6254000

8/13/2019 6254000

1/16

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2009

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2009

23

NATURA JURIDICA

SUBSTITUIILOR FIDEICOMISARE

Prof. univ. dr. Stoica Veronica

Dragu Laureniu

Academia de Poliie Alexandru Ioan

Cuza

Abstract: nainte de analiza propriu-zis anaturii juridice a substituiilor fideicomisare,materialul prezint noiunea de substituieifideicomisare, originea i evoluia acestei instituii

ncepnd cu dreptul roman, precum i justificareaprohibiiei substituiei fideicomisare.

Substituia fideicomisar poate fi definit drept odispoziie cuprins n actul de liberalitate (donaiesau testament) prin care dispuntorul oblig pe

beneficiarul liberalitii (donatar sau legatar), numitinstituit sau grevat (fiduciar), s conserve bunurile

primite i s le transmit, n tot sau n parte, ladecesul su, unei alte persoane, numit substituit(fideicomisar), desemnattot de ctre dispuntor.

Cuvinte cheie: natur juridic, substituia

fideicomisar, actul de liberalitate, beneficiarulliberalitii

1. Noiunea de substituiifideicomisare

Intenia de a face o liberalitate pusnoper i acceptat de cel gratificat poate fidictat de sentimente ori interese (aprecierisubiective ale dispuntorului), deseori destulde dificil de individualizat n situaiiconcrete. Ceea ce este esenial const n

faptul c, dincolo de resortul interior care adeterminat actul de liberalitate, voina de agratifica trebuie s-i ating finalitatea:

procurarea unui folos material frechivalent. Asigurarea acestui deziderat nu

putea rmne, n ciuda consacrrii la nivel deprincipiu a libertii dreptului de dispoziie(inter vivos sau mortis causa), n afara sfereide preocupare a legiuitorului, care prinnormele edictate, a contrapussubiectivismului individual (variabil de la caz

la caz) reguli obiective i uniforme. Atenia

JURIDICAL NATURE OF THE TRUSTEE

SUBSTITUTIONS

Prof.PhD. Stoica Veronica

Dragu Laureniu

Alexandru Ioan Cuza Police Academy

Abstract: Before the actual analysis of thejuridical nature of trustee substitutions, the materialpresents the trustee substitutions notion, the origin and theevolution of this institution, starting with the Roman law,

and also the justification of the trustee substitutionprohibition.

The trustee substitution may be defined as astipulation contained in the liberality document (donationor will) by means of which the owner forces the

beneficiary of the liberality (donor or heir), calledinstituted or taxed (fiduciary), to keep the received goodsand to transmit them, totally or partially, at his or herdeath, to another person, called substituted (trustee), alsoestablished by the owner.

Key words:juridical nature, trustee substitution,liberality document, beneficiary of the liberality

1. The Notion of Trustee

Substitutions

The intention to make a liberalityapplied and accepted by the recompensed onemay be led by feelings or by interests(subjective appreciations of the owner), and it isoften quite difficult to be individualized inconcrete situations. The essential part isrepresented by the fact that, beyond the innersection that determined the liberality document,the will to recompense must reach its ending:the achievement of a unique material gain.Providing this desideratum could not remain,despite the acknowledgement as a principle ofthe liberty of the stipulation right (inter vivos ormortis causa), beyond the legislators concernfield that, by means of the decreed norms, hascounter put to the individual subjectivism(variable depending on the case) objective anduniform rules. The legislators attention was

focused on two sides:

8/13/2019 6254000

2/16



24

legiuitorului a fost canalizatpe doupaliere:-n primul rnd, s-a urmrit protecia

voinei dispuntorului prin generarea denorme imperative onerative ( art 813 Cod

civil i 858 i urm. Cod civil prin care seimpune o anumit form- ad validitatem-pentru actele de liberalitate: donaie,respectiv testament) sau prohibitive (art. 133alin. 3 Codul familiei prin care se aratcleeste interzis minorilor sfacacte de donaie,chiar i cu ncuviinare). Prin impunerea unorasemenea condiii restrictive de ncheiere s-aconsiderat c se poate asigura o finalitatecontient din perspectiva autoruluiliberalitii i, totodat, o subordonare

acceptat a interesului individual consecineifireti a srcirii patrimoniului, fie cavem nvedere o diminuare imediat i irevocabil aaverii (n cazul donaiei), fie unacircumstaniat, cu efecte directe asuprarudelor cu vocaie concret la succesiune (ncazul testamentului).

-n al doilea rnd, s-a avut n vedereaprarea drepturilor celui gratificat, prinstatuarea prohibiiei liberalitilor longamanu, n care beneficiarul darului ar juca

rolul unui simplu instrument, al unui mijlocde realizare a unor interese ndeprtate, demult ori obscure, ale dispuntorului. n acestsens, legiuitorul a interzis substituiilefideicomisare, considerndu-le o modalitate

juridic de eludare a esenei actelor deliberalitate: intenia de a gratifica cuconsecina sa fireasc: conferirea prin act

juridic a puterii juridice asupra elementuluiactiv patrimonial- obiect al transferului.

De lege lata, substituiilefideicomisare sunt reglementate n art. 803Cod civil n care se aratcSubstituiile saufideicomisele sunt prohibite; orice dispoziie

prin care donatarul, eredele instituit saulegatarul va fi nsrcinat de a conserva i aremite la o a treia persoan, va fi nul, chiarn privirea donatarului, a eredelui numit sau alegatarului.

Textul de lege citat surprinde, sintetic,caracteristicile actului de exercitare a

dreptului de dispoziie asupra propriului

-in the first place, we followed theprotection of the owners will by generatingimperative onerous norms (art 813 of CivilCode and 858 and the following ones of the

Civil Code by means of which we impose acertain type - ad validitatem- for the liberalitydocuments: donation, respectively will) or

prohibitive ones (art. 133, paragraph 3 ofFamily Code by means of which it is shownthat the minors are forbidden to make donationacts, even if they have an approval). Byimposing certain restrictive contractingconditions, we considered that we may providean aware ending from the perspective of theliberality author and, in the same time, an

accepted subordination of the individualinterest of the natural consequence of the

patrimony poverty, either we consider animmediate and irrevocable fortune decrease (incase of donation), or a circumstantial one,having direct effects over the relatives with aconcrete vocation to the succession (in case ofthe will).

-in the second place, we considered theprotection of the rights of the recompensedperson, by establishing the prohibition of the

longa manu liberalities, where the beneficiaryof the gift would play the part of a simple tool,of a means of accomplishing certain far-off,often obscure interests of the owner. In thissense, the legislator forbids the trusteesubstitutions, considering them a juridical wayof evading the essence of the liberalitydocuments: the intention to recompense with itsnatural consequence: conferring by a juridicaldocument the juridical power over the active-

patrimonial element object of the transfer.De lege lata, the trustee substitutions are

regulated in art. 803 of Civil Code where it isshown that The substitutions or the trust fundsare prohibited; any stipulation by means ofwhich the donor, the instituted inheritor or theheir will have to keep and to deliver to a third

person, will be null even regarding the donor,the established inheritor or the heir.

