1/2014
Fenus nauticum – praizvor osiguranja
se u 2. veku pre Hrista. Za pomorski zajam koristilo se
više termina, koji su zabeleženi i u izvorima: pecunia
traiecticia, traiectitius contractus, nautica pecunia i nauticum fenus. Sledeći Modestinovo objašnjenje, reč je o
institutu čija je osnovna karakteristia da se kapital koji
se daje u zajam izlaže pomorskim rizicima. Budući da
su rimski pravnici prilagodili grčki pravni institut svom
sistemu i potrebama, to je pitanje pravne prirode pomorskog zajma oduvek u literaturi bilo predmet kontraverznih mišljenja. Ipak, može se reći da je pomorski
zajam specifična vrsta zajma koja je imala funkciju osiguranja. Na osnovu poznatih izvora i literature, može
se zaključiti da je fenus nauticum, kao poseban oblik
zajma, u rimskom pravu imao neke specifičnosti: rizik
pomorske plovidbe prenosi se na zajmodavca; kapital,
tj. roba koja je kupljena pozajmljenim novcem morali
su biti izloženi rizicima pomorske plovidbe (trgovine);
zajmoprimac se oslobađa obaveze vraćanja zajma (kapitala) i kamata ukoliko brod propadne pre povratka u
luku, a zbog rizika plovidbe; plaćanje kamate ugovarano je običnim paktom (nudum pactum); kada rizik pomorske plovidbe prestane pomorski zajam se pretvara
u običan zajam.
Srdjan VLADETIC, PhD
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Kragujevac
Emilija STANKOVIC, PhD
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Kragujevac
Fenus nauticum – the origin of insurance
UDC: 368.23(37)
Original Scientific Work
SUMMARY
Nautical loan (fenus nauticum or pecunia traiecticia)
is a special institute of the Roman law. It is almost
certain that this institute has been incorporated in
Roman law from the Ancient Greek legal system. Even
so, it could be said that the very origins of this institute
could be found in other ancient countries (Babylonia,
India, Phoenicia and Greece). Fenus nauticum is the
institute of Roman private law where the creditor
gives money, which has to be transported across the
sea or where creditor invests money in buying goods
that will be transported over the sea. Creditor bears
the risk of all possible accidents that could appear in
the nautical transport (and that includes any kind of
risks) for money or goods. The loan will be refunded
only in cases where the ship or cargo safely arrives at
the destination. This loan had the function of nautical
insurance. The premium is paid in the form of interest
(usurae maritime), which are always, because of the
risks, were greater than usual interest and in the
classical law they were unlimited. Iustinian has been the
only one that limited those interests at rate of 12%. For
contracting those interests plain pact (nudum pactum)
has been sufficient. Nautical loan played a significant
role in the trading, which has been extremely developed
in certain period of Roman state. As an institute that
provides the possibility of large profits but at the same
time wearing a high risk, it has been very attractive to
Roman aristocrats. However, providing these types of
loans wasn’t only the business of wealthy aristocrats,
but also the business of professionals who has been
specialized for dealing with fenus nauticum. With the
decline of trade and the collapse of the Roman Empire,
the role of the institute has been reduced. Reoccurrence
of nautical loan happened in the XII century. Then,
as in the ancient laws, it played a significant role in
overseas trade. In fact, during this period there was
a revival of Italian cities, the development of trade,
but also a renewal of interest for studying the rules of
Roman law. Nautical loan served not only in overseas
trading ventures but also in the inland trading (fenus
quasi nauticum). The importance of this institute
could also been seen in one if the decisions of Gregor
IX (Naviganti vel eunti), which, although not entirely
clear, in the opinion of the majority, allows interests in
nautical loans. Canonists have also allowed interests in
nautical loans because of the risks for the participants.
Even so, many of them took a stand that this is not a
loan because a high risk rate involved makes the very
nature of this institute completely different. Those
claims could be supported with arguments. Still there
are different opinions of fenus nauticum’s legal nature,
19
1/2014
SRDJAN VLADETIC and EMILIJA STANKOVIC
20
where some claims that this is kind of loan, the others
thinks that this is type of the insurance contract, and
there are those who stands on the point that this is a
special unnamed contract.
