| Abstract | Zabrana retroaktivnosti propisa u hrvatskom pravnom sustavu sadržana je u čl. 90. st. 4. Ustava Republike Hrvatske u kojem stoji da zakoni i drugi propisi državnih tijela i tijela koje imaju javne ovlasti ne mogu imati povratno djelovanje. U idućem stavku istog članka propisana je iznimka od navedenog pravila prema kojoj samo pojedine odredbe zakona iz posebno opravdanih razloga mogu imati povratno djelovanje. Ipak, u području kaznenog zakonodavstva vrijedi apsolutna zabrana retroaktivnog djelovanja propisa, s time da i ovdje postoji iznimka te je povratno djelovanje propisa dopušteno u slučaju propisivanja blaže kazne nakon počinjenja djela. Važnost je ovog načela, kojim se zabranjuje unatražno djelovanje propisa, u tome što se njime osigurava predvidiva i stabilna pravna regulativa, a također se onemogućava zadiranje u stečena prava. Načelo zabrane retroaktivnog djelovanja propisa svoje korijene pronalazi u rimskom pravu, gdje je kroz različite izvore prava, riječima poput non retro ili post hanc legem, istaknuta njihova buduća primjena. Ipak, teško je utvrditi kada je zabrana retroaktivnosti postala pravilom, s obzirom na to da nisu svi zakoni u rimskom pravu imali dovoljno određenu vremensku perspektivu. Jedan od najistaknutijih izvora koji potvrđuje načelo zabrane retroaktivnosti, ali i progovara o samoj njegovoj važnosti, jest Ciceronov govor In Verrem II,1. Istim pitanjem bavili su se i poznati pravnici poput Ulpijana i Paula, čiji su komentari o temporalnim pravilima preuzeti u Digestama, dok je kasnije, navedeno načelo dobilo potvrdu kroz carske konstitucije.
U radu se detaljnije analiziraju navedeni izvori te njihovo značenje, a posebna je pozornost posvećena Paulovom komentaru o retroaktivnom djelovanju tumačenja pravnih propisa, tekstu koji se odnosi na zakone obiteljskog prava s važnim reperkusijama u nasljednom pravu, leges Iulia et Papia Poppaea. Također, podrobnije su obrađene carske konstitucije kojima je potvrđeno opće značenje pravila i načela zabrane retroaktivnosti te posebne Justinijanove intertemporalne odredbe oglede oporučnih raspolaganja. |
| Abstract (english) | The prohibition of retroactivity in the Croatian legal system is contained in article 90, paragraph 4 of the Constitution, which states that laws and other regulations of the state bodies and bodies with public powers can't have retroactive effect. The next paragraph of the same article provide an exception to that rule, according to which only certain provisions of the law for particularly justified reasons, can have retroactive effect. However, in the area of criminal law, there is an absolute prohibition on the retroactive effect of regulations. But, here is also an exception and the retroactive effect is allowed in the case of prescribing lighter punishment after the crime has been commited. The importance of this principal, which prohibits the retroactivity of regulations, is the fact that it ensures predictable and stable legal regulation and also prevents infrigement of acquired rights. The principal of prohibiting the retroactive effect of regulations has its roots in Roman law, where through various sources of law, words such as non retro or post hanc legem, indicate their future application. However, it is difficult to determine when this principal became a rule, having in mind that not all laws in Roman law had a sufficiently precise time perspective. One of the most prominent sources that confirms the principal of the prohibition of retroactivity, and also speaks about its importance, is Cicero's speech In Verrem II, 1. The same issue was discussed by the famous lawyers of the 3rd century, like Ulpian and Paul, whose comments on temporal rules are contained in the Digest, while later, the stated principal was confirmed through imperial constitutions.
These sources and their significance are analysed in more detail, while the special attention was given to the Paul’s commentary on the retroactive interpretation of legal rules, the text relating to the family law acts with significant impact in inheritance law, leges Iulia et Papia Poppaea. Also, imperial constitutions which confirmed the general importance of rule and principle of non-retroactivity are thoroughly examined as well as the Justinian’s special intertemporal rules concerning testamentary dispositions. |