The quoted law text surprisessynthetically the features of the exertion act of

the stipulation right over the personal

8/13/2019 6254000

3/16



25

patrimoniu, nul pentru c ar conine osubstituie fideicomisar. Astfel:

-actul trebuie sse prezinte sub formaunui act de liberalitate: donaie sau testament;

-actul respectiv s impun pentrugratificat nsrcinarea de a conserva bunurileprimite;

-sarcina de a conserva sfie impusnscopul unei transmisiuni ulterioare aobiectului liberalitii ctre o terpersoan.

n ceea ce ne privete, considerm caceste trsturi nu sunt suficiente pentruconturarea sferei de aplicabilitate a

prohibiiei substituiilor fieicomisare,impunndu-se alte cteva precizri:

-n primul rnd, momentul nateriidreptului terului (remiterea la o a treia

persoan, n formularea folositde legiuitor)1

trebuie s coincid cu momentul moriiprimului gratificat. n lipsa acestei condiii,actul de liberalitate nu ar mai constitui un act

prohibit pe temeiul car conine o substituiefideicomisar, ci unul valid, afectat demodaliti (termen, condiie, sarcin) sauinterzis n virtutea nclcrii altor dispoziiilegale (spre exemplu, lipsa de interes a

impunerii obligaiei de conservare,imoralitatea cauzei etc.)

-n al doilea rnd, prin folosireasintagmei va fi nsrcinat trebuie snelegem c n patrimoniul gratificatului seva nate o veritabil obligaie de rezultat

pentru acesta i nu o facultate, nesancionatjuridic 2.

-n sfrit, este esenial ca cea de-atreia persoan, care va dobndi obiectulliberalitii de la gratificat, s fie desemnatde ctre dispuntor. Astfel, daclibertatea dealegere ar rmne primului gratificat,interdicia nu s-ar mai justifica, deoarecedreptul de dispoziie asupra propriului

patrimoniu nu ar mai fi circumstaniat deelemente exterioare voinei dispuntorului.

Lund n considerare argumenteleprezentate mai sus, putem defini substituiafideicomisar drept o dispoziie cuprins nactul de liberalitate (donaie sau testament)

prin care dispuntorul obligpe beneficiarul

patrimony, null because it would contain atrustee substitution. Thus:

-the document has to be similar to aliberality document: donation or will;

-the respective document has to imposeto the recompensed person the obligation tokeep the received goods;

-the obligation to keep has to beimposed in order to transmit subsequently theliberality object to a third person.

As far as we are concerned, we considerthat these features are not enough in order tooutline the applicability field of the prohibitionof the trustee substitutions, imposing someother specifications:

-in the first place, the moment when thethirds right is born (the delivery to a third

person, in the wording used by the legislator)18must agree to the moment when the firstrecompensed person dies. In the absence of thiscondition, the liberality document would notrepresent anymore a prohibited document

because it would contain a trustee substitution,but a valid one, affected by the ways (term,condition, target) or forbidden underdisrespecting other legal stipulations (for

example, the interest lack of imposing thekeeping obligation, the immorality of the causeetc.)

-in the second place, by using thephrase to have the obligation we mustunderstand that in the recompensed persons

patrimony, there will be born a real resultobligation for this one and not a judiciallyunsanctioned faculty19.

-finally, it is essential for the thirdperson, who will achieve the liberality objectfrom the recompensed person, to be assigned

by the owner. Thus, if the freedom to chooseremains for the first recompensed person, theinterdiction is not justified anymore because thestipulation right over the personal patrimonywould not be circumstantiated by elementsoutside the owners will.

Considering the arguments presentedabove, we may define the trustee substitution asa stipulation contained in the liberality

document (donation or will) by means of which

8/13/2019 6254000

4/16



26

liberalitii (donatar sau legatar), numitinstituit sau grevat (fiduciar), s conserve

bunurile primite i sle transmit, n tot saun parte, la decesul su, unei alte persoane,

numit substituit (fideicomisar), desemnattot de ctre dispuntor3.Definiia formulat astfel poate fi

neleas mai uor n exemplul urmtor:Printr-un act de donaie A transmite n

patrimoniul lui B dreptul de proprietateasupra unei case, impunndu-i acestuiaobligaia de a conserva bunul primit i de a-ltransmite la moartea sa lui C. B, donatar nexemplul nostru, poart denumirea deinstituit sau grevat, iar C, persoan

desemnat de dispuntorul A, substituit saufideicomisar. Astfel, ne confruntm cu osubstituie unic, n care un singur instituit iun singur substituit. Dac, ns, dispuntorulimpune i substituitului obligaia de aconserva bunul i de a-l transmite la moarteasa unui al doilea substituit, substituia senumete gradual; iar dac dispuntorulurmrete s asigure pstrarea bunului nfamilie i transmiterea lui din generaie ngeneraie (n folosul descendenilor, fr

limitde grad), substituia este venic4.

2.Origine i evoluieSubstituiile fideicomisare i au

originea n dreptul roman, unde reprezentauun mijloc de organizare a transmisiunii averiidispuntorului dup bunul su plac. Ele aucunoscut, n interiorul ornduirii romane,dou linii de evoluie; de la simplu lacomplex. Pe de o parte, din perspectivasancionrii acestora, n forma lor originar,substituiile erau dependente de buna-credin a gratificatorului, pentru ca,ncepnd, din vremea lui Augustus, sdevino sarcinobligatorie pentru gratificat. Pe dealtparte, n ceea ce privete mecanismul derealizare, la origini, acesta era simplu: bunulera lsat n minile fiduciarului, pentru o

perioaddestul de scurtde timp; mai trziuposesia exercitat asupra bunului s-aprelungit pnla moartea fiduciarului, pentru

ca n ultimetapde evoluie fideicomisarul

the owner forces the liberality beneficiary(donor or heir), called instituted or taxed(fiduciary) to keep the received goods and totransmit them, totally or partially, when he or

she dies, to another person, called substituted(trustee), also assigned by the owner20.The definition formulated in this way

may be easier to understand in the followingexample: By means of a donation act, Atransmits to Bs patrimony the property rightover a house, imposing him the obligation tokeep the received good and to transmit it at hisor her death to C. B, being a donor in ourexample, is called instituted or taxed, and C is a

person assigned by the A owner, being

substituted or trustee. Thus, we have a uniquesubstitution, where we have one instituted andone substituted person. But, if the ownerimposes also to the substituted one theobligation to keep the good and to transmit it athis or her death to a second substituted person,the substitution is called gradual; and if theowner wants to be sure that the good stays inthe family and that it is transmitted fromgeneration to generation (in the advantage ofthe descendents, with no degree limits), the

substitution is forever21.

2.Origin and Evolution

The trustee substitutions have theirorigin in the Roman law, where they were ameans of organizing the owners fortune at hisor her will. They have known, inside theRoman law, two evolution lines; from simple tocomplex. On one hand, from the perspective oftheir sanctioning, in their original form, thesubstitutions depended on the good faith of theone who recompenses and, since Augustus,they have become a compulsory target for therecompensed one. On the other hand, regardingthe accomplishing mechanism, at the origins, itwas simple: the good was left in the fiduciaryhands, for a quite short time; later, the

possession exerted over the good wasprolonged until the fiduciary death and, in thelast evolution stage, the trustee (the substituted

person( becomes, at his or her turn, taxed in the

advantage of another substituted person (fact

8/13/2019 6254000

5/16



27

(substituitul) sdevin, la rndul su, grevatn folosul altui substituit (ceea ce noi amdenumit substituie gradual).

n planul dreptului obiectiv, romanii

nu au cunoscut noiunea de substituiefideicomisar ca atare, mecanismul specificei fiind asigurat prin intermediul unoroperaiuni distincte ca figuri juridice dar care,n esen, odat executate, aveau aceeaifinalitate (finalitatea specific substituiilorde astzi). Acestea erau substituiile ifideicomisele.