Key words: fenus nauticum, pecunia traiecticia,
overseas trading, interests, Greek law
LITERATURA (REFERENCES)
Ankum, H. (1978). Tabula Pompeniane 13: ein
Seetrachtverttrag order ein Seedehen?, Jura, 29, 156–173.
Berger, A. (1953). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law,
The American Philosophical Society: Philadelphia.
Biscardi, A. (1974). Actio pecuniae traiecticiae. Contributo
alla dottrina delle clausole penali, Giappichelli: Torino.
Casson, L. (1968). New Light on Maritime loans: P. Vindob.
G 19792(= SB VI 9571), Studies in Roman Law in Memory of
A. Arthur Schiller, E. J. Brill, Columbia studies in the clasical
tradition: Leiden.
Childe, G. (1982). What Happened in History, Penguin
books: Harmondsworts and New York.
Danilović, J. (1969). Beleške o ugovorima o prevozu
robe brodom i rimskom pravu, Anali Pravnog fakulteta u
Beogradu, (2-3), 259–382.
Dauviller, J. (1959). Le droit maritime phénicien, RIDA,
6, 33–63.
De Martino, F. (1991). Wirschaftsgeschichte des alten Rom,
C. H. Beck: München.
De Villa, V. (1937). Le usurae ex pacto nel diritto romano,
Foro italiano: Roma.
Duncan-Jones, R. (1977). The Economy of the Roman
Empire; Quantitative Studies: Cambridge.
Földi, A. (2001). Eine alternative Aunährungsweise:
Gedanken zum Problem des Handelsrechts in der römischen
Welt, RIDA, 48, 65–90.
Giacchero, M. (1974). Edictum Diocletiani et Coleegarum
de pretiis rerum venalium, I Edictum, Institutio di storia e
scienze ausilirie: Roma.
Huschke, P. (1969). Die Lehre des römischen Rechts vom
Darlehn und den dazn gehörigen Maerien-eine civilistische
Monographie, Schippers: Amsterdam.
Huvelin, P. (1929). Etudes d’histoire du droit commercial
romain, Recueil Sivey: Paris.
Ihering, R. (1881). Das angebliche gezetzliche
Zinsmaximum beim foenus nauticum, Jahrbücher für
die Dogmatik des heutigen römischen und deutschen
Privatrechts 19.
Karajović, E. (1997). Dioklecijanov Edikt o cenama, Pravni
fakultet: Kragujevac.
MacMullen, R. (1988). Coruption and the Decline of Rome,
Yale University Press: New Haven and London.
Monier, R. (1939). Droit romain, II, Cours de droit: Paris.
Passeroni, E. (1892). Du prét á intérét, Faculté de droit
Aix-en-Provance: Nice.
Romac, A. (1975). Rječnik rimskog prava, Informator:
Zagreb.
Schorr, M. (1913). Urkunden des Altbabylonischen Zivilund Prozessrechts, J. C. hiurichs sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig.
Schuster, S. (2005). Das Seedarlehn in den Gerichtsreden
des Demosthenes, Duncker&Humbolt: Berlin.
Stanojević, O. (1966). Zajam i kamata, Institut za pravnu
istoriju Pravnog fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu: Beograd.
Stanojević, O. (2000). Rimsko pravo, Pravni fakultet
Univerziteta u Beogradu: Beograd.
Struve, K. (1969). Stara Grčka, Veselin Masleša: Sarajevo.
Szlechter, E. (1945). Etudesociologique du contrat de
société eu Babylonie: contribution a l´étude de la civilisation
antique, Recueil Siray: Paris.
Trenerry, C.F. (2009). The Origin and the Early History of
Iusurance: including the Contract of Bottomry, The Lawbook
Exchange Ltd.: New Jersy.
Visky, K. (1969). Das seedarlehn und die damit
verbundene Konventionalstrafe in römischen Recht, RIDA,
16, 390–393.
Zimmermann, R. (1990). The Law of Obligations-Roman
foundations of the civilian tradition, Juta: Cape Town.
IZVORI (SOURCES)
Digesta (D.)
Codex Iustinianus (C.)
Codex Hamurabi
Novellae (Nov.) Pauli Sententiae (P.S.)
Homer – Odiseja
Plutarch – Cato maior
Horacije – Satire
Gai Institutiones (Gai I.)
Download

Fenus nauticum– the origin of insurance