Kulutuste kondiktsioon: teise isiku esemele tehtud kulutuste hüvitamine alusetu rikastumise õiguses
Date
2013-10-21
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Alusetu rikastumise õigus tegeleb ühe isiku varast teise isiku varasse õigusliku aluseta üleläinud hüvede tagasitäitmisega, ehk olukordadega, kus keegi on alusetult rikastunud. Alusetu rikastumisega võib tegemist olla muuhulgas näiteks siis, kui keegi on ilma igasuguse sellekohase kohustuseta teinud kulutusi (st kulutanud oma raha, materjali või tööjõudu) teise isiku esemele. Mitmetes Mandri-Euroopa õiguskordades on teise isiku esemele tehtud kulutuste hüvitamise alusena välja kujunenud eraldi alusetu rikastumise nõude liik, mida nimetatakse kulutuste kondiktsiooniks. Väitekirja põhieesmärk on leida vastus küsimusele, kas kulutuste kondiktsiooni regulatsioon Eesti õiguses võimaldab saavutada poolte huvide tasakaalu olukorras, kus isik on teinud teise isiku esemele kulutusi ilma seadusest või poolte kokkuleppest tuleneva aluseta. Selleks uuritakse töös kulutuste kondiktsiooni ajaloolist kujunemist ning analüüsitakse selle olemust ja funktsiooni kaasaja õiguses, samuti kulutuste kondiktsiooni piiritlemist muudest kulutuste hüvitamist võimaldavatest nõuetest. Töös jõutakse järeldusele, et kulutuste kondiktsioon võimaldab saavutada poolte huvide tasakaalu siis, kui nõude eelduste, sisu ja ulatuse määratlemisel võetakse arvesse selle kondiktsiooni suunitletust võlausaldaja varas tekkinud puudujäägi tagasitäitmisele. See tähendab esiteks, et võlgniku rikastumine ei ole kulutuste kondiktsiooni materiaalõiguslik eeldus, vaid kriteerium, mis mõjutab nõude ulatust. Teiseks tähendab see, et nõude maksimumulatus on piiritletud võlausaldaja tehtud kulutustega. Lisaks tuleb nõude eelduste sisustamisel silmas pidada ühelt poolt kulutuste kondiktsiooni seoseid teiste tsiviilõiguse instituutidega ning teiselt poolt seda, et kulutuste kondiktsioon on üldise alusetu rikastumise nõude kitsendamise vajaduse tõttu tekkinud erikoosseis, mitte igasuguse rikastumise väljaandmisele suunatud üldsäte. Samuti selgub töös, et kulutuste kondiktsiooni nõude ulatuse määratlemisel on poolte huvide tasakaalu saavutamiseks kohane kasutada diferentseeritud lähenemist sõltuvalt võlgniku hea- või pahausksusest.
Unjustified enrichment law is most often applied in order to reverse failed transactions but it also covers other kinds of cases where someone has obtained a benefit at the expense of another without there being a legal ground for that. One of such cases can be described as making expenditures on another person’s property without any legal ground therefor. In some European jurisdictions a separate type of unjustified enrichment claim has been developed to solve cases regarding such expenditures. This claim is called condiction of expenditures (or expenditure condiction). The central issue of this dissertation is the question of whether the regulation of expenditure condiction in Estonian law enables to achieve a balance between parties´ interests in a situation where a person has incurred expenditure with regard to another person´s property without a basis arising from law or an agreement between the parties. In order to answer that question, the author has analysed the historical development of expenditure condiction, it’s nature and functions and how to distinguish this condiction from other non-contractual claims which provide for compensation for expenditure incurred with regard to another person´s property. The author has concluded that a balance between parties´ interests can be achieved if in determining the prerequisites, the content and the extent of expenditure condition it is taken into account that the function of that condiction is restitution of the deficit in creditor’s assets. This means that the debtor’s enrichment cannot be regarded as a prerequisite of the claim but as a criterion for determining the extent of the claim, and that the extent of creditor´s claim can not exceed the value of expenditure. In addition, when construing the prerequisites of the expenditure condiction, its interrelations with other institutes of civil law on one hand, and its nature as a restriction of the general enrichment action on the other hand must be taken into account. Also, the author has concluded that in determining the extent of the claim under expenditure condiction, it is necessary to apply an approach which enables to modify the debtor’s liability pursuant to his good or bad faith.
Unjustified enrichment law is most often applied in order to reverse failed transactions but it also covers other kinds of cases where someone has obtained a benefit at the expense of another without there being a legal ground for that. One of such cases can be described as making expenditures on another person’s property without any legal ground therefor. In some European jurisdictions a separate type of unjustified enrichment claim has been developed to solve cases regarding such expenditures. This claim is called condiction of expenditures (or expenditure condiction). The central issue of this dissertation is the question of whether the regulation of expenditure condiction in Estonian law enables to achieve a balance between parties´ interests in a situation where a person has incurred expenditure with regard to another person´s property without a basis arising from law or an agreement between the parties. In order to answer that question, the author has analysed the historical development of expenditure condiction, it’s nature and functions and how to distinguish this condiction from other non-contractual claims which provide for compensation for expenditure incurred with regard to another person´s property. The author has concluded that a balance between parties´ interests can be achieved if in determining the prerequisites, the content and the extent of expenditure condition it is taken into account that the function of that condiction is restitution of the deficit in creditor’s assets. This means that the debtor’s enrichment cannot be regarded as a prerequisite of the claim but as a criterion for determining the extent of the claim, and that the extent of creditor´s claim can not exceed the value of expenditure. In addition, when construing the prerequisites of the expenditure condiction, its interrelations with other institutes of civil law on one hand, and its nature as a restriction of the general enrichment action on the other hand must be taken into account. Also, the author has concluded that in determining the extent of the claim under expenditure condiction, it is necessary to apply an approach which enables to modify the debtor’s liability pursuant to his good or bad faith.
Description
Keywords
alusetu rikastumine, kulutuste kondiktsioon, unjust enrichment, condiction of expenditures