Анали Правног факултета у Београду

175

ТУЖИВОСТ СУБЈЕКТИВНОГ ПРАВА

констатирует, что в теории и судебной практике капиталистических стран превалирует мнение, что подобный договор допустим. Автор излагает ряд аргументов, приводимых в науке в защиту данной точки зрения. Сам же он противоположного мнения. Ввиду того, что предоставление права обращения за судебной защитой представляет собой правомочие публичноправового характера, то и субъект права не может располагать им по своему усмотрению, подобно тому, как не может располагать ни другими, такими же как это, правомочиями. Ввиду того, что в законе нет положений, которые бы полностью подкрепили подобную точку зрения, автор воздвигает в качестве аргумента и соображения правовой политики, отвечающие социалистическому общественному строю.

SUMMARY Prosecution in Subjective Law The author treats the problem of the legal nature of prosecution in the matter of subjective law. The term prosecution should be understood here as an institute whose attribute is the right to legal protection. Two approaches are possible in this matter. Under one prosecution is a material legal notion and as such it makes part of the powers of which the subjective law consists. The other approach has that it is a notion of the law adjective. The problem is not theoretical only, but it has practical repercussions in the Yugoslav positive law. If the right to prosecution is taken as material, legal notion, the law-court in a suit demanding protect'on of an obligation which cannot be the matter of prosecution (natural obligation) adjudges and this means that it makes judgement on the grounds of subjective law. Contrary to this, the notion of the law adjective that prosecution is in nature a supposition of the law adjective, and that the law-court would adjudge by rejecting the accusation on the grounds of its not being permissible, i.e. it would proceed as in other cases in which it states that there is an unavoidable impediment, such as for instance incompetence of judicature in general, lack of legal interest for the prosecuting party, etc. The author allows that both arguments could be defended, but concludes that he is in favour of the concept of the law adjective. His chief argument is that action is a power of public law and it does not come in the subjective law, but is manifested in the relation of the prosecuting party to the law-court. The article also treats the problem whether the exponent of the subjective law can give up by contract the right to prosecute. The author points out that in theory and judicial practice of the capitalistic countries the standpoint prevails that such a contract is permissible. He comments many arguments in favour of this standpoint put forward in science. His conclusion is contrary. Since authorization to request judicial protection represents a public law authorization then the legal subject cannot dispose w th it the same as it cannot dispose with other authorizations of the same kind. For lack of a legal text that would give a firm support to this approach, the author also finds arguments in the reasons of the juristic policy suitable to the socialist system.

RÉSUMÉ Action en justice relative au droit subjectif Dans son article l’auteur traite le problème de la nature juridique de l’action en justice relative au droit subjectif. Sous cette notion il faut comprendre la qualité spécifique de ce droit d’être l’objet de la protection juridique. En ce qui concerne cette question il est possible d’adopter deux attitu-