| الوصف: |
V doktorski disertaciji so analizirani materialnopravni in postopkovni vidiki delitve solastne nepremičnine v slovenskem pravnem sistemu na teoretični in praktični ravni (slednje skozi kritično analizo slovenske sodne prakse) ter ponujene smotrnejše in učinkovitejše rešitve de lege ferenda, izhajajoč pri tem iz rezultatov primerjalnopravne analize pravnih ureditev Republike Avstrije, Zvezne republike Nemčije in Švicarske konfederacije (Švice). Poudarek je na vprašanju delitve solastne nepremičnine v sodnem postopku. Pri sporazumni delitvi solastniki probleme rešujejo z dogovorom, če to ni mogoče, pa se prav tako rešujejo v sodnem postopku. Stvarnopravni zakonik kot primarno določa sporazumno delitev solastne nepremičnine. Če ta ni mogoča, zakon ureja možnost sodne delitve solastne nepremičnine, pri čemer ima fizična delitev po samem zakonu prednost pred civilno delitvijo. Na predlog solastnika pa lahko sodišče namesto civilne delitve določi tudi delitev s prevzemom celotne solastne nepremičnine v izključno last tega solastnika proti izplačilu preostalih solastnikov. Izhodišče Stvarnopravnega zakonika je primerno, saj so interesi solastnikov najbolje zavarovani ravno pri fizični delitvi solastne nepremičnine. Deljivost stvari bi se zato morala v sodni praksi interpretirati čim širše. V doktorski disertaciji so podani predlogi kriterijev za ugotavljanje deljivosti solastnih nepremičnin, zlasti takih, na katerih stoji stavba in prihaja kompleksnost reševanja vprašanja deljivosti najbolj do izraza. O predlogu za delitev solastne nepremičnine odloči sodišče v nepravdnem postopku. Fizično delitev solastne nepremičnine sodišče dejansko v pretežnem delu izvede že tekom nepravdnega postopka ter izvršba na fizično razdelitev načeloma niti ni potrebna, ampak zgolj še vpisi v kataster in zemljiško knjigo. Drugače pa nepravdno sodišče civilne delitve tekom delitvenega postopka ne izvede, niti s sklepom ne določi modalitet civilne delitve (na primer z določitvijo dražbenih pogojev in podobno). Zato je izvedba civilne delitve, če je udeleženci postopka ne izvedejo v sporazumu izvensodno, prepuščena sodnemu postopku prostovoljne oziroma prisilne izvršitve, torej naslednji fazi – fazi izvršitve sklepa o delitvi. Natančna preučitev trenutno veljavne slovenske zakonodaje privede do sklepa, da sta sodna postopka prostovoljne in prisilne izvršitve sklepa o civilni delitvi pomanjkljivo in nekonsistentno urejena ter posledično tudi neučinkovita. Ta pomanjkljiva pravna ureditev vnaša v sodno prakso zmedo in številne protislovne sodne odločitve, kar je v nasprotju z načelom pravne varnosti. V doktorski disertaciji so vsi ti kompleksni problemi podrobno izpostavljeni, ponujeni številni predlogi za izboljšanje obstoječe pravne ureditve na področju (prisilne) izvršitve sklepa o civilni delitvi ter kritično analizirana obstoječa sodna praksa, vse tudi ob upoštevanju primerjalnopravnega vidika. The doctoral dissertation analyses the substantive law and procedural aspects of the division of immovable property in co-ownership in the Slovene legal system at the theoretical and practical levels (the latter by means of a critical analysis of Slovene case law), and proposes certain more expedient and efficient de lege ferenda solutions in light of the results of a comparative law analysis of the legislations of the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Swiss Confederation (Switzerland). The emphasis is on the division of immovable property in co-ownership in judicial procedures. In a consensual division, co-owners resolve issues by mutual agreement when this is not possible, the issues are resolved by means of a judicial procedure. The Code of Property Law prioritises the consensual division of immovable property in co-ownership. When such is not possible, the law provides for the possibility of the judicial division of immovable property in co-ownership, in which case, in accordance with the law, physical division has priority over the so called civil division (i.e. sale and division of a purchase price). Upon the proposal of a co-owner, the court can, instead of civil division, decide that this owner shall assume sole ownership of the entire immovable property in co-ownership by buying out the other co-owners. The starting point of the Code of Property Law is appropriate since the interests of co-owners are best protected by the physical division of immovable property in co-ownership. Therefore, the courts should interpret the notion of the divisibility of property as broadly as possible. The doctoral dissertation proposes draft criteria for determining the divisibility of immovable property in co-ownership, especially real property on which a building stands, with regard to which the complexity of the issue of divisibility is most evident. A proposal for the division of an immovable property in co-ownership is decided on by a court in a non-contentious civil procedure. Within this non-contentious civil procedure the court actually carries out the main part of the physical division of the immovable property in co-ownership. Thus, as a general rule, the judicial enforcement of such physical division is not necessary there only remains the act of entering the property at issue in the land cadastre and the land register. On the contrary, in a non-contentious civil procedure for dividing property the court does not carry out the civil division, nor does it issue a decision determining the modalities regarding civil division (e.g. by determining auction conditions and similar). Thus, when the parties to the procedure do not realise the civil division in a consensual manner out of court, such division is left to judicial procedures of voluntary or compulsory enforcement thereof, i.e. the next phase – the phase of the enforcement of the decision on division. A precise analysis of the currently valid Slovene legislation leads to the conclusion that the respective judicial procedures for the voluntary or compulsory enforcement of a decision on civil division are insufficiently and inconsistently regulated, with ineffective consequences. This inadequate legal regulation causes confusion and numerous controversial judicial decisions, which is contrary to the principle of legal certainty. This doctoral dissertation provides a detailed presentation of all of these complex issues, and offers numerous proposals for improving the existing legal regulation in the field of the (compulsory) enforcement of decisions on civil division furthermore, it provides a critical analysis of the existing case law. All of these matters are presented in the light of a comparative law analysis. |
