| Abstract [eng] |
The aim of this paper is to reveal the rules and conditions of application of the institute of unjust enrichment or reception of property not due in the case law of Lithuania, as well as to analyze the main characteristics of this institute on purpose to identify the criteria of differentiation of the above-mentioned institute and the other institutes (civil liability, vindication, restitution, other quasi contracts). Considering these aims, the first part of this paper starts with the examination of the historical background of the institute of unjust enrichment or reception of property not due, beginning with the issues of interpretation of this institute in Roman law and concluding by the issues of regulation of this institute in the Civil Code of Soviet Socialist Republic of Lithuania (year 1964) and in the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania (year 2000). Moreover, in this paper authoress presents a general characterization of the institute of unjust enrichment or reception of property not due, analyzes the peculiarity of regulation of this institute in the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as the problems, related to that. In the first part of the paper there are also identified the differences between the institute of unjust enrichment or reception of property not due and the other institutes. The main aim of the second part of this paper is to properly analyze the conditions of application of the institute of unjust enrichment or reception of property not due. Considering this aim, different positions on this issue, presented in the case law of Lithuania, as well as in the legal doctrine, are being examined. On the grounds of that examination the authoress presents her estimation on the question, which position the most conforms to the aims and the regulation of this institute. There are particularly being analyzed all the conditions of application of above-mentioned institute: 1) the reception or saving of property without any legal grounds; 2) real reception or saving of property; 3) the impossibility to retrieve the obtained or saved property by the other ways of protection of civil rights. There are also analyzed the differences between the situations presented in the article 6.237 and the article 6.242 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania and the problems of application of this rules in Lithuania’s case law. All the analyzed issues are being illustrated by the examples from the case law. Moreover, the positions presented in the case law and legal doctrine of Lithuania are being compared to the positions presented in the foreign legal doctrine (for the most part Russian). |