Substituirea de motenitori reprezentaacel mecanism prin care dispuntorul stabileao altpersoancare sia locul celui instituit

motenitor, n care cel din urmn-ar fi culesmotenirea. Existau:

-substituia vulgar. Era cea obinuiti consta n substituirea unuia sau mai multormotenitori, n locul motenitorului instituit,dac acesta din urm nu putea primisuccesiunea5.

-substituia pupilar ce consta nnumirea unei persoane care s vin lasuccesiune n locul motenitorului instituit,dac acesta din urm ar muri naintea

pubertii6.-substituia quasi-pupilar care se

fcea prin numirea de ctre testator a unuimotenitor pentru descendentul su lipsit deminte.

Fideicomisele reprezentau dispoziiicuprinse ntr-un testament sau chiar n afaralui prin care o persoan (disponent) roag oalt persoan (fiduciar) s transmit cuiva(fideicomisar) un anumit lucru sau chiar o

parte din motenire7.Interesul apariiei fideicomiselor se

justificprin nevoia de a gsi noi forme princare s fie nvins formalismul specificvechiului drept succesoral roman.

Astfel, spre exemplu, prin intermediulfideicomiselor puteau primi anumite bunuridintr-o succesiune i cei lipsii de testamentifactio 8pasiva.

Romanii au cunoscut dou feluri defideicomise:

-fideicomisul de familie, prin care

that we call a gradual substitution).Regarding the objective law, the

Romans did not know the trustee substitutionnotion as such, and its specific mechanism was

provided by means of different operations asjuridical figures but that, in essence, once theywere executed, had the same ending (theending specific to the substitutions nowadays).These were the substitutions and the trustfunds.

The heirs substitution represented thatmechanism by means of which the ownerestablished another person who should replacethe one who was instituted as a heir, where thelast one would not have pick up the heritance.

There were:-the vulgar substitution. It was the usual

one and it represented the substitution of one orof several heirs, instead of the instituted heir, ifthis last one could not receive the succession22.

-the pupil substitution that representedthe naming of a person who had to come to thesuccession instead of the instituted heir, if thelast one would die before puberty23.

-the quasi-pupil substitution that wasmade by naming the testator of a heir for his or

her descendent that has no mind.The trust funds represented stipulations

contained in a will or even outside it by meansof which a person (an owner) asks another

person (fiduciary) to transmit to someone (atrustee) a certain thing or even a part of theheritance24.

The interest of the trust fundsappearance is justified by the need to find newways by means of which the formalism specificto the old Roman successional law could bedefeated.

Therefore, for example, by means of thetrust funds, the ones that did not have atestamenti factio 25pasiva could receive goodsfrom a succession.

The Romans had known two trust fundstypes:

-the family trust fund, by means ofwhich the owner leaves a good to the fiduciaryif this last one leaves it, at his or her turn, to the

descendents. Such a trust fund provides the

8/13/2019 6254000

6/16



28

dispuntorul las un bun fiduciarului, cucondiia ca acesta din urm s-l lase, larndul su, urmailor. Un astfel de fideicomisasigura pstrarea bunurilor n snul unei

familii.-fideicomisul de ereditate care sedeosebea din punct de vedere cantitativ de celde familie putnd avea ca obiect ntreagaavere a dispuntorului.

Cderea Imperiului Roman a condusla dispariia normelor de conduitedictate ninteriorul acestuia i, implicit, amecanismelor specifice substituiilorfideicomisare. Totui, renaterea dreptuluiroman n sec. XV-XVI a condus la reapariia

substituiilor fideicomisare care, fr a ficonsacrate expres, aveau for juridic nvirtutea cutumelor specifice acelor vremuri9.

De atunci aplicabilitatea substituiilorfideicomisare a devenit frecvent, fiindutilizate n toate clasele sociale. Scopulfolosirii lor era divers: evitarea divizrii

patrimoniului, pstrarea autoritii n snulfamiliei, meninerea poziiei n cadrulsocietii ori protejarea celui gratificatmpotriva propriilor sale acte ce ar fi avut

drept consecin diminuarea averii. Ceea cetrebuie remarcat este faptul c, n epocafeudal, prin substituii fideicomisare seasigura transmiterea unei pri importante din

patrimoniul funciar din generaie ngeneraie, mai ales n favoarea primuluinscut, cu consecina fireasc a conservrii

puterii economice a aristocraiei bogate.La jumtatea secolului al XVIII-lea,

regalitatea francez, observnd graveleinconveniente generate de utilizareasubstituiilor fideicomisare (cum ar fi

prevalena perpetu a voinei individualeasupra legii sau condamnarea proprietiifunciare la o imobilitate exagerat i,totodat, nejustificat), a interzis printr-oordonan din august 1747 substituiile

perpetue, limitndu-le la dougeneraii10.Legiuirile romneti din perioada

feudal (Manualul juridic al lui AndronacheDonici i Codul Calimachi), consfineau

expres validitatea substituiilor fideicomisare.

keeping of the goods in a family frame.-the heirship trust fund, that was

quantitatively different from the family one,and it could have as an object the entire fortune

of the owner.The collapse of the Roman Empire ledto the disappearance of the behaviour normsdecreed inside it and, implicitly, of themechanisms specific to the trusteesubstitutions. Although, the renaissance of theRoman law in the 15th-16thcenturies led to thereappearance of the trustee substitutions that,without being expressly devoted, had a juridicalforce under the habits specific to that time26.

Since then, the applicability of trustee

substitutions has become frequent and they arebeing used in all the social classes. The purposeof their use was diverse: avoiding the

patrimony division, keeping the authority in thefamily frame, maintaining the position in thesociety frame or protecting the recompensedone against his or her own acts that would havehad as a consequence the fortune diminution.We have to notice the fact that, during thefeudal age, by means of trustee substitutions we

provided the transmission of an important part

of the innate patrimony from generation togeneration, especially in the advantage of thefirst born, with the natural consequence ofkeeping the economical power of the richaristocracy.

At the half of the 18th century, theFrench royalty, noticing the serious difficultiesgenerated by the use of the trustee substitutions(for example, the perpetual prevalence of theindividual will over the law or the conviction ofthe innate property to an overestimatedimmobility and, in the same time, unjustified),forbade by means of a decree since August1747 the perpetual substitutions, by limitingthem to two generations27.

The Romanian legislations since thefeudal age (Andronache Donicis JuridicalHandbook and Calimachi Code) were expresslysanctioning the validity of the trusteesubstitutions. Caragea Code, in exchange, didnot refer to them, but, under its system, it was

admitted that the trustee substitutions were

8/13/2019 6254000

7/16



29

Codul Caragea, n schimb, nu fcea referirela ele, dar, sub regimul su, se admite csubstituiile fideicomisare erau permise11.

