TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

5

Avtor obravnava vprašanje zastaranja kondikcijskega zahtevka, ki nastane kot posledica ničnosti pogodbe. Zakon določa, da uveljavljanje ničnost ne zastara. To pravilo se nanaša na izpolnitev pogodbenih obveznosti. Ne sme pa se ga razširiti na kondikcijske zahtevke. Kondikcijski zahtevki so v skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso predmet zastaranja. Pri tem sta bistveni naslednji stališči. Uveljavljanje kondikcijskega zahtevka je v prosti presoji oziroma je predmet svobodne odločitve pogodbene stranke. Če pogodbena stranka nične pogodbe ne uveljavlja kondikcijskega zahtevka, ga pač ne uveljavlja. Negotovost glede uveljavljanja kondikcijskega zahtevka pa ne sme biti trajna. Zato kondikcijski zahtevek zastara in pri tem naj velja, da zastaranje teče od trenutka, ko se je pogodbena stranka zavedala ali bi se morala zavedati, da je pogodba nična in da ima iz tega naslova kondikcijski zahtevek. Ničnost ni podlaga, ki bi opravičevala, da bi imela katerakoli od pogodbenih strank nične pogodbe kakršnokoli korist. Korist je treba vrniti in pogodbena stranka, ki korist vrača, mora tudi sama imeti zahtevek za vračilo tistega, kar je sama izpolnila.

The author addresses the issue of limitation of a claim for unjust enrichment arising from the nullity of a contract. The law provides that claims of nullity are not subject to a limitation period. This rule should apply only to the performance of contractual obligations and it should not be extended to claims for unjust enrichment. These claims are subject to limitations according to settled case law. Two pertinent conclusions emerge. Firstly, the decision to pursue a claim for unjust enrichment remains at the discretion of the contracting party. However, this uncertainty as to whether to assert the claim should not persist indefinitely. Therefore, it is proposed that the claim for unjust enrichment be subject to a limitation period. This period should commence from the moment the contracting party becomes aware, or ought to have been aware, that the contract was void and that they possessed a claim. Secondly, nullity does not justify any benefits for either party involved in a void contract. All benefits should be returned, and the party returning the benefit must, in turn, have a claim for the restitution of any contributions it has made.

Nullity and Limitation of Claims Based on Unjust Enrichment