RESTRICTIVE NORMS TO THE PRINCIPLE “NULLUS VIDETUR DOLO FACERE QUI SUO IURE UTITUR” VERSUS “IN SUO HACTENUS FACERE LICET QUATENUS NIHIL IN ALIENO IMMITAT” FROM DIGEST 8.5.8.5 BY ULPIAN
RESTRICTIVE NORMS TO THE PRINCIPLE “NULLUS VIDETUR DOLO FACERE QUI SUO IURE UTITUR” VERSUS “IN SUO HACTENUS FACERE LICET QUATENUS NIHIL IN ALIENO IMMITAT” FROM DIGEST 8.5.8.5 BY ULPIAN

Summary/Abstract: Roman jurists refrained from establishing a definitive doctrinal framework or criteria to systematically resolve disputes arising from immissions. The legal resolutions they rendered were tailored to individual cases and did not formulate a comprehensive theory applicable to the field at large. The principle ‘nullus videtur dolo facere qui suo iure utitur’ illustrates a doctrinal predisposition towards permitting activities conducted within the ambit of legal rights. Nevertheless, the interaction of neighboring property interests necessitates the enactment of regulatory norms to temper this maxim, which in its most restrictive interpretation leads to the prohibition against property owners exercising their rights in such a manner that it encroaches upon the domain of others, as stated in ‘In suo hactenus facere licet quatenus nihil in alieno immitat’ from Digest8.5.8.5 by Ulpian. Despite this, the interpretations by legal scholars have exhibited diverse nuances across historical periods. The development of a legal standard to ascertain the threshold at which an immission is considered illicit, thereby constituting a basis for compensable damages, has been a significant focus of modern jurisprudence, especially since the latter half of the 19th century.

• Details
• Contents