Revoluia Francezde la 1789 a adus

cu sine i interzicerea total a substituiilor,justificat de motive politice (distrugereanobilimii) i economice (asigurarea libereicirculaii a bogiilor). n acest sens, unuldintre primele acte ale Revoluiei a fostDecretul din 14-15 noiembrie 1792 n care searta c: Toate substituiile sunt interzise i

prohibite pentru viitor. Substituiile fcutenainte de publicarea prezentului decret,indiferent n ce acte sunt statuate, care nusunt deschise la acestei publicri, sunt i

rmn abolite.Codul civil francez de la 1804

interzicea, cu valoare de principiu,substituiile fideicomisare, artnd n art. 896alin. 2 c Orice dispoziie prin caredonatarul, eredele instituit sau legatarul va fiobligat s conserve i s remitunui ter, vafi nul, chiar n privina donatarului, eredeluiinstituit sau legatarului. Interdicia nu eraabsolut, ntruct cunotea unele atenurireglementate n articolele 1048 i 1049 din

acelai act normativ. n virtutea celor douprevederi era recunoscut validitateasubstituiilor fideicomisare fcute n folosulnepoilor dispuntorului sau copiilor frailori surorilor. Astfel, legatarul sau donatarulfinal era un copil al grevatului.12

Reforma dreptului succesoral francezdin 2006 a adus cu sine i modificareatextului art. 896 Cod civil, acesta avndastzi urmtoarea formulare: Dispoziia

prin care o persoan este nsrcinat sconserve i s remit unui al treilea nu

produce efecte dect n cazul n care ea esteautorizatprin lege. Operaiunile autorizate

prin lege, la nivelul legislaiei franceze, suntreprezentate de liberalitile graduale iliberalitile reziduale reglementate n art.1048-1056 Cod civil francez, respectiv 1057-1061 din acelai act normativ.

Legiuitorul romn, dup modelulCodului civil napoleonian, a interzis

substituiile fideicomisare. Spre deosebire

allowed28.The French Revolution since 1789

brought the total ban of the substitutions,justified by political reasons (destroying the

aristocracy) and economical ones (providingthe free circulation of the splendours). In thissense, one of the first Revolution documentswas the Decree since November 14th 15th,1792 where it was shown that: All thesubstitutions are forbidden and prohibited forthe future. The substitutions made before

publishing the current decree, no matter thedocuments that enacted them, that are not opento this publishing, are and will be abolished.

French Civil Code since 1804 forbade,

as a principle value, the trustee substitutions,showing in art. 896, paragraph 2 that Anystipulation by means of which the donor, theinstituted inheritor or the heir will be forced tokeep and to deliver to a third, will be null, evenregarding the donor, the instituted inheritor orthe heir. The ban as not absolute because itknew certain attenuations regulated by articles1048 and 1049 of the same normativedocument. Under the two stipulations, theyadmitted the validity of the trustee substitutions

made in the advantage of the ownersgrandchildren or nephews or nieces. Thus, thefinal heir or donor was a child of the taxed

person.29The reform of the French successional

law since 2006 brought the change of the textof art. 896 of Civil Code, and nowadays it hasthe following wording: The stipulation bymeans of which a person is forced to keep andto deliver to a third has effects only if it isauthorized by the law. The operations that areauthorized by the law, at the Frenchlegislation level, are represented by gradualliberalities and residual liberalities regulated byart. 1048-1056 of French Civil Code,respectively 1057-1061 of the same normativedocument.

The Romanian legislator, similar to themodel of Napoleons Civil Code, forbade thetrustee substitutions. But, unlike the originalFrench legislation (the Civil Code since 1804),

the Romanian Civil Code accepts no

8/13/2019 6254000

8/16



30

ns de legislaia francez originar (Codulcivil de la 1804), Codul civil romn nuadmite nicio atenuare a principiului

prohibiiei, ceea ce face ca interdicia s fie

una absolut.

3. Justificarea prohibiieisubstituiilor fideicomisare

Msura interzicerii substituiilorfideicomisare a fost determinat deidentificarea unor grave neajunsuri cauzatede utilizarea lor frecvent i ndelungat. Acerceta, ns, fundamentele instituirii imeninerii prohibiiei nu reprezint undemers facil, avnd n vedere c realitile

sociale care au generat-o sunt proprii unorvremuri demult apuse. De aceea, considermc pentru identificarea factorilor care aufundamentat prohibiia va trebui sne situmn trei etape de evoluie istorice deosebite:

perioada premergtoare Revoluiei franceze,perioada adoptrii codurilor civile (romn ifrancez), perioada posterioar edictriiinterdiciei.

Pnla Revoluia francezde la 1789s-au luat unele msuri de limitare temporala

imposibilitii de a stabili prin act juridicsoarta averii din generaie n generaie (spreexemplu, printr-o ordonan din 1560 s-alimitat aceast facultate la cel mult dougeneraii).

Msura interzicerii substituiilorfideicomisare posterior Revoluiei de la 1789nu putea fi susinut dect de argumente denatur politic: contraveneau idealurilor

promovate de revoluionari (n specialegalitatea social) i, implicit, realitilordeterminate de noua organizare a societii.

Fundamentul politic nu este strin nicide epoca adoptrii codurilor civile, dei el nua fost invocat expres, ns astzi acestargument nu mai poate justifica meninerea

principiului prohibiiei.n afara argumentelor de natur

politic pot fi identificate i argumente deordin juridic ce pot fi ataate istoricmomentului elaborrii normelor prin care s-a

statuat prohibiia. Pentru redactorii Codului

attenuation of the prohibition principle, fact thatmakes the ban to be absolute.

3. Justifying the prohibition of thetrustee substitutions

The measure of forbidding the trusteesubstitutions was determined by theidentification of certain serious difficultiescaused by their frequent and long use. But,researching the bases of instituting andmaintaining the prohibition does not representan easy approach, considering that the socialrealities that generated it are appropriate tocertain times that had ended a long time ago.That is why we consider that, in order to

identify the factors that have put the basis of theprohibition, we have to place ourselves in threedifferent historical evolution stages: the time

preliminary to the French Revolution, the timewhen adopting the civil codes (the Romanianone and the French one), the time subsequentto decreeing the ban.

Until the French Revolution since 1789,there were certain measures of temporallimitation of the impossibility to establish by a

juridical document the fortune faith from

generation to generation (for example, by adecree since 1560, this faculty was limited atmaximum two generations).

The measure of forbidding the trusteesubstitutions subsequent to the Revolutionsince 1789 could be supported only by politicalarguments: they ran counter to the ideals

promoted by the revolutionists (especially thesocial equality) and, implicitly, to the realitiesdetermined by the new society organization.

The political basis is not foreign to theage of adopting the civil codes, even if it wasnot expressly invoked, but nowadays thisargument cannot justify anymore the

prohibition principle.Beside the political arguments, we also

may identify judicial arguments that may behistorically attached to the moment ofelaborating the norms by means of which the

prohibition was enacted. For the Civil Codeeditors, the main reasoning was related to the

incapacity of an inexistent person to be

8/13/2019 6254000

9/16



31

civil principala raiune inea de incapacitateaunei persoane inexistente de a fi gratificat.(art. 808 Cod civil romn i art. 906 Cod civilfrancez n formularea sa originar). Aceast

explicaie nu este ndestultoare, ntructsubstituia este nul nu numai atunci cndsubstitutul este inexistent din punct de vederecivil, ci i atunci cnd el este n viasau cel

puin conceput. Un alt argument de ordinjuridic, care subzist i astzi, estereprezentat de faptul c prin impunerea n

persoana grevatului a obligaiei de atransmite mortis causa obiectul liberalitiictre un terdesemnat de ctre dispuntor seaduce atingere libertii subiectului de drept

de a stabili prin act juridic soarta averii salepentru timpul ncetrii din via (libertatetestamentar).

