A NEW POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION OF DIGEST OF JUSTINIAN D.9.2.27.14: A CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF PRECURSORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN ROMAN LAW
Sažetak
The paper addresses the meaning of the Digest of Justinian 9.2.27.14, which deals with the case of damage caused by contamination of the soil by weeds. The author of this paper concludes that neither Celsus nor Ulpian had any doubt that in the case of the contamination of soil an interdictum quod vi aut clam could be brought, but only within a period of one year following the damage. This interdict is granted to either the owner, and, if the land was subject of the contract of lease, to the tenant (lessee), but only to one of them. Furthermore, an Aquilian action could also be brought, but only one of these two legal instruments could be used. The lawsuit could be brought both by the owner or by the tenant. The actio is granted to both the the owner and the lessee, not as an actio directa, but as an actio in factum ex lege Aquilia. The reason for this cannot be established with certainty.
Reference
Bibliography
Albanese, B., 1950, Studi sulla legge Aquilia, Annali del Seminario giuridico della Università di Palermo, 21, pp. 5–343.
Aličić, S., 2011, Ulpijan, Celz i zagađenje zemljišta korovom (D.9.2.27.4), Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, 45/3, pp. 613–633.
Aličić, S., 2016, Imovinska šteta u rimskom klasičnom pravu – Osnove koncepta štete u savremenom pravu, Sarajevo, University Press.
Capogrossi Colognesi, L., 1993, L’interdetto “quod vi aut clam” e il suo ambito di applicazione, Index, 21, pp. 231–280.
Cerami, P., 1985, La concezione celsina del “ius”. Presupposti culturali e implicazioni metodologiche, Palermo, Palumbo.
Corbino, A., 2008, Il danno qualificato e la lex Aquilia: Corso di diritto romano, Padova, Cedam.
Fargnoli, I., 1998, Studi sulla legittimazione attiva all'interdetto quod vi aut clam, Milano, Giuffre.
Guarino, A., 1986, La concezione celsina del “ius”. (Lettura); Labeo, 32.
Guizzi, F., 1961, In tema di origini della “cautio de rato”, Labeo, 7, pp. 330–341.
Llanos Pitarch, J. M., 1995, La restitución en la posesión: El interdicto quod vi aut clam, Castellón, J. V. Ediciones.
Longo, G., 1962, Voce: Interdictum quod vi aut clam, Novissimo digesto italiano, VIII, pp. 808–809.
Lübtow, U. von, 1971, Untersuchungen zur lex Aquilia de damno iniuria dato, Berlin, Duncker & Humbolt.
MacCormack, G.,1973, Celsus quaerit: D.9.2.27.14, RIDA, 20, pp. 341–348.
Natali N., 1896, La legge Aquilia ossia il damnum iniuria datum: Studio sul lib. IX, tit. II del Digesto, Roma, Tipografia dell’Unione cooperativa editrice.
Porto, A. di, 1988, La tutela della “salubritas” fra editto e giurisprudenza. Il ruolo di Labeone. I – Acque., BIDR, 91, pp. 459–570.
Tellegen-Couperus, O. E., 1995, The Tenant, the Borrower and the lex Aquilia, RIDA, 42, pp. 415–436.
Thayer, J. B., 1929, Lex Aquilia (Digest IX, 2, Ad Legem Aquiliam): Text, Translation and Commentary, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Valino, E., 1973, Acciones pretorias complementarias de la accion civil de la ley Aquilia, Pamplona, Universidad de Navarra.
Winiger, B., 1997, La responsabilité aquilienne romaine: damnum iniuria datum, Bâle et Francfort-sur-le-Main, Helbing & Lichtenhahn.
Ziliotto, P., 2000, L’imputazione del danno aquiliano: tra iniuria e damnum corpore datum, Padova, Cedam.
Legislative Sources
CO.12.7.5
CO.12.7.5
D.12.1.1.1
D.12.6.26.13
D.19.1.13pr
D.19.2.15.2
D.28.5.9.2
D.34.2.19.3
D.34.2.19.3
D.43.24.1.4
D.43.24.11.12
D.43.24.11.13
D.43.24.11pr
D.43.24.12
D.43.24.15.12
D.43.24.18pr
D.43.24.19
D.43.24.7.5
D.47.12.2
D.47.2.26.1
D.47.2.43.10
D.7.1.2.7
D.9.2.11.9
D.9.2.27.13
D.9.2.27.14
D.9.2.27.15
D.9.2.27.20
D.9.2.27.34
D.9.2.27.8
D.9.2.30.3
D.9.2.57
D.9.2.7.6
Other sources
Vulgata, Lu.15.11–32
Vulgata, Lu.15.3–7
Vulgata, Lu. 15.8–10
Vulgata, Mt.13.24–28
Vulgata, Mt.18.12–14;