The Unjustified Enrichment in Polish Code of Obligations of 1933
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
T h e U n ju s t if ie d E n r ic h m e n t in P o l ish C o d e o f O b l ig a t io n s o f 19 3 3 d r J a n H a l b e r d a This paper is concerned with the law of restitution that was in force in Poland during the inter-war period. After 1918 Poland was divided into five legal regions (section 1.1). The state authorities nominated the Committee of Drafters whose task was to unify the law (1.2). In respect of unjustified enrichment the drafters took into account contemporary laws— Code Napoleon, ABGB, BGB, Obligationenrecht (1.3). After more than one decade the code of obligations (1933) finally went into force in 1934. The code provided for the premises (2.1) and the object of the action founded on unjustified enrichment (2.2). The code lacked however the regulation that might answer the question on this remedy’s nature, namely whether it was a subsidiary or an independent one (2.3). While the drafters took into account Austrian, French, German and Swiss civil codes, it seems that the Polish unjustified enrichment was more alike to German and Swiss laws (3). 1. INTRODUCTION 1. 1. DIVERSITY OF LEGAL SOURCES After World War I Poland recovered its independence. For more than one century the country was partitioned between three empires— German, Russian and Austro- Hungarian. In 1918, when Poland became sovereign, there existed five legal regions. In respect of civil law western Poland was ruled by German law with its Biirgerliches Gesetzbuch (1896). As BGB, in force since 1900, followed a pandectist structure, it included law of obligations in its second book (§§ 241-833). The central part of the country with its capital—Warsaw—was governed by mixture of French and Russian regulations. The law of obligations was set by the provisions of French Code Napoleon (1804). Since its introduction in the Duchy of Warsaw in 1808 this civil code was still in force. The subsequent amendments (1818, 1825) concerned the matrimonial and hypothecary laws. Thus the law of obligations remained untouched. As the code divided law into three segments: persons, property, acquisition of property, its third book concerned obligations. In the country’s eastern regions that today belong to independent Belarus and Ukraine, Russian law was binding. The law of obligations was underdeveloped. It found its regulation in Svod Zakonov (1832-1835). J an H \ lberd a Southern Poland, the region of Galicia, with Kraków and Lwów was governed by Austrian law, and in respect of private law - especially by Allgemeines Biirgerliches Gesetzbuch (1811). ABGB, likewise Code Napoleon, followed a threefold structure based on Roman “Institutiones”. The Austrian code divided itself into three books: persons, property, common provisions. The last one included regulations concerning obligations. The fifth region was the smallest one. In villages of Orava and Spis (located nearby Polish-Slovak border) Hungarian regulations were still in force. These were predominantly customary laws that were repealed in 1922 when binding force of ABGB had been extended hereto.1 Polish lawyers while performing their profession were observing respective laws in each of these regions. After World War I nothing has been changed as there still subsisted several legal regions. Hence, it is not a surprise that Poland was one of the first states that developed the separate statutes concerning the conflict of laws. On the same day in 1926 the parliament (Sejm) enacted the private international law act and private interregional law act. Nevertheless, the multitude of legal orders caused variety of problems that deeply influenced commerce, business and everyday life. These were among the many reasons why Polish stated authorities decided to unify the law. Poland was not the only state that after World War I had to face the issue of diversity of legal orders. The similar dilemma had arisen in several other states that became sovereign after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In Czechoslovakia there existed two regions—Austrian ABGB was binding in Bohemia while in Slovakia customary Hungarian laws were still in force. In the new country of Yugoslavia there subsisted even six legal regions, though predominantly influenced by ABGB.2 1.2. DRAFTING OF THE CODE As early as in June 3, 1919, Sejm created the Committee of Drafters (Komisja Kodyfikacyjna). The number of forty four most prominent Polish lawyers, among them Ernest Till, Roman Longchamps de Berier and Fryderyk Zoll junior, became the members of this body. During two decades of its proceedings, the Committee has recast the Polish law. Among the statutes that were issued were the codes of both criminal (1928) and civil procedure (1930), the penal code (1932), the code of obligations (1933), the commercial code (1934). Also