Raportndu-ne le realitile socialeactuale, meninerea prohibiiei poate fisusinut i de fundamente de natureconomic. Avnd drept consecin imediatimobilizarea bunurilor, substituiafideicomisar s-ar constitui ntr-o piedic aliberei circulaii a valorilor fapt ce ardetermina o proast gestiune a averii, o

nesiguran a creditului ori o perturbare amecanismelor pieei.

Natura juridic a substituieifideicomisare

Problema stabilirii naturii juridice asubstituiei fideicomisare poate prea lipsitde interes la nivelul legislaiei noastre avndn vedere caracterul prohibitiv al normelor dereglementare i, aa cum s-a afirmat, esteindiferent modul n care se concepe transferul

proprietii la substituit, ntruct el nu seproduce sub nicio form.13

Cu toate acestea, fra nega valoareade adevr a acestei opinii, considerm c oasemenea analiz i poate gsi utilitatea neventualele dezvoltri relative la condiiilesubstituiei fideicomisare, sanciuneaaplicabil n caz de nclcare a prohibiiei,

precum i n demersul de stabilire avalabilitii sau nevalabilitii unor dispoziii

fideicomisare. De asemenea, credem c lipsa

recompensed. (art. 808 of Romanian CivilCode and art. 906 of French Civil Code in itsoriginal wording). This explanation is notcomplete because the substitution is null not

only when the substituted person is inexistentfrom the civil point of view, but also when heor she is alive or at least conceived. Another

juridical argument that still subsists isrepresented by the fact that, by imposing to thetaxed person the obligation to transmit mortiscause the liberality object to a third assigned bythe owner, we reach the freedom of the lawsubject to establish by a juridical document thefaith of his or her fortune when he or she dies(testamentary freedom).

Referring to the current social realities,the prohibition maintenance may also besupported by economical bases. Having as animmediate consequence the goodsimmobilisation, the trustee substitution would

be an obstacle of the values free circulation,fact that would determine a bad fortunefinancial administration, a credit insecurity or a

perturbation of the market mechanisms.

4. Juridical nature of the trusteesubstitution

The problem of establishing thejuridical nature of the trustee substitution mayseem to have no interest at our legislation level,considering the prohibitive feature of theregulation norms and, as it was said, the waythe property is transferred to the substituted

person is not important because it neveroccurs.30

Although, without denying the truthvalue of this opinion, we consider that such ananalysis could find its utility in the eventualdevelopments referring to the conditions of thetrustee substitution, in the sanction applicablein case of encroachment upon the prohibitionand also in the approach that establishes thevalidity or the invalidity of certain trusteestipulations. Also, we think that the clarityabsence in the stipulations of art. 803 of CivilCode imposes, at its turn, the need to identify

the mechanism that accomplishes the trustee

8/13/2019 6254000

10/16



32

de claritate a prevederilor art. 803 Cod civilimpune, la rndul su, necesitateaidentificrii mecanismului de realizare asubstituiilor fideicomisare i, implicit, a

criteriilor n temeiul crora astfel deoperaiuni juridice pot fi conturate npractic.

Chestiunea naturii juridice asubstituiilor fideicomisare a suscitatdezbateri, mai ales la nivelul literaturiifranceze, este adevrat n contextul n care,astfel de dispoziii erau permise n modexcepional. Controversele, ns, au fostgenerate nu de echivocul normelor deexcepie (art. 1048 i art. 1049 Cod civil

francez n formularea lor de dinainte demodificarea din 2006) ci de neclaritateatextului art. 896 Cod civil francez care, nmod similar art. 803 Cod civil romn stabileareguli n materie, i anume nulitateadispoziiei prin care donatarul sau legatarulva fi obligat sconserve i sremitunuial treilea.

Pornind de la aceast prevederelegal, putem face cteva observaii menite slmureasc unele criterii prin intermediul

crora diverse situaii faptice pot fi ncadraten sfera substituiilor fideicomisare, astfel:

n primul rnd, impunerea n sarcinainstituitului a unei obligaii de conservare ide remitere la moartea sa a bunului obiect allibertii ar putea fi interpretat n sensulntrunirii n persoana acestuia a drepturilor iobligaiilor specifice uzufructuarului. ntr-adevr, potrivit art. 521 Cod civil Uzufructuarul are dreptul de a se bucura detot felul de fructe ce poate produce obiectulasupra cruia are uzufruct, iar potrivit art.557 Cod civil Uzufructul se atinge prinmoartea uzufructuarului, moment n care

bunul trebuie restituit nudului proprietar saumotenitorilor acestuia. Mai mult, potrivit art.554 Cod civil, uzufructuarul nu poatenstrina dreptul de uzufruct ceea ce ar fi nmsurs explice i lipsa dispoziiei juridicea grevatului dedusdin impunerea n sarcinasa a obligaiei de conservare.

n ceea ce privete persoana nudului

substitutions and, implicitly, the criteria basingon which these juridical operations may beoutlined in practice.

The problem of the juridical nature of

the trustee substitutions aroused debates,especially at the French literature level, it is truein the context where such stipulations wereexceptionally allowed. But, the controversieswere not generated by the ambiguity of theexception norms (art. 1048 and art. 1049 ofFrench Civil Code in their wording before thechange in 2006) but by the vagueness of thetext of art. 896 of French Civil Code that,similarly to art. 803 of Romanian Civil Code,was establishing rules in matter, namely the

nullity of the stipulation by means of which thedonor or the heir will be forced to keep andto deliver to a third .

Starting from this legal stipulation, wemay have some observations meant to clearcertain criteria by means of which differentfactual situations may be framed in the trusteesubstitutions field, thus:

In the first place, imposing to theinstituted person the obligation to keep and todeliver when he or she dies the good that is a

liberty object could be interpreted as combiningin his or her person the rights and theobligations specific to the usufructuary. Indeed,according to art. 521 of Civil Code Theusufructuary has the right to enjoy all kind offruits that can make the object over which he orshe has an usufruct, and according to art.557 of Civil Code The usufruct is reached bythe usufructuarys death , a moment whenthe good has to be given back to the nudeowner or to his or her heirs. Moreover,according to art. 554 of Civil Code, theusufructuary cannot alienate the usufruct right,fact that would be able to explain also theabsence of the taxed persons juridicalstipulation deducted from imposing him thekeeping obligation.

