Ulpian, Celsus and weed pollution of soil (D. 9. 2. 27. 14)

The subject of this paper is the analysis of meaning of Digest text D. 9. 2. 27. 14. An overview of different theories devoted to this text has been presented here with a critical review of their argumentation, and another possible way of interpretation has been proposed. The author draws the follow...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Aličić Samir
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Law 2011-01-01
Series:Zbornik Radova: Pravni Fakultet u Novom Sadu
Subjects:
Online Access:http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0550-2179/2011/0550-21791103613A.pdf
_version_ 1818243449219973120
author Aličić Samir
author_facet Aličić Samir
author_sort Aličić Samir
collection DOAJ
description The subject of this paper is the analysis of meaning of Digest text D. 9. 2. 27. 14. An overview of different theories devoted to this text has been presented here with a critical review of their argumentation, and another possible way of interpretation has been proposed. The author draws the following conclusions based on comparative source analysis. It is certain that neither Celsus nor Ulpian in the text D. 9. 2. 27. 14 doubted that in the case of weed pollution of soil, interdict quod vi aut clam can be given since all conditions for its implementation were fulfilled. With the interdict only the damage caused within a year can be claimed. For this reason this procedural means belongs to either the land owner or, if the land is leased, to the leaseholder. For the same reason along with the interdict, Aquilian claim is given, provided that only one of the two procedural means can be used. It belongs to both the land owner and the lease holder. It is given to the lease holder for the damage caused before the expiry of the lease, and to the land owner for the one caused later. Therefore, the lease holder who uses Aquilian claim has to provide a procedural guarantee that the land owner will not by any subsequent claim request compensation for damages on the same grounds. The claim is given to the lease holder on the grounds of yield owner and not on the grounds of land owner. The claim is given both to the owner and the lease holder not as a direct, but as actio in factum ex lege Aquilia. The reason for this cannot be determined with certainty, as it is possible that Ulpian quoted Celsus's opinion in a different context from the original one.
first_indexed 2024-12-12T14:01:18Z
format Article
id doaj.art-f891c519fa4b40a6a02e204eb383cf6c
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 0550-2179
2406-1255
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-12T14:01:18Z
publishDate 2011-01-01
publisher University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Law
record_format Article
series Zbornik Radova: Pravni Fakultet u Novom Sadu
spelling doaj.art-f891c519fa4b40a6a02e204eb383cf6c2022-12-22T00:22:20ZengUniversity of Novi Sad, Faculty of LawZbornik Radova: Pravni Fakultet u Novom Sadu0550-21792406-12552011-01-0145361363310.5937/zrpfns1103613A0550-21791103613AUlpian, Celsus and weed pollution of soil (D. 9. 2. 27. 14)Aličić Samir0University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Law, Novi Sad, SerbiaThe subject of this paper is the analysis of meaning of Digest text D. 9. 2. 27. 14. An overview of different theories devoted to this text has been presented here with a critical review of their argumentation, and another possible way of interpretation has been proposed. The author draws the following conclusions based on comparative source analysis. It is certain that neither Celsus nor Ulpian in the text D. 9. 2. 27. 14 doubted that in the case of weed pollution of soil, interdict quod vi aut clam can be given since all conditions for its implementation were fulfilled. With the interdict only the damage caused within a year can be claimed. For this reason this procedural means belongs to either the land owner or, if the land is leased, to the leaseholder. For the same reason along with the interdict, Aquilian claim is given, provided that only one of the two procedural means can be used. It belongs to both the land owner and the lease holder. It is given to the lease holder for the damage caused before the expiry of the lease, and to the land owner for the one caused later. Therefore, the lease holder who uses Aquilian claim has to provide a procedural guarantee that the land owner will not by any subsequent claim request compensation for damages on the same grounds. The claim is given to the lease holder on the grounds of yield owner and not on the grounds of land owner. The claim is given both to the owner and the lease holder not as a direct, but as actio in factum ex lege Aquilia. The reason for this cannot be determined with certainty, as it is possible that Ulpian quoted Celsus's opinion in a different context from the original one.http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0550-2179/2011/0550-21791103613A.pdfLex Aquiliadamnum iniuria datumdamageextra-contractual liabilityinterdictum quod vi aut clampollutionobligationsRoman law
spellingShingle Aličić Samir
Ulpian, Celsus and weed pollution of soil (D. 9. 2. 27. 14)
Zbornik Radova: Pravni Fakultet u Novom Sadu
Lex Aquilia
damnum iniuria datum
damage
extra-contractual liability
interdictum quod vi aut clam
pollution
obligations
Roman law
title Ulpian, Celsus and weed pollution of soil (D. 9. 2. 27. 14)
title_full Ulpian, Celsus and weed pollution of soil (D. 9. 2. 27. 14)
title_fullStr Ulpian, Celsus and weed pollution of soil (D. 9. 2. 27. 14)
title_full_unstemmed Ulpian, Celsus and weed pollution of soil (D. 9. 2. 27. 14)
title_short Ulpian, Celsus and weed pollution of soil (D. 9. 2. 27. 14)
title_sort ulpian celsus and weed pollution of soil d 9 2 27 14
topic Lex Aquilia
damnum iniuria datum
damage
extra-contractual liability
interdictum quod vi aut clam
pollution
obligations
Roman law
url http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0550-2179/2011/0550-21791103613A.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT alicicsamir ulpiancelsusandweedpollutionofsoild922714