Rei vindication in Roman Law with reference to contemporary Croatian law

Ovaj diplomski rad usmjeren je na analizu uređenja reivindikacije u rimskom pravu s osvrtom na njezino uređenje u suvremenom hrvatskom pravu. Uz uvodne riječi o pravu vlasništva koje je u praksi nezaobilazno pravo svakog pravnog subjekta i koje uživa svekoliku pravnu zaštitu kroz razna procesna sredstva, rad je nadalje u cijelosti posvećen upravo reivindikaciji kao osobito važnom procesnom sredstvu zaštite prava vlasništva. Rei vindicatio spominjala se još u Zakoniku 12 ploča, a bila je najvažnija tužba kviritskog vlasnika neposjednika za zaštitu njegova prava vlasništva i povrat posjeda. Da bi uspio u sporu, tužitelj je morao dokazati svoje pravo vlasništva, tuženikov posjed te identitet sporne stvari. Način navedenog dokazivanja razlikovao se ovisno o razvoju procesnih postupaka. Glavni tužbeni zahtjev tužitelja bio je usmjeren na predaju posjeda sporne stvari, a sporedni zahtjevi odnosili su se na naknadu koristi od stvari te na naknadu štete zbog pogoršanja ili propasti stvari. S druge strane, tuženik kao posjednik ili detentor sporne stvari mogao je zahtijevati naknadu troškova koje je imao na stvarima za vrijeme njegova posjeda. Pravno uređenje ove tužbe u rimskom pravu poslužilo je kao inspiracija za njezino uređenje u suvremenom hrvatskom pravu. To je vidljivo već u nazivu same tužbe koja se i dalje primjenjuje na latinskom izvorniku ili prilagođenoj inačici na hrvatskom jeziku pa sve do načina zaštite samog prava vlasništva koje se ostvaruje ovom tužbom. No, svako vrijeme nosi svoje potrebe i mogućnosti pa postoje i jasne razlike između uređenja ove tužbe nekad i sad. Počevši od šireg pojma vlasništva, proširenja aktivne legitimacije na vlasnika posrednog posjednika preko veće mogućnosti izbjegavanja takozvanog „đavolskog dokazivanja“ (probatio diabolica) do toga da prigovori i protuzahtjevi tuženika predstavljaju zasebne procesne radnje. Prikazavši položaj ove tužbe nekad u rimskom pravu i danas u suvremenom hrvatskom pravu, vidljiv je utjecaj rimskog prava na suvremene pravne sustave, a poglavito njegov utjecaj u području stvarnog prava.This paper elaborates on rei vindicatio in Roman law with a comparison to its regulation in contemporary Croatian law. Following the introductory analysis of the right of ownership, which in practice is an imperative right of each person or legal entity enjoying full legal protection through various procedural means, this paper further focuses entirely on rei vindicatio (“vindication of property”) as a particularly important procedural means of protecting the right of ownership. Rei vindicatio was mentioned as early as in the Laws of the Twelve Tables, and was the most important claim of a quiritary, nonpossessory owner for the protection of his property rights. To succeed in a litigation, the plaintiff had to prove his right of ownership, the defendant's possession and the identity of the object in dispute. The proof method differed depending on the development of procedural actions. The plaintiff's main claim was aimed at surrendering the possession of the object in question, and secondary claims were related to compensation of benefits from the thing and compensation of damage due to the deterioration or destruction of the thing. At the same time, the defendant, as owner or detainer of the thing in dispute, could seek compensation for the costs he incurred on the things during his possession. The legal regulation of this legal action in Roman law has been a model for its regulation in modern Croatian law. This is apparent not only from the name of the legal action, which continues to be used in the Latin original or the adapted version in the Croatian language, but also from the method of protection of the right of ownership pursued by this legal action. However, the needs and possibilities of the times change and there is a clear distinction between this legal action then and now. This distinction is reflected not only in a broader concept of ownership, where the capacity to sue to the owner in indirect possession and a greater possibility to avoid the so-called diabolical proof (probatio diabolica) was instituted, but also in the fact that objections and counterclaims of the defendant represent separate procedural actions. The overview of the position of this action previously in Roman law and today in modern Croatian law demonstrates the influence of Roman law on modern legal systems, especially its influence in the area of the law of property