Regarding the nude owners person, inorder to be accorded to the hypothesis of art.803 of Civil Code, this should be represented

by the final beneficiary of the liberality the

substituted person. But for that to get such a

8/13/2019 6254000

11/16



33

proprietar, pentru a ne ncadra n ipoteza art.803 Cod civil, aceasta ar trebui s fiereprezentat de beneficiarul final alliberalitii-substituitul. Dar pentru ca acesta

scapete o atare calitate este necesar ca ea sfie conferit prin act juridic ceea ce arpresupune ca i el s-i exprimeconsimmntul n acest sens. Or, ntr-oasemenea ipotez, ne-am afla n situaia caunei duble liberaliti n uzufruct i nud

proprietate, recunoscutca valid, de art. 805Cod civil.

n al doilea rnd, interpretarea art. 803Cod civil poate conduce la concluzia c ne-am afla n prezena unei duble liberaliti

condiionale prohibit expres de lege,evenimentul viitor de care atrn fiecaredintre ele fiind decesul grevatului.mbrind aceast opinie, am ajunge laconcluzia c dreptul fiecruia dintre

beneficiarii liberalitilor s-ar transmiteprintr-un singur act emannd de ladispuntor. Consecina juridicar fi aceea c

primul gratificat ar putea face inclusiv actede dispoziie care, n cazul decesului sunaintea substituitului, ar fi desfiinate

retroactiv. O asemenea perspectiv arcontraveni ns prevederii exprese din art.803 Cod civil care stabilete cgrevatul areobligaia de a conserva, obligaie ce excludeactele de dispoziie juridic.

n sfrit, n al treilea rnd, nliteratura de specialitate de dat recent14

precum i n practica judiciar francez15

(reamintim c analiza doctrinei franceze aren vedere substituiile fideicomisare n modexcepional permise) s-a artat c, nrealitate, suntem n prezena unei substituiifideicomisare, n viziunea art. 803 Cod civil(art. 896 Cod civil francez, nainte demodificarea intervenit n 2006) numai dac

prin actul de liberalitate n favoareabeneficiarului se transmite un drept deproprietate temporar i inalienabil i i seimpune, totodat, obligaia ca la decesul sus transmit acest drept n favoareasubstituitului.

Considerm c aceast soluie se

quality, it is necessary for it to be granted by ajuridical document, fact that supposes that he orshe expresses his or her consent in this sense.But, in such a hypothesis, we would be in a

situation where a double liberty in usufruct anda nude property are acknowledged as beingvalid by art. 805 of Civil Code.

In the second place, the interpretation ofart. 803 of Civil Code may lead to theconclusion that we would be in the presence ofa double conditional liberality expressly

prohibited by the law, and the future event onwhich every one of them depends is the taxed

persons death. By having this opinion, wewould get to the conclusion that the right of

every beneficiary of the liberalities would betransmitted by one document emanating fromthe owner. The juridical consequence would bethe fact that the first recompensed person would

be able to make inclusively stipulatingdocuments that, if he or she dies before thesubstituted person, would be retroactivelyannulled. But such a perspective would runcounter to the express stipulation of art. 803 ofCivil Code that establishes that the taxed personhas the obligation to keep, an obligation that

excludes the juridical stipulating documents.Finally, in the third place, in the recent

special literature31 and also in the Frenchjudicial practice32 (we remind the fact that theFrench doctrine analysis considers theexceptionally allowed trustee substitutions) itwas shown that, in fact, we are in the presenceof a trustee substitution, according to art. 803 ofCivil Code (art. 896 of French Civil Code,

before the change that occurred in 2006) onlyif, by means of the liberality document in the

beneficiarys advantage, we transmit atemporary and inalienable property right andwe impose to him, in the same time, theobligation that, when he dies, he has to transmitthis right in the substituted persons advantage.

We consider that this solution comesout from the literal interpretation of art. 803 ofCivil Code that, using the donor or heirnotions, suggests a transfer of the property rightor another real right from the owners

patrimony to the instituted persons one.

8/13/2019 6254000

12/16



34

desprinde din interpretarea literala art. 803Cod civil care, folosind noiunile dedonatar sau legatar sugereazun transferal dreptului de proprietate sau alt drept real

din patrimoniul dispuntorului n cel alinstituitului.Controversat este, ns, problema

actului care genereazdreptul n patrimoniulsubstituitului, controvers susinut i determenul insuficient de clar utilizat delegiuitor n art. 803 Cod civil, i anume aremite.

ntr-o prim opinie16, se susine cpentru bunurile care formeaz obiectulliberalitii, substituitul este avnd-cauz al

dispuntorului i nu al instituitului, ceea censeamnc prin sarcina de a remite trebuies se neleagnu obligaia de a transfera undrept prin act juridic ci numai o obligaie de a

preda un bun, dreptul nscndu-se din actulde liberalitate fcut de dispuntorsubstituitului.

ntr-o alt opinie17 se arat c, nrealitate, ne aflm n prezena a douliberaliti diferite, cu autori diferii. Astfel,instituitul dobndete bunul de la dispuntor

iar substituitul este avnd-cauzal grevatului,ceea ce nseamncobligaia de a remite esteinterpretat n sensul unei obligaii de atransfera un drept i nu de a preda un bun.

n concluzie, apreciem c aceastultim soluie este mai apropiatexigenelorimpuse de art. 803 Cod civil, avnd n vedereurmtoarea argumentaie:

-dei nu se poate nega c dreptulsubstituitului asupra obiectului liberalitii igsete izvorul originar n actul prin care afost gratificat instituitul (stipulaie pentrualtul care dubleaz o liberalitate direct sauindirect), trebuie observat c acest drept nuse nate automat prin faptul predecesuluigrevatului. Condiia predecesului nu aresemnificaia stingerii dreptului -obiect alliberalitii fcute instituitului- i nateriicelui n favoarea substituitului. Presupunndc substituia fideicomisar ar fi permis delege, neexecutarea obligaiei de transfer ce

revine grevatului (transfer ce s-ar putea

But a problem that is very disputed isthe problem of the document that generates theright in substituted persons patrimony, acontroversy also supported by the term

insufficiently clearly used by the legislator inart. 803 of Civil Code, namely, to deliver.In a first opinion33, it is said that, for the

goods that represent the liberality object, thesubstituted person is a cause of the owner, notof the instituted person, fact that means that, bymeans of the duty to deliver, we do not have tounderstand the obligation to transfer a right by a

juridical document, but only an obligation todeliver a good, and the right is born from theliberality document made nu the owner to the

substituted person.In another opinion34it is shown that, in

fact, we are in the presence of two differentliberalities, with different authors. Thus, theinstituted person gains the good from the ownerand the substituted person is a cause of thetaxed person, fact that means that the obligationto deliver is interpreted in the sense of anobligation to transfer a right and not to deliver agood.

In conclusion, we appreciate that this

last solution is more close to the demandsimposed by art. 803 of Civil Code, consideringthe following motivation:

-even if we cannot deny that thesubstituted persons right over the liberalityobject, it finds its original source in thedocument by means of which the instituted

person was recompensed (a stipulation foranother that doubles a direct or indirectliberality), we have to notice that this right isnot automatically born by the fact of the taxed

persons pre-death. The pre-death conditiondoes not mean the ending of the right anobject of the liberality made to the instituted

person and the birth of the one in thesubstituted persons advantage. By supposingthat the trustee substitution would be allowed

by the law, the non-execution of the transferobligation that belongs to the taxed person (atransfer that could be accomplished by a mortiscausa juridical document), they could give birth

in the substituted persons patrimony to a

8/13/2019 6254000

13/16



35

realiza prin act juridic mortis causa), ar fi denatur s dea natere n patrimoniulsubstituitului unei faculti de a pretindempotriva succesorilor primului gratificat s

ncheie actul translativ de care era inutacesta (drept de crean).-dacsubstituitul nu ar fi avnd-cauz

al grevatului, atunci obligaia de conservareimpus acestuia din urm ar fi excesiv,transformnd liberalitatea n contrariul ei.Astfel, grevatului i-ar fi interzis sncheie nunumai acte de dispoziie ci i acte deadministrare, care, n anumite condiii, ar fiopozabile i succesorilor cu titlu particular(obligaie scriptae in rem).

