Pravo deteta da dobije informacije o svom donoru a samim tim i o svom genetskom poreklu izvodi se iz prava deteta da zna ko su mu roditelji, što je predviđeno članom 7. Konvencije o pravima deteta. Da bi se član 7 shvatio na odgovarajući način potrebno ga je tumačiti uz osvrt na član 8 iste konvencije-pravo deteta da očuva svoj identitet, kao i na član 8 Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima-pravo na poštovanje privatnog i porodičnog života. U pogledu prava deteta začetog postupkom asistirane reprodukcije da dobije informacije o svom donoru u uporednom pravu susrećemo dva suprotstavljena stanovišta. Jedna grupa zakonodavstava (švedsko, austrijsko, nemačko, britansko) predviđa neograničenu dostupnost identifikacionih informacija o donoru, dok druga grupa (francusko,dansko, norveško, rusko) predviđa apsolutnu zakonsku zabranu pristupu informacijama o davaocu genetskog materijala, osim informacija koje imaju medicinski značaj. Naročit osvrt je učinjen u pravcu zakonskog rešenja predviđenog u pravu Švedske kao države koja je prva predvidela pravo deteta začetog postupkom asistirane reprodukcije da dobije informacije o svom donoru. Cilj ovog rada je da damo prikaz uporednopravnih rešenja, predočimo prednosti i nedostatke jednog i drugog pristupa i damo predlog jedinstvenog rešenja. Ključne reči: asistirana reprodukcija, porodično pravo, pravo deteta, biološko poreklo. * Istraživač pripravnik na Institutu za uporedno pravo u Beogradu, e-mail: bogdanastjepanovic@ gmail.com. ** Ovaj rad je nastao kao rezultat rada na projektu "Srpsko i evropsko pravo-upoređivanje i usaglašavanje" (ev. br. 179031) koji finansira Ministarstvo prosvete, nauke i tehnološkog razvoja.

The issue of ex iure termination of fixed contracts becomes significant during the termination of fixed formal contracts. More precisely, this refers to bilateral contracts on real estate transactions which are made in the form of a notary public record or in the form of a notarized (solemnized) act. When concluding a contract for real estate transactions, if based on the entry in the records of concluded contracts, the notary determines that the same seller has already concluded a contract for the same real estate transactions, he is obliged to warn the contractors and to make this information visible in the contract in accordance with the rules which regulate the activity of notaries, and if the contracting parties oppose the introduction of a warning, the notary public is obliged to refuse to undertake the requested official action. Based on the positive legal regulation of termination of contracts in which the fulfillment of the deadline is an essential component of the contract, for the termination of the contract ex iure it is not necessary to meet any additional conditions, although in the records of legal transactions ex iure termination of the contracts is not legally recognized. The practical implication of introducing a warning that the seller has already concluded a real estate contract is contrary to the actual state of affairs, bearing in mind that such a contract would have ceased to exist by force of law. Furthermore, if the change of the situation in the register of concluded contracts would be conditioned by passing a determining judgment, such a judgment would risk losing its determining character, and thus the automatic termination of the contract in a specific case would be called into question. Therefore, the authors of this paper will try to address the above-mentioned issues from the aspect of the purposefulness of the rules on ex iure termination of fixed bilateral real estate contracts. Recognizing the protection of legal security and legal transactions as one of the main purposes of form in these contracts, and preventing multiple transactions of the same real estate and protection of interests of the contracting parties, the authors address the issue of preserving the purpose of form in these contracts in order to find de lege ferenda solutions.

Рад је саопштен на међународној научној конференцији "Право пред изазовима савременог доба", која је одржана 13. и 14. априла 2018. године на Правном факултету Универзитета у Нишу.

In recent decades, we have witnessed significant changes in the field of family law and a changed social reality, which brought with it changes in legal regulations in international law and comparative legislation of various countries. When discussing the issues that concern human life, death, health, and in this relation the abuse of certain medical devices and treatments, it appears that the issues that give rise to the strongest controversy are the issues of euthanasia and abortion, the issue of organ donation, as well as the issues of surrogacy and in vitro fertilisation, especially in situations when the donor is anonymous. In this situation, the question of the child's right to know his/her biological origins may reasonably be raised, since this is one of his/her fundamental, guaranteed rights, the exercise of which does not depend, and can never depend, on the willingness of the state, i.e., its authorities, and individuals who participate in the birth of a child with the use of reproductive technologies. The question is raised as to whether the right to plan a family and the right to decide freely on having a child in these situations are in complete contrast with the right of the child to have access to the truth about his/her biological origins and biological parents, regardless of primary motivation for making decision on the participation in this process, this process also acquiring over time some elements of genetic engineering, and the result of which is a living being with conscience, emotional, social, and psychological needs, but also all the rights that derive from natural law, given by God, which exists independently of the legislator, that can govern any matter in a way that at a certain time (does not) correspond to a wider social consensus. The authors will present in this paper an overview of certain comparative legal solutions in this area, as well as court rulings that call into question the legality and ethics of the procedures implemented so far, as well as their consequences that we are still to face in the years to come, with the aim of establishing whether the right to decide freely on having a child in these cases and the child's right to know his/her biological origins are in complete contrast or whether these two rights may be reconciled after all.

The United States of America is one of the few countries that has alternative ways of compensation for the harmful consequences caused by the health damage as the con- sequences of vaccination. In this paper, we will discuss the National Vaccine Injury Com- pensation Program (VICP or NVICP) as the oldest and basic method of alternative com- pensation for adverse consequences caused by vaccination, as well as the Countermeas- ures Injury Compensation Program (CICP)) as the official US Covid-19 vaccine compensa- tion program. America is a country that has a very developed vaccination system, and as a result, a lot of experience with other issues that arise related to vaccination. Our goal is to, through an overview of certain issues of these two programs, approach the very concept of an alternative compensation solution, consider the possibility of applying the National Compensation Program for harmful consequences caused by vaccination and for the dam- age caused by vaccines against Covid-19, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of both programs and possibly give an idea for the adoption and implementation of such a program even in countries that do not know this concept, especially in the current situation where the issue of mandatory vaccination and the fear of its side effects is very prevalent.