Lex Cincia
The Lex Cincia (also: lex Cincia de donis et muneribus ) was a Roman law from the year 204 BC. BC, which came about through a plebiscite during the time of the republic . It regulated upper limits for the acceptance of gifts by third parties who were not closely related to the giver or by marriage. It was created in order to limit exaggerated luxury in the general interest, without, however, wanting to offend the property class of the Roman ruling class.
The value limit and whether the law imposed sanctions for violations or simply did not regulate it are unknown. In any case, the more recent research by Max Kaser classifies the law as a lex imperfecta , which means that its implementation depended solely on the use of procedural means of power by the magistrate. Its sanctions were mostly issued at the request of the person in need of protection.
The principles of the prohibition norm were given concrete form through praetoric edicts and judicial interpretation of law . During the imperial era , the emperor's legislations were also decisive. The rule was that a prohibited donation remained effective under civil law . A distinction had to be made as to whether the donation had been made or not. A donation made ( donatio perfecta ) remained unassailable. In very exceptional cases the donor was the recipient kondizieren when he had turned to the subject unaware of the donation ban. An unfulfilled donation , i.e. a mere promise of donation , was not enforceable for the recipient, since the donor could raise the praetorical objection of the exceptio legis Cinciae . The exceptio , however, was reserved for the donor alone and was therefore not applicable to heirs. To this extent, the will of the donor was non-transferable and flowed into the legal tenacity principle of perseverantia voluntatis . Extensive legal literature dealt with rules of interpretation on the question of the execution of gifts.
The lex Cincia was already felt to be out of date in classical times, which is why the law was hardly observed any more. The suspension ultimately took place by way of the derogating, customary desuetudo .
literature
- Jan Dirk Harke : Roman law. From the classical period to the modern codifications . Beck, Munich 2008, ISBN 978-3-406-57405-4 ( floor plans of the law ), § 10 no. 18-20 (pp. 173 f.).
- Herbert Hausmaninger , Walter Selb : Römisches Privatrecht , Böhlau, Vienna 1981 (9th edition 2001) (Böhlau study books) ISBN 3-205-07171-9 , p. 265 f.
- Heinrich Honsell : Roman law. 5th edition, Springer, Zurich 2001, ISBN 3-540-42455-5 , p. 156 f.
Remarks
- ↑ Livy 34: 4, 9; Cicero , De oratore 2, 286.
- ↑ Important sources that are discussed in different contexts: Dig. 39,5,21,1 ( Cels. 28 dig.) ; Dig. 44,4,5,5 ( Paul. 71 ad edictum) .
- ^ Herbert Hausmaninger, Walter Selb: Römisches Privatrecht , Böhlau, Vienna 1981 (9th edition 2001) (Böhlau-Studien-Bücher) ISBN 3-205-07171-9 , p. 144.
- ^ A b Max Kaser : About prohibition laws and illegal business in Roman law . Publishing house of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (Philosophical-Historical Class, Meeting Reports Volume 312, Vienna 1977, pp. 20 ff. (31 f.).
- ^ A b Herbert Hausmaninger , Walter Selb : Römisches Privatrecht , Böhlau, Vienna 1981 (9th edition 2001) (Böhlau-Studien-Bücher) ISBN 3-205-07171-9 , p. 265 f.
- ↑ a b Heinrich Honsell : Roman law. 5th edition, Springer, Zurich 2001, ISBN 3-540-42455-5 , p. 156 f.
- ↑ Fragmenta Vaticana ( Vat ) 266 Ulp.
- ^ Jan Dirk Harke : Roman law. From the classical period to the modern codifications . Beck, Munich 2008, ISBN 978-3-406-57405-4 ( floor plans of the law ), § 10 no. 18-20 (pp. 173 f.).
- ↑ Fragmenta Vaticana (Vat.) 310 f. Paul.
