Publication: La subsidiariedad de la acción de enriquecimiento injustificado : pautas para salir de un atolladero = The subsidiarity of the unjustified enrichment action: guide to get out of a predicament
Loading...
Identifiers
Publication date
2019-06-01
Defense date
Authors
Advisors
Tutors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Notyreg Hispania
Impact
Export
Abstract
Hay sentencias que afirman la subsidiariedad de la acción de enriquecimiento injustificado y otras que lo niegan. Hay opiniones doctrinales que exigen la subsidiariedad como requisito de la mencionada acción y otras que la omiten. El presente trabajo se propone deshacer esta contradicción. Para ello, parte de la necesidad de distinguir los diferentes conflictos que se plantean en torno a la subsidiariedad y de darles un tratamiento autónomo en función del asunto que se trata de resolver: un concurso de normas, un concurso de pretensiones, la necesidad de integrar el ordenamiento jurídico mediante la analogía o la búsqueda de soluciones a los problemas de enriquecimiento indirecto, lo que afecta a principios centrales de la teoría general de las obligaciones, como la relatividad de los contratos o la prelación de créditos. El estudio concluye con una propuesta para prescindir de la subsidiariedad como requisito de la acción, así como para abandonar la idea de un principio general de enriquecimiento injustificado entendido como principio apto para resolver coherentemente todos los problemas de restitución que puedan plantearse, con independencia del conflicto de intereses que tenga lugar en cada uno.
Some court decisions affirm the subsidiarity of the unjustified enrichment action, but some others deny it. Likewise, some legal writers think that subsidiarity is a requirement of those actions, but others do not. The present paper tries to solve this contradiction. For this purpose, it emphasizes that there are different conflicts that arise around subsidiarity and that, depending on the issue that is to be solved in each case, each of them deserves an independent treatment: A concurrence of rules, a concurrence of claims, the need to integrate the legal system through analogy or, in the fourth place, the search for solutions to the problems of indirect enrichment taking into account that it implies central principles of the general theory of obligations (relativity of contracts, preference of credits). The paper insists on the idea that it is better to dispense once for all with the general principle of unjustified enrichment understood as a principle suitable for coherently solving all restitution problems that may arise regardless of the conflict of interests that takes place in each case. Therefore, the paper concludes that it is also preferable to dispense with subsidiarity as a requirement of the unjustified enrichment action.
Some court decisions affirm the subsidiarity of the unjustified enrichment action, but some others deny it. Likewise, some legal writers think that subsidiarity is a requirement of those actions, but others do not. The present paper tries to solve this contradiction. For this purpose, it emphasizes that there are different conflicts that arise around subsidiarity and that, depending on the issue that is to be solved in each case, each of them deserves an independent treatment: A concurrence of rules, a concurrence of claims, the need to integrate the legal system through analogy or, in the fourth place, the search for solutions to the problems of indirect enrichment taking into account that it implies central principles of the general theory of obligations (relativity of contracts, preference of credits). The paper insists on the idea that it is better to dispense once for all with the general principle of unjustified enrichment understood as a principle suitable for coherently solving all restitution problems that may arise regardless of the conflict of interests that takes place in each case. Therefore, the paper concludes that it is also preferable to dispense with subsidiarity as a requirement of the unjustified enrichment action.
Description
Keywords
Subsidiariedad de la acción de enriquecimiento injustificado, Concurso de normas, Concurso de pretensiones, Analogía, Integración de lagunas, Principio general de enriquecimiento injustificado, Derecho de restituciones, Subsidiarity of the action on unjustified enrichment, Concurrence of rules, analogy, Integration of legal gaps, General principle of unjustified enrichment, Law of restitution, Concurrence of claims
Bibliographic citation
Basozabal Arrue, X. (2019). La subsidiariedad de la acción de enriquecimiento injustificado : pautas para salir de un atolladero. Revista de Derecho Civil, 4(2), pp. 99-167