Non capitur, qui ius publicum sequitur
 
More details
Hide details
1
SWPS Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny w Warszawie
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Bronisław Włodzimierz Sitek   

SWPS Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny w Warszawie
Publish date: 2019-05-07
Submission date: 2019-02-26
Final revision date: 2019-04-03
Acceptance date: 2019-04-03
 
JoMS 2019;40(1):149–162
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Objectives:
The subject of this study is to interpret the provision of Ulpian from the 11th book of the commentary to the praetor’s edictie. Non capitur, qui ius publicum sequitur (D. 50,17,116,1). In Romanist literature, this provision is basically treated quite marginally. References to this provision are usually found in the footnotes, in order to exemplify some thought, but without an in-depth analysis.

Material and methods:
The explanation of the meaning of ius publicum used in the text will be crucial for the process of interpretation of this provision. One can initially assume that Ulpian using the phrase ius publicum did not mean public law from the systemic point of view, but the well-established and universally applied provisions of private law, regardless of their origin (jurisprudence, the praetor’s edict or the emperors’ constitutions).

Results:
Thus, the research hypothesis may be the statement that the application of the legal provisions of private law can not be the basis for the submission of an insidious or unfair act in a particular case. This is how the ambiguous verb capitur (from capio, cepi, ceptum) should be translated.

Conclusions:
Consequently, whoever exercises the law can not be impute bad faith. This principle has a great importance when determining the responsibility of persons performing public tasks in accordance with the law and the procedures envisaged.

 
REFERENCES (29)
1.
Aricò Anselmo, G. (1983). Ius publicum – ius privatum in Ulpiano, Gaio e Cicerone, Annali del Seminario Giuridica Palermo 37, s. 447–787. ISSN 1827-8396.
 
2.
Bianchini, M. (1983). Appunti su Giustiniano e la sua compilazione, I. Giappichielli, Torino. ISBN 9788834800508.
 
3.
Birks, P. (1969). The early history of iniuria, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 37, s. 163–208. ISSN 0040-7585.
 
4.
Branca, G. (1953). La responsabilità per il damnum infecti, St. Albertari, I, Giuffree’, Milano, s. 335–367.
 
5.
Buckland, W.W., Stein, P. (1963). A Text-Book of Roman Law: From Augustus to Justinian. University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 9781139034401.
 
6.
Czychlarz, K. (1922). Instytucje prawa rzymskiego, F. Hoesicka, Warszawa.
 
7.
D’Ors, A. (1981). El comentario de Ulpiano a los edictos del "metus". Anuario de historia del derecho español 51, s. 223–290. ISSN 0304-4319.
 
8.
De-Mauri, L. (1976). Rgulae Iuris, Ulrico Hoepli Editore, Milano. ISBN 8820306271.
 
9.
Digestum Nouum seu Pandectorum Iuris Vivilis, t. III, Lugduni 1627.
 
10.
Dyjakowska, M. (2015). ‘Superficies’ – rzymskie korzenie prawa zabudowy, Zeszyty Prawnicze 15, s. 5–32. ISSN 0044-4405.
 
11.
Giaro, T. (1976). Nowa hipoteza na temat ‘damni infecti lege agere’, Eos 64, s. 91–106; ISSN 0012-7825.
 
12.
Glover, G. (2004). Metus in the Roman law of obligations. Fundamina: A Journal of Legal History 10, s. 31–58. ISSN 1021-545X.
 
13.
Kaser, M. (1959). Rechtsgeschichte des Altertums. C.H. Beck, München . ISBN 3406404901.
 
14.
Kaser, M. (1977). Zur integrum retitutio, besonders wegen metus und dolus, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Romanistische Abteilung 94, s. 101–183. ISSN 2304-4861.
 
15.
Koch, A. (1967). Ewolucja deliktu iniuria w prawie rzymskim epoki republikańskiej, „Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne” 19.2, s. 51–74. ISSN 0070-2471.
 
16.
Lenel, O. (1889). Palingenesia Iuris Civilis, vol. II, Lipsiae.
 
17.
Marrone, M. (1989). Istituzioni di diritto romano, Palumbo, Palermo. ISBN 8860170222.
 
18.
Mühlenbruch, Ch.J. (1835). Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts, Tom 1, Halle.
 
19.
Palmirski, T. (2017). O różnych regułach dawnego prawa. 17 tytuł 50 księgi digestów. Tekst-tłumaczenie-komentarz, Zeszyty Prawnicze 6.2, s. 314–315. ISSN 1634-8183.
 
20.
Petrucci, A. (2015). Lezioni di diritto privato romano. Giappichielli, Torino. ISBN 9788834859346.
 
21.
Provera, G. (1964). La vindicatio caducorum. Contributo allo studio del processo fiscale Romano, Giappichielli, Torino.
 
22.
Pugsley, D. (1968). Damni Iniuria, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 34, s. 371–386; ISSN 0040-7585.
 
23.
Rodger, A. (1991). Introducing iniuria, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 59, s. 1–11; ISSN 0040-7585.
 
24.
Sitek, B. (2014). Utilitas publica z perspektywy prawa rzymskiego i polskiego, Themis Polska Nova 1 (6), s. 21–35. ISSN 2084-4522.
 
25.
Sobczyk, M. (2010). Protection from the Injury Threatening From Neighboring Property in Roman Law and Protection from the anticipated Injury in the Art. 439 of the Polish Civil Code, UWM Law Review 2, s. 113. ISSN 2080-9670.
 
26.
Solazzi, S. (1912). La minore età nel diritto Romano, Athenaeum, Roma.
 
27.
Talamanca, M. (1997). La filozofia greca e il diritto Romano, vol. II, Accademia Nazionale Lincei, Quaderno N. 221, Roma.
 
28.
Viarengo, G. (1996). L’excusatio tutelae nell’età del Principato, Edizioni culturali internazionali Genova, Genova.
 
29.
Watson, A. (1969). The law of property in the later Roman Republic. Clarendon Press, Oxford. ISBN 978-0198251859.
 
eISSN:2391-789X
ISSN:1734-2031