidence, the paper also deals with other reasons to apply for a retrial, such as errors in judicial procedure and unlawfulnesses in court decisions. The author emphasizes that, according to provisions of Code from 1865, retrial could not had been granted without previous notice to the opposite party; nor could be retried lawsuit that had been adjusted by lawful agreement or compromise, with notably rare exceptions. This aforementioned restrictions in application of legal remedy were vitally important for preserving judicial authority, court efficiency and principle of legal certainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immigration of rural population from neighboring countries into the Princedom of Serbia started immediately upon the ending of the war period after the Serbian Revolution and had taken place with various intensities in the following decades. Serbian authorities tried to regulate this immigration by adop- tion of two general legal acts concerning all farmers - foreign citizens who wan- ted to settle in Serbia. These were Settlement of Foreigners Act introduced on February 27, 1865 and Settlement Act enacted on January 15, 1880. As they were passed under various historical conditions, they differed regarding the aims that had to be reached, but at the same time, as they treated the same subject - settle- ment, they had certain similarities too. According to both documents, settlers would receive from the Government certain amount of municipal land, assistan- ce in cattle, tools and money, as well as interest-free loans from the local autho- rities, but only if they apply for Serbian citizenship. Foreigners could not own real property until Serbia gained full independence in 1878. Still, even then, limitati- ons for realproperty acquisition of foreigners in Serbia were significant. Foreign citizens could obtain immovable property only if their country had signed billa- teral convention or trade agreement with Serbia that allowed such possibility, and if requirement of reciprocity and Most-Favoured-Nation treatment were fulfilled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article sheds light on provisions o f Codes o f Civil Procedure o f1853 and 1860 concerning ordinary legal remedies. As this matter was codified for the first time, a necessity o f amending and supplementing some provisions soon emerged. Those amendments and supplements, along with original provisions were examined in this paper. The author also deals with regulations on jurisdiction o f Court of Appeal, Court o f Cassation and Supreme court. Types and categories o f ordinary legal remedies were scrutinized, as well as strict time limits within one should lodge an appeal andproper grounds for making an appeal. The author also responds to questions under which circumstances are ordinary legal remedies allowed, and what types o f decisions a higher court can make after reviewing the correctness and reasonableness o f a decision issued by a lower court. Shortly after enactment o f the Code o f1853 it appeared that judicialprocedure is too complicated, expensive and ineffective due to too many legal remedies and legal jurisdictions. That is the reason why the Supreme court as the highest court within the hierarchy o f legal jurisdictions and as final court o f appeal was abolished in 1860, when new Code o f Civil Procedure had been passed. New codification envisaged Court o f Appeal as second instance court and, at the same time, court o f last resort. Regarding legal remedies, Code o f1860 introduced appeal as sole ordinary legal remedy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proposed amendments to the article 130 of Serbian Civil Code (henceforth: SCC) of 1844 regarding establishment of non-marital paternity were scrutinized in this paper. Originally, establishment of non-marital paternity was granted, but with significant restriction that presumed parent could have been declared the father of an illegitimate child only if he had recognized paternity. That is the reason why in 1855 the Supreme Court suggested amendment to the provision concerning determination of paternity. According to proposed modification, evidence that presumed father was on intimate terms with child᾿s mother in the time of conception should have been sufficient for establishment of paternity. As non-marital relationships were condemned in patriarchal Serbian 19th century society, illegitimate children were considered a product of sin and family disgrace. Hence, the Ministry of Justice, the State Council and Prince Aleksandar Karađorđević were not interested in bettering their position by widening possibilities of determination of fatherhood. Subsequently, in 1868 the amendment was passed by which non-marital paternity could not have been established by a court order, subject to certain exceptions (if one raped or abducted a woman, and the time of conception coincided with the time of abduction or rape). Since 1868 paternity could have been determined solely subject to the consent, i.e. recognition of the illegitimate father. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regulations and judicial practice regarding divisions of so-called zadrugas (extended families, common among South Slavs) during the first reign of Princes Miloš and Mihailo Obrenović are subject of this paper. It is also pointed to nonrecognition of zadruga᾿ s female members rights of successions in judicial practice, as a means of preventing partial dissolutions of patriarchal families. Namely, denial of women᾿ s property rights contributes to preserving wholeness of zadrugas, as women would leave their families after marriage and at that point they would single out their shares in zadruga᾽ s property. In the second half of the 1830s divisions of zadrugas became increasingly common. Attemps that had been made to diminish widespread fragmentation of zadruga᾽ s estate and decrease frequency of dissolution of extended families in legislation and judicial practice are examined in this paper. However, strict punishments could not stop divisions of traditional rural families, as they were in sharp contrast to market economy, prevailing private property and entire social-economic progress in 19th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]