| Sažetak | U rimskoj pravnoj tradiciji stvarnopravno osiguranje tražbina razvijalo se kroz fiduciju, pignus i hipoteku. Njihove temeljne značajke i razvoj obrađene su na početku rada kao uvod u centralnu temu – višestruko zalaganje, odnosno, zalaganje istog predmeta ili prava u korist više vjerovnika, koje je upravo razvojem hipoteke kao ugovornog zaloga bez posjeda stvari postalo primjenjivo, a pred kraj klasičnog doba toliko uobičajeno da je zahtijevalo posebnu regulaciju i razvoj brojnih specijalnih pravila. Višestruko zalaganje u rimskom pravu moglo je nastati na tri načina – utemeljenjem podzaloga te istovremenim ili sukcesivnim zalaganjem iste stvari više vjerovnika. Upravo treći oblik nastanka je bio i najčešći, ali i najproblematičniji budući da vjerovnici zbog nedostatka publiciteta nisu mogli znati za postojanje eventualnog ranijeg prava kojim je stvar opterećena ukoliko o tome ne bi bili obaviješteni od strane dužnika. Obavijest o postojanju ranijih prava je bila obveza dužnika te bi odgovarao ako bi namjerno zatajio tu informaciju, osim ako je vrijednost zaloga bila veća od zbroja tražbina koje je osiguravala. Mogućnost zasnivanja više založnih prava na istoj stvari zahtijevala je razvoj pravila o prioritetu naplate u slučaju prodaje zaloga pri čemu je osnovno pravilo izraženo načelom prior tempore, potior iure – prvi u vremenu bio je jači u pravu te je imao prednost pred svim ostalim vjerovnicima. Izvori svjedoče kako je jedino prvi vjerovnik imao pravo prodaje zaloga, u kojem slučaju bi prestalo i njegovo, ali i založno pravo daljnjih vjerovnika. Nakon što bi namirio svoju tražbinu, preostali višak išao bi kasnijim vjerovnicima prema redu prvenstva, a eventualni krajnji višak založnom dužniku. Temeljno načelo narušeno je, naročito u kasno carsko doba, kada je stvaranjem privilegiranih hipoteka uređeno da određena založna prava imaju prednost pred svim drugim založnim pravima neovisno o vremenu kada su nastala, a neka od njih su i analizirana u radu. Privilegiranje određenih tražbina dovelo je u pitanje i sigurnost namirenja prvog vjerovnika, koji nikada nije mogao biti siguran da stvarno i je prvi. Također, redoslijed naplate mogao se mijenjati sporazumom između vjerovnika međusobno sa ius offerendi, a i sporazumom dužnika i vjerovnika putem succesio in locum, kojim pravima su kasniji vjerovnici mogli stupiti na mjesto ranijeg. Prvenstveni red založnih prava bio je važan i zbog toga što su prava kasnijih vjerovnika, za razliku od prvog vjerovnika, bila ograničena. Navedeno se ogleda u činjenici da su založni dužnik, kasniji vjerovnici, ali i svaka treća osoba mogli biti tuženi sa actio hypothecaria prvog vjerovnika, dok su kasniji vjerovnici imali pravo podnošenja tužbe protiv dužnika i trećih osoba, ali ne i protiv ranijeg koji je imao prigovor jačeg prava. U radu su analizirani tekstovi rimskih pravnika, kao i carske konstitucije koje razjašnjavaju navedenu tematiku i jasno ukazuju na visoku razinu pravničke djelatnosti kojom su regulirani različiti problemi koje je višestruko zalaganje stvaralo u rimskoj pravnoj tradiciji. |
| Sažetak (engleski) | In the Roman legal tradition, real security of claims was developed through fiducia, pignus and hypothec. Their basic features and development are discussed at the beginning of the thesis as an introduction to the central theme – multiple pledges, which means pledging of the same object or right in favor of several creditors, which precisely with the development of the hypothec as a contractual pledge without possession of things became applicable, and towards the end of the classical era was so common that required special regulation and the development of numerous special rules. Multiple pledges in Roman law could arise in three ways – by establishing sub-pledges, or by simultaneous or successive pledges of the same thing to several creditors. Precisely the third form of creation was the most common, but also the most problematic due to the lack of publicity, since creditors could not know about the existence of a possible earlier right with which the res is encumbered unless they are informed about it by the debtor. Notification of the existence of earlier charges was the obligation of the debtor, and if he deliberately withheld this information, he would be liable, unless the value of the pledge was higher than the sum of the claims it secured. The possibility of establishing multiple pledges on the same thing required the development of rules on billing priority in the case of sale of pledge, where the basic rule is expressed by the principle prior tempore, potior iure – the first in time is stronger in law and had priority over all other creditors. Sources testify that only the first creditor had the right to sell the pledge, in which case his lien, as well as that of further creditors, would cease. After his debt had been satisfied out of the price from the sale of pledge, the remaining surplus would go to later creditors in order of priority, and any final surplus to the debtor. The fundamental principle was violated, especially in the late imperial era, when by creating privileged hypothecs it was regulated that certain liens have priority over all other liens regardless of the time when they were created, and some of them are analyzed in the thesis. The privileging of certain claims also brought into question the payment security of the first creditor, who could never be sure that he was really the first. Also, the priority order could be changed by mutual agreement between creditors with ius offerendi, and by agreement of debtor and creditor with succesio in locum, by which rights later creditors could take the place of earlier ones. The priority order was also important because the rights of subsequent creditors, unlike the first creditor, were limited. The above is reflected in the fact that the debtor, later creditors, but also any third party could be sued with the actio hypothecaria of the first creditor, while later creditors had the right to file a lawsuit against the debtor and third parties, but not against the earlier one who had an objection of stronger right. The thesis analyzes the texts of Roman jurists, as well as the imperial constitutions that clarify the mentioned topic and clearly indicate the high level of legal activity that regulated the various problems that the multiple pledge created in the Roman legal tradition. |
