Hipotēkas ietekme uz prasījumu noilgumu Latvijas civiltiesībās
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2020
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Rīgas Stradiņa universitāte / Rīga Stradiņš University
Abstract
Saskaņā ar Civillikuma 1907. pantu zemesgrāmatās ierakstītas saistību tiesības nav pakļautas noilgumam. Minētā norma raisa jautājumu, vai arī tāda saistību tiesība, kas ir nodrošināta ar zemesgrāmatā reģistrētu hipotēku, nav pakļauta noilgumam. Savā praksē Augstākā tiesa ir lēmusi, ka 1907. pants neattiecas uz šādām saistību tiesībām. Proti, tiesas ieskatā arī ar hipotēku nodrošinātās saistību tiesības ir pakļautas noilgumam. Rakstā Civillikuma 1907. panta saturs tiek analizēts, izmantojot sistēmisko un vēsturisko interpretācijas metodi, kā arī pirmskara doktrīnas atziņas. Autors secina, ka vismaz gadījumos, kad pats parādnieks ir arī hipotēkas devējs, hipotēkas nodibināšana pār parādnieka īpašumu pārtrauc noilguma termiņa tecējumu attiecībā uz nodrošināto prasījumu.
Pursuant to Article 1907 of the Latvian Civil Law obligations rights registered in the Land Register are not subject to extinctive prescription. The provision poses a question, whether it also applies to those obligations that are secured by a mortgage registered in the Land Register. The Latvian Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the case and that such secured obligations remain subject to the extinctive prescription. The Author of this article uses contextual and historical interpretation of the Latvian Civil Law in order to clarify the scope of Article 1907. This analysis reveals that, at least in cases where the mortgage is granted by the debtor, the registration of a mortgage, exempts the secured obligation from the effects of the extinctive prescription.
Pursuant to Article 1907 of the Latvian Civil Law obligations rights registered in the Land Register are not subject to extinctive prescription. The provision poses a question, whether it also applies to those obligations that are secured by a mortgage registered in the Land Register. The Latvian Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the case and that such secured obligations remain subject to the extinctive prescription. The Author of this article uses contextual and historical interpretation of the Latvian Civil Law in order to clarify the scope of Article 1907. This analysis reveals that, at least in cases where the mortgage is granted by the debtor, the registration of a mortgage, exempts the secured obligation from the effects of the extinctive prescription.
Description
Keywords
hipotēka, noilgums, ķīlas tiesība, saistību tiesības, mortgage, extinctive prescription, pledge rights, law of obligations
Citation
Socrates: Rīgas Stradiņa universitātes Juridiskās fakultātes elektroniskais juridisko zinātnisko rakstu žurnāls = Rīga Stradiņš University Faculty of Law Electronic Scientific Journal of Law. Rīga: RSU, 2020, Nr. 3 (18). 129.–137. lpp. https://doi.org/10.25143/socr.18.2020.3.129-137