-de asemenea, nu trebuie neglijate niciaspectele ce in de finalitatea substituiei.Spre exemplu, dac am considera csubstituitul este avnd-cauz aldispuntorului, ar trebui s admitem c, ntoate cazurile, cauza dispoziiei care coninecele dou liberaliti este determinat deintenia gratificrii celui de-al treilea. Or,acest lucru nu este valabil n unele ipoteze(substituie venic), scopul mediat fiindreprezentat, mai degrab, de meninerea

bunului n snul unei familii dectgratificarea persoanelor ce se vor nate nviitor.

Bibliografie

R. Popescu, Dreptul de motenire. Limiteledreptului de a dispune prin acte juridice de

bunurile motenirii, Editura UniversulJuridic, Bucureti, 2004.Fr. Deak, Tratat de drept succesoral, EdituraUniversul Juridic, Bucureti, 2002;M. Eliescu, otenirea i devoluiunea ei ndreptul R.S.R., Editura Academiei, Bucureti,1966;D. Chiric, Drept civil. Succesiuni itestamente, Editura Rosetti, Bucureti, 2003;I. Dogaru, coordonator, Drept civil.Succesiunile, Editura All Beck, Bucureti,2003;Al. Bacaci, Gh. Comni, Drept civil.

Succesiunile, Ed CH Beck, Bucureti, 2006;

faculty of claiming against the successors to thefirst recompensed person to contract thetranslative document to which he was kept(claim right).

-if the substituted person was not acause of the taxed person, then the keepingobligation imposed to the last one would beexcessive, transforming the liberality in itscontrary. Thus, the taxed person would not beallowed to contract only stipulating documents,

but also financial documents that, in certainconditions, would also be opposable to the

particular successors (a scriptae in remobligation).

-also, we must not neglect the aspects

related to the substitution ending. For example,if we considered that the substituted person wasa cause of the owner, we should admit that, inall cases, the disposition cause that contains thetwo liberalities is determined by the intention ofrecompensing the third. But, this thing is notvalid in certain hypothesis (a permanentsubstitution), the mediated purpose being ratherrepresented by maintaining the good in a familyframe than recompensing the persons that will

be born in the future.

Bibliography

R. Popescu, Inheritance Law. Law limitationsto use inheritance goods through juridical

deeds, Juridical Universe Press, Bucharest,2004.Fr. Deak, Successional Law Treaty, JuridicalUniverse Press, Bucharest, 2002;M. Eliescu, Inheritance and its devolution inSRR Law, Academy Press, Bucharest, 1966;D. Chiric, Civil Law. Successions and wills,Rosetti Press, Bucharest, 2003;I. Dogaru, coordinator, Civil Law. Successions,All Beck Press, Bucharest, 2003;Al. Bacaci, Gh. Comni, Civil Law.Successions, Ed CH Beck, Bucharest, 2006;Adam, A. Rusu, Civil Law. Successions, AllBeck Press, Bucharest, 2003;

St. Crpenaru, in Fr. Deak, St. Crpenaru, Civil

8/13/2019 6254000

14/16



36

I.Adam, A. Rusu, Drept civil. Succesiuni,Ed. All Beck, Bucureti, 2003;St. Crpenaru, n Fr. Deak, St. Crpenaru,

Drept civil. Contracte speciale. Dreptul de

autor. Dreptul de motenire, Universitateadin Bucureti, 1983I. Ctuneanu, Izvoare de drept roman, Cluj,1923, p. 79.Vl. Hanga, Drept privat roman, Bucureti,1968M. Petitjean, Essai sur lhistoire de

substitutions, th. Dijon, 1975J-M. Augustin Les substitutions

fidicommissaires Toulouse et Haut-

Languedoc au XVIIIe sicle, th. Toulouse,

1971Ph. Malaurie, L. Ayns Les successions. Leslibralits, Defrenois, Paris, 2008,D. Alexandresco, Explicaiunea teoretici

practica dreptului civil romn, t. IV, parteaa II-aM. Grimaldi,Droit patrimonial de la famille,Dalloz, Paris, 2008F. Terr, Y. Leguette, Droit civil. Les

succesions. Les libralits, Precis Dalloz, 3-eedition, Paris, 1987

Law. Special contracts. Copyright. Inheritance

right, University from Bucharest, 1983I. Ctuneanu,Roman Law Sources, Cluj, 1923,

p. 79.

Vl. Hanga, Private Roman Law, Bucharest,1968M. Petitjean, Essai sur lhistoire de

substitutions, th. Dijon, 1975J-M. Augustin Les substitutions

fidicommissaires Toulouse et Haut-

Languedoc au XVIIIe sicle, th. Toulouse,1971Ph. Malaurie, L. Ayns Les successions. Leslibralits, Defrenois, Paris, 2008,D. Alexandresco, Theoretical and practical

explanation of the Romanian civil law, t. IV, 2ndpartM. Grimaldi, Droit patrimonial de la famille,Dalloz, Paris, 2008F. Terr, Y. Leguette, Droit civil. Les

succesions. Les libralits, Precis Dalloz, 3-eedition, Paris, 1987

1n ceea ce privete formularea de a remite la o a treia persoan, este evident cea surprinde ideea transferriidreptului dintr-un patrimoniu n alt patrimoniu. Soluia se desprinde din faptul cdebitorul obligaiei de remitereeste reprezentat de un donatar sau legatar, adico persancare a dobndit dreptul real sau de creanprin act

juridic. Reglementarea din art. 803 Cod civil este frechivoc n aceste sens, cel care trebuie sremitneputndfi, din punct de vedere juridic, doar un purttor al voinei dispuntorului (de exemplu, mandatar sau depozitar),chiar dac, n fapt, rolul su este de simplu instrument, consimmntul exprimat cu prilejul remiterii avndcaracter formal. De asemenea, prin remitere nu trebuie n eles c actul de transmitere ar fi real din punct devedere al modului de ncheiere, el rmnnd unul solemn, ntruct nu poate fi reprezentat dect de o dona ie saude un testament (n mod obiectiv, darul manual- act juridic real- nu poate fi mijlocul juridic de realizare a celeide-a doua liberaliti, dreptul substituitului nscndu-se la moartea celui gratificat, ceea ce nseamn c o

transmisiune anterioar acestui moment, posibil prin dar manual, nu mbrac forma unei substituiifideicomisare.2R. Popescu, Dreptul de motenire. Limitele dreptului de a dispune prin acte juridice de bunurile motenirii,Editura Universul Juridic, Bucureti, 2004, p. 51.3 Fr. Deak, Tratat de drept succesoral, Editura Universul Juridic, Bucureti, 2002, p. 293; M. Eliescu,Motenirea i devoluiunea ei n dreptul R.S.R., Editura Academiei, Bucureti, 1966, p. 309; D. Chiric,Dreptcivil. Succesiuni i testamente, Editura Rosetti, Bucureti, 2003, p. 121; I. Dogaru, coordonator, Drept civil.Succesiunile, Editura All Beck, Bucureti, 2003, p. 414; A. Bacaci, Gh. Comni,Drept civil. Succesiunile, EdCH Beck, Bucureti, 2006, p. 136; R. Popescu, op. cit., p. 51; I. Adam, A. Rusu, Drept civil. Succesiuni, Ed.All Beck, Bucureti, 2003, p. 168; St. Crpenaru, n Fr. Deak, St. Crpenaru, Drept civil. Contracte speciale.Dreptul de autor. Dreptul de motenire, Universitatea din Bucureti, 1983, p. 461.4M. Eliescu, op. cit., p. 309; Fr. Deak, op. cit., p. 293; I. Dogaru, coordonator, op. cit., p. 415; R. Popescu, op.cit., p. 52.5

