Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu

336

АНАЛИ ПРАВНОГ ФАКУЛТЕТА

stipulated, first of all, by the commodity and money economy being predominantly the matter of the civillegal regulating and having an impact on the regulating of those fields of life that are not directly connected with it (for instance, inheritance, causing and compensating damage, ect.). 2. Some spécificités of the Yugoslav socio-economic reality and the Civil Code. In this part of the article the following two basic specificities of the Yugoslav situation are treated: a) Socialist legal persons and the Civil Code. The author considers that the Yugoslav legal persons are subjects characteristic for the socialist society only; this social system cannot be without socialist legal persons. These persons are the fundament and support of the socialist socio-economic system. In the administrative period of life of the socialist society the role and significance of the socialist legal persons (are) covered and suppressed by state’s role; only when the socialist state gives up direct (operative) economic function, as was the case in the Yugoslav society, the role and significance of the socialist legal persons is noticeable. b) Social property and the Civil Code. Having in mind the cultural circumstances, the author thinks that socially owned means need not be the property of the society of socialist state to be considered as social property; they can be owned by the social legal persons without losing the social (socialist) character; that the right to use socially owned things in possession of the socialist legal person be considered in the legal intercouse as the right to ownership; that a plain citizen should consider a socialist legal person as the owner of the things it possesses an that reoresent social property. c) Self-management and the Civil Code. The author thinks that selfmanagement as a specificity ot the Yugoslav reality could not be the pivot of the future Civil Code, for it is the internal matter of working organizations (socialist legal persons) while the Civil Code should regulate the external relationships between the subjects of law with respect to goods and services. d) Subjective rights as the legal expression of social relationships and the Civil Code with a special view of the question of acknowledging right to workers to fruits of work materialized through socially owned means on the grounds of the right to work. In connexion with subjective rights the author criticises the approaches negating subjective rights and points that if viewed historically, usurpation and limitation of subjective rights, and consequently their apparent negation, occurred in the periods of full maturity or in the periods of establishment of a particular socio-economic system (i.e. in the period of the original accumulation capital, in the period of state capitalism in bourgeois countries in the period of the so-called administrative socialism, that is the first stage of the life of a socialist society). As to acknowledging the right of workers to the fruits of work effected by means of socially owned resources on the grounds of the right to work, the author finds that the approach attaching to this right the basic civillegal relation, is not the basic subjectiv civil law. The rights of workers to fruits of work is a labour-legal and not a civil-legal category, and consequently should not be regulated by the Civil Code. However, regardless how it is going to be regulated this right could have the character of law of contract (relative), as it has to-day and always has had. A worker cannot be acknowledged and absolute right to the fruits of work (i.e. right to ownership in the form of common property), because this would lead to transformation of the property of socialist legal persons into the collegiate private property, and of the persons themselves into private legal persons, devoiding thus the socialist society of its socialist character.