160 KB66 KB200820252019Lutman, Karmenstr. 177-198, 294-295COBISSID:17111377ISSN:1855-5861URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-JRNHP3XDslLexperaPravni letopiscost methodenrichment principleincrease in property valuelease contractmarket comparison approachnepremičnineneupravičena obogatitevnon-performance-based enrichment claimperformance-based enrichment claimpremoženjereimbursement of costsrestitutionstvarno pravounjustified enrichmentPovrnitev vlaganj v tujo nepremičnino|Rules on reimbursement of expenditures incurred on someone else`s property can be found in various branches of private law, such as the law of unjustified enrichment, negotiorum gestio, contract law and property law. Even though these rules to certain extent deal with very similar situations, they differ from one another in various aspects. While some of them are more favourable to the creditor in getting his investment back as much as possible, the others are more inclined toward protecting the debtor against forced financing of foreign economic decisions. The paper focuses on some open issues concerning reimbursement of costs in a broader context and under the law of unjustified enrichment. The author takes the view that the rules on reimbursement of costs should be interpreted as uniformly as possible, regardless if they stem from performance-based or non-performance-based enrichment claims. Even though the rules of the owner/possessor model are more specific than the rules on unjustified enrichment, the author does not share the view that the owner/possessor model silently derogates the restitutionary rules of the law of unjustified enrichment. The paper also presents concerns against the established position that a creditor investing in someone else`s land cannot recover from its owner the value of the costs, but only the increase of market value of the property which occurred due to such improvementsPravila o povračilu stroškov, ki so bili opravljeni v tujo korist, so pri nas urejena razpršeno, v okviru prava neupravičene obogatitve, poslovodstva brez naročila, pogodbenega in stvarnega prava. Kljub izhodiščno podobnim položajem se pravila med seboj razlikujejo. Nekatera bolj varujejo interes upnika, da dobi povrnjenih čim več vloženih sredstev, druga pa se nagibajo k zaščiti dolžnika pred prisilnim financiranjem tujih ekonomskih odločitev. Prispevek se osredotoča na nekatera odprta vprašanja pri povračilu stroškov v širšem kontekstu in v okviru prava neupravičene obogatitve. Avtorica zagovarja stališče, da je treba pravila o stroških razlagati čim bolj enotno, ne glede na to, ali gre za kondikcijske ali verzijske zahtevke. Čeprav so pravila o stroških v SPZ v nekaterih primerih specialnejša od tistih v OZ, pa se ni mogoče strinjati, da molče derogirajo pravila o stroških prava neupravičene obogatitve. V prispevku so predstavljeni tudi pomisleki o uveljavljenem stališču glede 48. člena SPZ, po katerem upnik, ki je vlagal v tujo nepremičnino, ne more zahtevati povrnitve stroškov vlaganj, temveč le toliko, kolikor je zaradi vlaganj narasla tržna vrednost nepremičnineTEXTznanstveno časopisjejournalsSlovenian National E-content AggregatorNational and University Library of SloveniaInštitut za primerjalno pravo pri Pravni fakulteti v Ljubljani IPP-PF