I. Ctuneanu,Izvoare de drept roman, Cluj, 1923, p. 79.

8/13/2019 6254000

15/16



37

6Vl. Hanga,Drept privat roman, Bucureti, 1968, p. 3287Vl. Hanga, op. cit., p. 341.8 Prin testamenti factio se nelege capacitatea de a testa sau de a fi martor la ntocmirea unui testament (subacest aspect se numea activa), respectiv capacitatea de a fi erede sau legatar (pasiva).9 M. Petitjean, Essai sur lhistoire de substitutions, th. Dijon, 1975 i J-M. Augustin Les substitutionsfidicommissaires Toulouse et Haut-Languedoc au XVIIIe sicle, th. Toulouse, 1971, citai de Ph. Malaurie,L. Ayns n Les successions. Les libralits, Defrenois, Paris, 2008, p. 378.10Ph. Malaurie, L. Ayns n op. cit., p. 378.11D. Alexandresco,Explicaiunea teoretici practica dreptului civil romn, t. IV, partea a II-a, p. 509, nota3.12Art. 1048 i art. 1049 aveau o sferde aplicabilitate limitatn sensul cdispoziia care coninea substituia nu

putea semane de la alt ascendent al grevatului (art. 1048), iar validitatea substituiei fcute n favoarea copiilorgrevatului era condiionat lipsa descendenilor dispuntorului( art. 1049). Pentru amnunte, a se vedea M.Grimaldi,Droit patrimonial de la famille, Dalloz, Paris, 2008, p. 911-918, Ph. Malaurie, L. Aynsn op. cit.,

p. 379-382.13Fr. Deak, op. cit., p. 294, n. s. 1; R. Popescu, op. cit., p. 59, n.s. 114M. Grimaldi, op. cit., p. 917; Ph. Malaurie, L. Ayns, op. cit., p. 381-382; Fr. Deak,op. cit., p. 293-294.15Curtea de Casaie Francez, Camera I civil, decizia nr. 94-15.510 din 6 mai 1997, citatde M. Grimaldi, nop. cit., p. 917.16F. Terr, Y. Leguette,Droit civil. Les succesions. Les libralits, Precis Dalloz, 3-e edition, Paris, 1987, p.455; D. Chiric, op. cit., p. 12417Ph. Malaurie, L. Ayns n op. cit., p. 382; M. Grimaldi, op. cit., p. 917; Fr. Deak, op. cit., p. 294; M.Eliescu, op. cit., p. 312; I. Adam, A. Rusu, op. cit., p. 170; R. Popescu, op. cit., p. 59.18 Regarding the delivering to a third person wording, it is obvious that it reaches the idea oftransferring the right from a patrimony to another one. The solution comes out from the fact that the debtor of thedelivering obligation is represented by a donor or heir, namely a person who has gained the real right or theclaim right by a juridical document. The Regulation of art. 803 of Civil Code is not ambiguous in this sense

because the one that has to deliver cannot be judicially just a bearer of the owners will (for example, an assigneeor a keeper), even if, in fact, his or her part is as a simple tool, the consent expressed when delivering having aformal feature. Also, by delivery, we must not understand that the transmitting document is real from the point

of view of the contracting way, but he remains solemn, because it can be represented only by a donation or by awill (objectively, the manual gift-real juridical document cannot be the juridical means of accomplishing thesecond liberality, and the substituted persons right is born when the gratified one dies, fact that means that a

previous transmission of this moment, possible by a manual gift, is not similar to a FIDEICOMISARsubstitution.19 R. Popescu, The Heritance Right. The Limits of the Right to Own by Juridical Documents theHeritance Goods, Juridical Universe Press, Bucharest, 2004, p. 51.20 Fr. Deak, Successional Law Treaty, Juridical Universe Press, Bucharest, 2002, p. 293; M. Eliescu,Heritance and its Devolution in R.S.R. Law, Academy Press, Bucharest, 1966, p. 309; D. Chiric, Civil Law.Successions and Wills, Rosetti Press, Bucharest, 2003, p. 121; I. Dogaru, coordinator, Civil Law. Successions,All Beck, Bucharest, 2003, p. 414; A. Bacaci, Gh. Comni, Civil Law. Successions, CH Beck Press,Bucharest, 2006, p. 136; R. Popescu, op. cit., p. 51; I. Adam, A. Rusu, Civil Law. Successions, All Beck Press,Bucharest, 2003, p. 168; St. Crpenaru, in Fr. Deak, St. Crpenaru, Civil Law. Special Contracts. Copyright.Heritance Right, university of Bucharest, 1983, p. 461.21 M. Eliescu, op. cit., p. 309; Fr. Deak, op. cit., p. 293; I. Dogaru, coordinator, op. cit., p. 415; R.Popescu, op. cit., p. 52.22 I. Ctuneanu,Roman Law Sources, Cluj, 1923, p. 79.23 Vl. Hanga,Private Roman Law, Bucharest, 1968, p. 32824 Vl. Hanga, op. cit., p. 341.25 By testamenti factiowe understand the ability to test or to be a witness to the accomplishment of a will(under this aspect it was active), respectively the ability to be an inheritor or a heir (passive).26 M. Petitjean, Essai sur lhistoire de substitutions, th. Dijon, 1975 and J-M. Augustin Lessubstitutions fidicommissaires Toulouse et Haut-Languedoc au XVIIIe sicle, th. Toulouse, 1971, quoted byPh. Malaurie, L. Ayns in Les successions. Les libralits, Defrenois, Paris, 2008, p. 378.27 Ph. Malaurie, L. Ayns in op. cit., p. 378.

8/13/2019 6254000

16/16



38

28 D. Alexandresco, Theoretical and Practical Explanation of the Romanian Civil Law, t. IV, second

part, p. 509, note 3.29 Art. 1048 and art. 1049 had a limited applicability field, meaning that the stipulation that contained thesubstitution could not emanate from another ascendant of the taxed person (art. 1048), and the validation of the

substitution made in the advantage of the taxed persons children was conditioned by the absence of the ownersdescendents ( art. 1049). For details, see M. Grimaldi, Droit patrimonial de la famille, Dalloz, Paris, 2008, p.911-918, Ph. Malaurie, L. Aynsin op. cit.,p. 379-382.30 Fr. Deak, op. cit., p. 294, n. s. 1; R. Popescu, op. cit., p. 59, n.s. 131 M. Grimaldi, op. cit., p. 917; Ph. Malaurie, L. Ayns, op. cit., p. 381-382; Fr. Deak,op. cit., p. 293-294.32 French Cassation Court, First civil chamber, decision no. 94-15.510 since May 6th, 1997, quoted by M.Grimaldi, in op. cit., p. 917.33 F. Terr, Y. Leguette,Droit civil. Les succesions. Les libralits, Precis Dalloz, 3-e edition, Paris,1987, p. 455; D. Chiric, op. cit., p. 12434 Ph. Malaurie, L. Aynsin op. cit., p. 382; M. Grimaldi, op. cit., p. 917; Fr. Deak, op. cit., p. 294;M. Eliescu, op. cit., p. 312; I. Adam, A. Rusu, op. cit., p. 170; R. Popescu, op. cit., p. 59.