the aforementioned conflict of laws acts were prepared by the Committee. The drafters however did not succeed in preparing the ci vil code. Still it is worth mentioning that the civil law regulations enacted after World War II have been predominantly based on the drafts that had been developed during 1 Dziadzio, A.: Powszechna historia prawa. Warszawa, 2008, 255= Dziadzio; Płaza, S.: Historia prawa w Polsce na tle porównawczym. Część III. Okres międzywojenny, Kraków, 2001, 33-34= Płaza 2 Płaza 58-70 96 The Unjustified Enrichment in Polish Code of Obligations of 1933 the inter-war period by the Committee (matrimonial laws of 1945-1946, property law of 1946, common provisions of civil law of 1946).3 Drafting of the code of obligations took more than one decade. In 1923 professor Ernest Till from University of Lwów published in print his own draft of the gen eral part of law of obligations. In response to his effort two counter-drafts had been prepared by Warsaw attorneys— Ludwik Domański and Henryk Konic. After Ernest Tills death in 1926 professor Roman Longchamps de Berier (also from University of Lwów) took the leadership as the draftsman of the code. Ludwik Domański became the co-draftsman. Thereafter the Committee of Drafters created the subcommittee whose task was to work out the code of obligations. After four years the draft became the statute. Adopted on November 10, 1933, in the form of the Presidents regulation, the code of obligation went into force on July 1, 1934.4 Polish law-drafters in the twenties and the thirties have developed the methodology that is today applied by comparative law scholars. The reason for that was the existence of five legal regions in Poland. Even small legal offices in the countryside were expected to operate in diversity of rules that emerged from different states and cultures. Polish lawyers were accustomed therefore with Austrian, French, German and Russian regu lations. This knowledge was common. It was impossible to successfully perform legal duties if one was accustomed to the particular one legal system. During the attempts to make up the code of obligations’ draft, the Committee members took into account the aforementioned regulations that had been observed in Poland: Austrian ABGB, French Code Napoleon and German BGB. Additionally the drafters resorted to Swiss Obligationenrecht of 1911 and to the French-Italian draft of code of obligations of 1927. The scholars intended to benefit from experiences that had been gathered by others who performed codification efforts in the past. They wanted to avoid mistakes that had been committed by law-drafters under different legal systems. Several legal doctrines encompassed by the code of obligations bear the sign of this comparative methodology. The unjustified enrichment may be shown as its example. There existed features that derive from different legal doctrines? 1.3. THE CONTEMPORARY LAW OF UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT If we take into account civil law regulations that were in force in Poland, it is worth noting that only German BGB provided for general provisions on unjustified enrich ment (§812). BGB was the newest among the codes observed in Poland. The regula tion of “Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung” found its place in the second book (law of obligations), in §§ 812-822. These sections included also the passages on condictiones. 3 Dziadzio 255-259, 274-281; Płaza 35-45. 4 Płaza 157-159. Rozporządzenie Prezydenta RP z dnia 27 października 1933 r. - Kodeks zobowiązań (Dz.U.R.P. nr 82, poz. 598). 5 Płaza 157-161. 97 J an H a lberd a The comparable regulation existed in Swiss Obligationenrecht (art. 62-67) and French- Italian draft of code of obligations of 1927 (art. 73ff).6 On the contrary, French Code Napoleon provided only for some clauses on un due payment (art. 1235, art. 1376-1381). Hence, if solvens had paid money that was not due, he could sue his vis-a-vis— accipiens— for restitution. There was however no general principle that he, who has unjustly received a benefit at the expense of other party, is obliged to restore it. This was not the code but the courts and scholars that had developed the doctrine of unjustified enrichment (“enrichissement sans cause”, “enrichissement injuste”). The significant change took place in 1892 when Cour de Cassation adjudged the Boudiers case. Before that date the courts were reluctant to adjudicate if neither contract nor tort could be found in place. The doctrine of unjusti fied enrichment has been built as a result of the construction of independent legal institutions such as undue payment, negotiorum gestio or relations between an owner and a possessor.7 In the Austrian code (ABGB) there existed the general clause on restitution (“Nut- zliches verwendung”, meaning the beneficial occupation). However, the rights of a plaintiff were very limited.