University of Tuzla , Tuzla , Bosnia and Herzegovina
Za razliku od ranijeg stvarnog prava, prema kojem se savjestan posjed izvodio
iz prava vlasništva, prema novom stvarnom pravu ova, duboko ukorijenjena,
te, za materiju stvarnih prava, esencijalno važna kvaliteta posjeda, izvodi se iz
prava na posjed. Za ocjenu savjesnosti dovoljno je utvrditi da posjednik nije
znao niti mogao znati da nema pravo na posjed. Navedeno rješenje uslovljava
znatno drugačije postupanje u procesu primjene prava, što, međutim, u jednom
dijelu prakse, i nije slučaj. U cilju rasvjetljavanja ovog problema, te u cilju
pravilnog i ujednačenog postupanja, u radu je izvršena analiza novije sudske
prakse u materiji sticanja po osnovu građenja i zaštite povjerenja. Nova definicija
savjesnog posjeda također uslovljava i redefiniciju pravnih pravila o dosjelosti,
što je također jedan od problema istraživanja ovoga rada.
Unlike the earlier real law, according to which conscientious possession was
derived from the right of ownership, according to the new real law, this deeprooted and, for the matter of real rights, essentially important quality of possession,
is derived from the right to possession. For the assessment of conscientiousness,
it is sufficient to establish that the possessor did not know or could not have
known that he did not have the right to possession. The aforementioned solution
conditions a significantly different procedure in the process of applying the
law, which, however, is not the case in one part of the practice. In order to shed
light on this problem, and with the aim of proper and uniform treatment, the
paper analyzes recent judicial practice in the matter of acquisition based on
the construction and protection of trust. The new definition of conscientious
possession also conditions the redefinition of the legal rules on habitation, which
is also one of the research problems of this work.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonDerivative License.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.