The author discusses different segments of the institute of euthanasia ("murder out of mercy"), especially the question of the justification of its legalization. The subject of the analysis are the solutions of certain European regulations that have completely or partially decriminalized euthanasia, and then the domestic one, in which there is a collision of the norms of criminal and medical law. According to the positive serbian criminal law, euthanasia is a criminal offense and a privileged form of murder, while the Law on Patients' Rights indirectly allows the so-called passive euthanasia, which is not the optimal solution, which introduces legal uncertainty. Тhe Preliminary Draft of the Civil Code of Serbia, which embodies the proposal for the future civil law of Serbia, proposes the decriminalization of euthanasia, which is a solution that needs to be commented on. The aim of the paper is a comparative analysis of domestic and foreign solutions of this controversial institute - through its concept, types (active and passive euthanasia) and critical analysis of the reasons for and against its introduction into the domestic law. The author evaluates the proposal of the Preliminary Draft as progress, with the idea that euthanasia, despite all the controversies that accompany it, represents the ultimate expression of a personal right to self-determination (subjective civil right sui generis), in both modalities, without distinction.

No abstract

REZIME:Predmet rada predstavlja poređenje dva prava realnog obezbeđenja potraživanja, i to: prava retencije, regulisanog u pozitivnom pravu Srbije u Zakonu o obligacionim odnosima i prava zemljišnog duga, tj. realnog duga, čije je uvođenje planirano Nacrtom Zakonika o svojini i drugim stvarnim pravima Srbije iz 2006. Cilj ovog rada je ocena svrsishodnosti uvođenja zemljišnog duga као novog prava obezbeđenja u domaćem pravu, u situaciji postojanja već afirmisane hipoteke i retencije. U slučaju ocene celishodnosti njegovog uvođenja, drugi i konačni cilj rada je da se, komparacijom funkcija i svojstava zemljišnog duga i retencije precizno utvrde njihove sličnosti i razlike, prvenstveno zbog potrebe preciznog pravnoteorijskog razgraničenja, a potom i radi njihove lakše praktične primene. Autor u radu zaključuje da sličnosti između ova dva instituta postoje prvenstveno u funkciji koju vrše -kao prava realnog obezbeđenja. U ostalim svojstvima ovi instituti se razlikuju, a naročito u strukturi, načelima i pravnom dejstvu.Ključne reči: prava realnog obezbeđenja potraživanja, retencija, zemljiš-ni dug * Asistent na užoj građanskopravnoj naučnoj oblasti na Pravnom fakultetu Univerziteta u Kragujevcu,

By using a comparative and axiological method, the author analyzes three specific civil law institutes, locating their similarities and differences: the right of retaining possession; the right of retained property, ie. pactum reservati dominii (as institutes that exist in domestic Law on obligations); and fiduciary transfer of property (which is not regulated in domestic positive law). The subject of consideration in the paper are: the concept; properties; establishment conditions; functions; similarities and differences among these three security rights in rem, first in domestic law, and then in the law of the European Union. The aim of this paper is to formulate an answer to the question of the justification of the existence of these institutes in the future Serbian law, with their previous delimitation; as well as the degree of harmonization of domestic positive law and two drafts of potential future Serbian civil law with EU law. The author estimates that these three institutes are significantly different, and in many ways useful for Serbian law de lege ferenda, and they should coexist, so author advocate the formal introduction of fiduciary transfer of property for security purposes in Serbian law, which would expand the range of domestic security rights in rem, which is in line with the solution of the DCFR, ie. EU “soft” law, that the domestic solution needs to be harmonized with.

The subject of the paper is the consideration of certain segments of the physiognomy of the institute of fiduciary property as an atypical real guarantee, which is not institutionalized in positive Serbian law (nor has it ever been), but which has long been known by European economic practice, as well as numerous newer legislations, especially those in our close environment. The introduction of this institute was proposed by the Draft Code of Property and Other Real Rights of Serbia from 2011, which is one of the two drafts of Serbian civil law de lege ferenda (along with the Draft Civil Code of Serbia, which does not regulate this institute). Considering the importance of the reform of the domestic law of real security of claims, as well as the harmonization of domestic law with EU regulations, the author critically analyzes and evaluates the solution of the Draft from 2011, through consideration of the following issues: effect, protection and termination of the institute, titled as: law entrusted security properties and right expected security properties. The author evaluates the regulations of the Draft as expedient, developed and precise, and the institute as useful in many ways for future Serbian civil law. It is a right that would additionally affirm the market of services, especially banking services, in a way functionally similar to the lien, but different and distinctive enough, so that fiduciary property would have a formally legally recognized special place in the expanded numerus clausus of Serbian real rights in the future.