TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Strokovna literatura utemeljuje trditvi, da je obid zakona (fraus legis) »star približno toliko kot pravo samo« in da se nanj gleda kot na »darilo rimskega prava« posameznim področjem evropskega pravnega reda. V zgodnjem rimskem pravu je bila sicer uporaba zakonov podana z vidika strogega formalizma. Zakoni so se razlagali izključno dobesedno po črki zakona, vsakršna povezava s smislom in namenom je bila izključena. Tedaj so zaobideni posli dosegali svoj vrhunec, vendar se je že v poznorepublikanskem in cesarskem obdobju razumevanje rimske pravne znanosti spremenilo v smer interpretacije pomena zakonske norme. Splošna izenačitev kršitve zakona in obida zakona je uspela s Teodozijevo novelo leta 439. Cesar Justinijan je lex non dubium vključil v svoj Codex (C. 1, 14, 5). V srednjem veku pa so glosatorji v povezavi z rimskim fraus legisom razvili lastni nauk o obidu zakona, vendar pa jim pojma še ni uspelo sistematično zajeti. Razvoj v novem veku je bil vse do sprejema BGB zaznamovan s hitrimi spremembami in veliko raznolikosti mnenj. Preobrat pri umestitvi obida zakona v nemško pravno sistematiko je nastopil po tem, ko je ta problem leta 1840 obravnaval Savigny in ga je nato leta 1851 opredelil še Thöl. Na podlagi ugotovitev obeh raziskav, ki sta še danes pomembna podlaga za razpravo, se je v nadaljnjih tridesetih letih oblikovala obsežna literatura k oblikovanju pojma obid zakona. Od tega obdobja naprej se je s problematiko obida zakona začela ukvarjati tudi nemška sodna oblast, ki je pred tem ta pojem komajda uporabljala. Zakonska ureditev fraus legis v nemškem prostoru je bila končno urejena s sprejetjem BGB. Danes obid zakona opredeljujemo kot ravnanje, ki sicer ni usmerjeno proti izrecnemu pomenu zakona, vendar krši njegov smisel. Tukaj pravni posel sicer ne krši iz zakona podane dobesedne razlage zakonske prepovedi, je pa tako ustrojen, da dosega uspeh, ki je v nasprotju z namenom prepovedne norme zakona. Obid zakona je posledično potrebno strogo ločevati od kršitve zakona (agere contra legem), čeprav obe ravnanji sprostita enake učinke. V primeru obida zakona tako ni kršen zakon v svojem besedilu, je pa zagotovo zaobidena njegova vsebina (sententia) in zakonodajalčeva volja (voluntas). In v tem se obid zakona razmejuje od navideznega posla, ki pa je oblika kršitve zakona. V primeru navideznega posla se izkazani pravni posel orientira samo na golo pravo, ne pa tudi na vsaj minimalni dejanski (ekonomski) uspeh. V nasprotju z navideznim poslom pa fraus legis ne temelji na »laži«, temveč gre za uresničeni (udejanjeni) pravni posel, vendar na način, ki nasprotuje duhu zakona. Velja poudariti, da – drugače kot za navidezni posel – za zaobideni posel ne obstaja neko splošno zakonsko določilo. V nemškem civilnem pravu se zaobideni posel sicer v praksi navezuje na določbo o zakonski prepovedi in v nemalo primerih na zakonsko prepoved ravnanja proti dobrim običajem, medtem ko je pravilo fraus legis na slovenskem civilnopravnem področju podano zgolj kot teoretična misel, izhajajoča iz rimskega prava. Sicer pa je danes obid zakona v civilnopravni dogmatiki(tako v nemškem kot slovenskem prostoru) potisnjen v ozadje in v sodni praksi redko uporabljen; nasprotno pa igra obid zakona pomembno vlogo na drugih pravnih področjih, kot so delovno, dedno, upravno, kartelno in še zlasti davčno pravo. Nemško davčno pravo ima določbo o davčnem zaobidenju zapisano v par. 42 AO, medtem ko v našem davčnem sistemu to nalogo opravlja četrti odstavek 74. člena ZDavP-2.

In law literature it is given support in arguments that abuse of law (avoidance of law; fraus legis) »is about the same age as the law itself« and that it is seen as a »gift of Roman law« for individual legal areas of the European legal system. In the early developing period of the Roman law the application of the law was followed by strict formalism. Laws were exclusively interpreted literally by the letter of the law, any connection with the spirit and purpose of the particular law was excluded. The existence of circumvented transaction achieved its climax in that early period, but already in the late Republican and then following Imperial period understanding of Roman legal science has changed in the way of growing importance of the interpretation of legal norms. General equation of violation of the law and circumvent the law (abuse of law) has succeeded through Justinianus Codex Theodosianus in the year 439. Byzantine emperor Justinian also included lex non dubium in his Codex Justinianus (C. 1.14.5). Later in the medieval period its own doctrine of abuse of law was developed. However, the systematic capture of the notion of abuse of law in that time failed. Development in the modern period was until the adoption of German BGB (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) marked through rapid changes and great diversity of opinions. The turnaround in placement of abuse of law in the German legal scheme was done by Savigny (1840) and later by Thöl (1851). Based on the findings of both studies (which even today largely serve as a basis for discussion) in the next thirty years a vast literature was written about development of legal phrase of abuse of law (Gesetzesumgehung). From this time onwards also the German judicial authorities started to address the problem of abuse of law, which had previously hardly used this term. Regularization of fraus legis in Germany was finally regulated by the adoption of BGB. Today abuse of law is defined as behavior that is not directed against the strict sense of the law, but violates its meaning. Transaction therefore does not violate the law by virtue of the specified literal interpretation of the statutory prohibition, but is so constituted that achieves success, which is contrary to the purpose prohibitive norms of the law. Consequently Abuse of law must be strictly distinguished from the violation of the law (agere contra legem), although both practices released the same effects. In case of abuse of the law there is no violation of the law in its text, but it is certainly bypassed its content (sententia) and intention of the legislature (voluntas). And in that abuse of law differentiate itself from simulation (sham), which represents violation of law. In the case of simulation the transaction is oriented only on the bare legal appearance and not on actual (economic) success. In contrast to the sham transaction is fraus legis is not based on »lies«, but it is embodies in reality implemented transaction, but in a manner which is contrary to the spirit of the law. It should be stressed that - unlike for simulation – for fraus legis there is no general statutory provision. In practice of the German civil law abuse of law is relates to the provision of basic legal prohibition (§ 134 BGB) and also in many cases to the provision of legal prohibition of unmoral conduct (§ 138 BGB), while the fraus legis rule of the Slovenian civil law is given merely as theoretical idea, resulting from Roman law. Otherwise, today is abuse of law in civil dogmatic (both in German and Slovenian area) pushed into the background and in the caselaw rarely used. But in contrary to that, abuse of law plays an important role in other legal areas such as labor law, inheritance law, administrative law, cartel law and especially tax law. German tax law has a provision on tax avoidance stated in § 42 AO, while in Slovenian tax system this task has been carried out by the fourth paragraph of Article 74 of the ZDavP-2.

Abuse of Law in German and Slovenian Law