Search

In this paper we are discussing the following issues: the development of the right to sell (ius vendendi) the pledge by the pledgee in case of pignus; the question of the basis of the pledgee's right to transfer the ownership onto the buyer as a non-owner, contrary to the 'nemo plus iuris' rule; and related to these, the question of the responsibility for eviction. Our main research question is, who will be responsible for the eviction of the pledged thing from the buyer - the creditor or directly the debtor? This question was very topical in ancient Rome. A significant number of sources evidence that pledging other peoples' things was frequent practice. This was enabled by the fact that land records as well as records of other things served primarily to secure tax collection, they were not accurate and were seldom available to private individuals. Following the casuistic solutions of classical jurists based on the bona fidei principle, we can find an answer to our question in the Justinian law: the debtor is directly responsible for the eviction of the sold pledge - an answer that is, in our opinion, also acceptable in the contemporary law.

It is less known that since the Severan Dynasty the creditor had the opportunity to ask the emperor for permanent ownership over the pledged thing (impetratio dominii). It is known, however, that the protection of the debtor's interests, given that it was easier to collect taxes from them than from large land-owners, was of utmost importance for imperial finances. Therefore, apart from prohibiting the stipulation of lex commissoria, as well as conditioning pactum Marcianum with just price of the pledged thing, the rights of the debtor were protected by subjecting impetratio dominii to several conditions. Imperatio dominii depended on a publicly announced previous attempt of sale as well as on its annulment in case the creditor continues to collect interest after the acquisition of ownership over the pledged thing. Unsatisfied with the lack of application of these conditions in practice, Justinian posted additional conditions for the application of this institute in 530: the obligation to attempt to sell the pledged thing within two years; to inform the debtor about it even after the expiration of this deadline, in order to give him the opportunity to pay his debt; to seek special approval of the emperor for the acquisition of ownership after the expiration of these deadlines; by introducing a subsequent possibility for the debtor to repurchase the pledge from the creditor within two years; making irreversible the creditor's ownership over the pledged thing only after the expiration of approximately four years; fair assessment of value of the pledged thing with the obligation of the creditor to return the surplus to the debtor as well as his right to request the payment of the outstanding amount from the debtor. This paper explores the emergence and evolution of imperatio dominii as well as the circumstances that lead to its emergence.

This paper tackles the sources of Roman law on construction and maintenance of public aqueducts and on the regulation of water usage. They show that in ancient Rome public aqueducts served public welfare (utilitas publica) because their primary purpose was to supplying the urban population with free drinking water. Given that these ancient rules also contributed to the overall health of the population by securing drinking water and water for personal hygiene, they can also be regarded a significant environmental measures. Although contemporary engineering of water supply network and technology of water purification overcame the ancient Romans, in certain aspects this ancient example deserves to be followed. First, there could be free drinking water for general use. Second, private water usage could be controlled and rationalized. This could be achieved by installing separate water meters for each apartment in residual bundling.

The principle of aequitas allows to take into account circumstances of a particular case, going beyond the strict meaning of the applicable legal norm. Moreover, if these circumstances occur frequently, the principle opens the door for the modification of the norm in question. This paper follows the application of aequitas and its impact on the development of law during the Roman history. We can generally conclude that the application of aequitas in pre-classical Roman law led to breaking off with strict forms of the old ius civile harmonizing the law with the needs of the republican society. This can be attributed to the activities of praetor, pre-classical jurists and judges, and to the introduction of the iudicia bonae fidei. In the classical period, authorized jurisconsults interpreted the law in line with equity, through their responsa or as members of the consilium principis preparing rescripts of the princeps. Although this has been done under the emperor's control, interpreting small, private, everyday legal problems of citizens lead to the development of technical rules of private law. These rules are still valid today. In the post-classical period, given the general crisis of the Roman society, the preservation of the Empire was designated as the public interest (utilitas publica). Under these circumstances post-classical jurists had no longer the possibility to creatively interpret the law. Moreover, starting from Constantine, the issuance and control of equitable implementation of the rescripts was reserved for the emperor, these being referred to the privileges and exemptions from various burdens and obligations. Finally, Justinian proclaimed that the emperor is the only creator and interpreter of the law: 'conditor et interpres legum'. He determined what was equitable following Christian ideology and the interest of the Empire (utilitas publica).

