Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  pactum de non petendo
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Kreowanie zobowiązań naturalnych w drodze umowy (uwagi o tzw. skutku silniejszym pactum de non petendo)

100%
Riedl K.
Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego
|
2019
|
vol. 28
|
issue 3
643-704
EN
The aim of this article is to determine whether we deal with natural obligations only where these are specified in statutes (numerus clausus), or whether the parties can assume such obligations in accordance with the principle of freedom of contract. This issue is closely linked with the question of whether it is possible to conclude a so-called pactum de non petendo with a stronger effect, which in fact results in a contractual exclusion of suability (enforceability) of claims covered by such agreement. The article discusses diverging views presented in Polish legal literature and case law on this issue, drawing at the same time from both German and Swiss jurisprudence. According to the thesis of the paper, the solution as regards Polish legal system will vary depending on when suability has been excluded. One should consider the original creation of natural obligations (being non-suable ab initio), which is admissible under the principle of freedom of contract. The freedom of the parties in this respect is, however, limited in a number of ways, as a result of binding imperative provisions of law designed to grant certain claims, the prohibitions against waivers of certain claims and provisions included in Article 58 § 2 and Article 3851 § 1 of the Polish Civil Code. On the other hand, any subsequent transformation of an existing claim into a natural claim runs, de lege lata, counter to Article 117 and Article 119 of the Polish Civil Code, as it results in a breach or circumvention of the prohibition against shortening the periods of prescription (or, in the case of claims not covered by the statutes of limitation, as it runs counter to their non-limitation), and is thus ineffective. The asserted liberalisation of the prohibition against shortening the periods of prescription may result in watering down of this conclusion. Ultimately, the considerations presented in the paper lead to the rejection of the assumption that the principle of numerus clausus of natural obligations applies in the Polish legal system; therefore it should be possible to distinguish between contractual and statutory natural obligations.
2
Content available remote

Autonomie vůle versus veřejné zájmy v občanskoprávním řízení (podnět pro české procesní právo)

67%
Frössel A.
Právník. Teoretický časopis pro otázky státu a práva (The Lawyer - Scientific Review for Problems of State and Law)
|
2022
|
vol. 161
|
issue 8
791-802
EN
According to the prevailing opinion, the topic of private autonomy is usually restricted to the area of (substantive) civil law. In recent years, however, questions of private autonomy in civil procedure law have become more and more contested. This contribution gives an overview on the permissibility and scope of party agreements within the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). In particular, the article presents recent arguments by two scholars (M. Trenker and T. Kunz) who argue for more private autonomy in civil proceedings than the (restrictive) prevailing opinion does. Based on three selected topics, namely the permissibility of the pactum de non petendo, the permissibility of litigation in one’s own name on another’s behalf (gewillkürte Prozessstandschaft) and the effects of out-of-court agreements within pending civil proceedings, the article explores whether and to which degree the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure allows private autonomy of the parties. The contribution is intended to stimulate a debate on the topic regarding Czech civil procedure law.
CS
Podle obecně převládajícího názoru ohledně autonomie vůle stran v Rakousku platí, že působnost tohoto principu se vztahuje k hmotnému soukromému právu. V poslední době se otázka použití autonomie vůle stran stala předmětem diskuse o tom, do jaké míry ji lze použít též v civilním právu procesním. Tento příspěvek předně seznamuje čtenáře s tím, zda a v jakém rozsahu je autonomie vůle procesních stran vůbec podle rakouského civilního procesního řádu přípustná. Autor proto čtenáře seznamuje s názory hlavních zastánců uplatnění tohoto principu, kterými jsou M. Trenker a T. Kunz, kteří publikovali své názory ve svých rozsáhlých dílech. Autor poté prověřuje oprávněnost této tendence na třech vybraných případech, a sice na přípustnosti smlouvy o vzdání se nároku (pactum non petendo), možnosti žalobní legitimace za třetí osobu a konečně testuje tyto názory na následcích mimosoudní dohody (out-of-court-agreement) v průběhu soudního řízení. Vlastním cílem článku je podnítit diskusi o tomto tématu v rámci českého civilního procesního práva.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.