In regard to one provision of the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 10, 1, 12) stating the rule that 'on the place of one cut down cypress tree more should be planted' the author discusses the sources of Roman law on the protection of trees and forests. The author comes to the conclusion that this provision in essence incorporates the old, generally accepted rule of the Roman society on the protection of trees and forests. The author also shows that in the classical and post-classical period the protection of trees and forests was under the special control of the imperial treasury because the trees were considered to be a type of natural resource.

Iudicia bonae fidei is a civil procedure in which the judge has an ex officio obligation to safeguard bona fides, that is, to take into account the parties' conduct demonstrated in their underlying relationship that lead to a dispute that was contrary to the principle of good faith. This duty of the judge is based on the praetors' formula: judge oblige the defendant to give or do whatever good faith requires ('quidquid dare facere oportet ex fide bona'). The paper analyzes the much disputed issues of the emergence, legal basis as well as the function of this kind of procedure in Roman law.

From the last century the process of harmonization and unification of the law on food safety for the protection of consumers in the European Union (EU) is ongoing. According to these rules, participants in the production and distribution of food have to respect the rules in all phases of production: 'From Farm to Fork'. Honoring of the rules is based on self-control and the responsibility of producers and distributors, and is subject to public control with appropriate sanctions by competent authorities of a Member State as well as the EU. In the Republic of Serbia, after singing the Stabilization and Association Agreement, the statutory law has been approximated with the laws of the EU. That however, is not sufficient. It is necessary to develop the self-control of producers as well as to organize an efficient public control, not only because this is a necessary condition for export of food products to the single market of the EU, or for the membership in the EU, but also for ensuring safe food in the internal market of Serbia.

The reason for this research is the opinion of Civilists that Roman law did not make any contribution in the area of lend recording. It is true that during the Roman history registration was not a necessary condition of acquiring ownership, as was the case in the German system of land registers, neither did Roman law contain all the principles of modern land registers. Nevertheless, it cannot be claimed that the modern land registry system is completely original. Elements of modern land registries existed already in Roman times. These were: the cadastres, the public (censor's) books and the requirement for written documents in transactions related to immovable property, especially in sales contract. It is not easy to reconstruct the elements of modern land registries in ancient Rome as available sources are in fragments; however there is sufficient basis to claim that modern land registries have their predecessor in Roman law.

Regarding the puzzling question of Roman law, why fides as a principle of behavior was changed during the pre-classical period into bona fides and whether the adjective bona changes the meaning of fides, the author comes to the following conclusions: The sources point to the fact that the fides was in archaic and pre-classical period used as a basic principle of behavior in public and as well in privat law relations of Romans with other nations. The Romans acted according to this principle also in their internal public law relations. Fides had a wide meaning: it meant behaving as a honorable and correct men, faith (honesty), trust and trustworthiness, as well as an obligation to protect the other party. In that sense fides was a universal principle. As far as the Romans themselves are concerned, fides had also a wider meaning and signified a behavior according to the rules of mos maiorum. The adjective bona appears to regulate newly emerged private law relations in the Roman society. The author joins the opinion of Carcaterra, that this adjective (which in documents sometimes stands alone), served for clarification of wide, and therefore also the undetermined notion of fides, in concrete private law relations. Bona was most probably at the beginning perceived as good behavior in accordance with the rules of mos maiorum. This way, by adding bona to fides started the creation of a new business ethics. Only after some time, in the light of solving more complex problems of business dealings by pre-classical and especially classical jurisprudence, bona fides turned into a standard of honest behavior in business relations. Taking into consideration that the concept of fides and bona fides relates not just business relations of Romans themselves, but also their business dealings with other nations, the following question emerges: was bona fides firstly introduced into the edict by the peregrine praetor, or this principle has been already applied earlier within ius civile? This question however, i.e. the emergence of bonae fidei iudicia, due to its complexity, will be discussed in a separate paper.

Having in mind that the lead coming from mines and foundries, from the water conducted thought the aqueducts and finally from food and wine, endangered to a great extent the health of Roman population, in this paper the author tackles the possible impact of lead from these sources onto human health (environment) in Ancient Rome, as well as the debated question whether the lead pollution was one of the factors that caused the fall of the Roman Empire.

In the process of creating the Roman Empire as well as thereafter during the struggle for its existence, the following question emerges: to which extent should be the acceding nations allowed to practice their deeply embedded customary rules? This question is important also nowadays in times of creation of the European Union and its unified legal system. In terms of the use of customs Rome has been changing its attitude depending on important changes in the society. In times of a rise, during the period of Republic, Rome was deciding on whether it will allow or forbid the acceding nations to continue living by their own customs and religious rules. Later, when the roman citizenship has been given to all inhabitants of the Empire by Caracalla's Edict (in the 212. year), a liberal approach has been taken. In the constitution of Alexander Sever, as well as in the fragments of the classical lawyers one can read about the obligation of the judge to take into account the customs. However, when the Empire got into a serious crisis and barbarian people came onto the roman land, a general boundary has been set towards the use of longlasting customs: these customs could be used, and potentially even have the force of a law, as long as they did not jeopardize the interests of the Empire (utilitas publica). The analyzed rules on the question can the potential future heirs dispose with the future heritage (the goods of a living person - bonis viventis) in the classical, post-classical and Justinian's law, points onto the fact that the postclassical cutomary rules, that were not in conflict with the interests of the Empire, contributed even to the changes of the rules of the classical roman law. In the taken example, the classical rule according to which the disposal with future heritage is null and void, is modified under the influence of a German custom in a way that, property division and disposal with the divided property by future heirs was allowed, provided the future de cuius gave his consent. However, when adopting this rule the law maker took into account the selfish interests of the Empire as well: the conversion of 'dead capital' into a 'live capital', from which the heirs could fulfill their fiscal duties. Hence, this custom was accepted not only because it was not in conflict with the public interests, but because it served its purpose.

In ancient Rome lead was used frequently. The most exposed to the noxiousness of lead were the miners and the workers that were treating the metal. The Romans noticed the lead caused illness with miners, but they nevertheless thought that small amounts of lead do not jeopardize the life of the rest of the population. Moreover, they used lead even for medical treatments. The ancient Romans were not conscious enough about the level of harmfulness of this metal for everyone's health, even for the wealthiest. New scientific methods proved a high level of environmental lead pollution at the time of the Roman Empire. Today, as the harmfulness of lead is scientifically proved, and is therefore eliminated as an addition to petrol. Moreover, most developed countries strive towards further elimination of lead from the environment. Serbia is only at the beginning of this process. Having in mind that in taking actions for the protection of environment we stay behind many countries, we should not take it only as part of the harmonization process with EU law, but as a common task that is in the interests of all.

In the first part of the paper we analyzed the sources on fiducia and pignus of the West from the late Roman Empire and early middle ages in order to find out whether dogmatical differences have been kept in a sense that in case of fiducia the ownership on the pledged thing is transferred onto the creditor and in case of pignus only the possession. We came to the conclusion that based on the analyzed sources it cannot be considered proven that in case of fiducia the ownership is transferred onto the creditor. Also, it cannot be claimed that the difference between fiducia and pignus is in the fact that one of these two forms of pledges transfers the possession while the other establishes a pledge without possession in favor of the creditor. In both cases it was up to the will of the parties to decide whether the thing will be handed over to the creditor or rather it will stay in the possession of the debtor charged by pledge in favor of the creditor. In this part in search for an answer on the question whether fiducia and pignus are synonyms or these terms rather relate to different kinds of pledges we are considering the following questions: 1. Was mancipatio still needed in case of fiducia and what was the meaning of mancipatio in those times? 2. In what relation are fides and fiducia? The paper will be concluded with giving answer on the question why fiducia was preserved in the sources of post-classical and early medieval West and in which sense. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]