Currently, academic works lean decidedly in favour of the view that provisions of currency law, enabling obligations to be incurred in foreign currency, are exceptions in the understanding of Article 358 § 1 of the Civil Code.
In Article 3 section 2 point 3 of the Currency Law of 2002, the legislator clearly introduced an exception from the currency principle, mandating that restrictions concerning, among others, determination of dues in foreign currencies, do not apply where such a determination is made by a public authority in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings, including interim relief or collection proceedings.
Therefore, in the light of the above, it is to be noted that, in respect of foreign exchange, it is possible—as an exception from the currency principle defined in Article 358 § 1 of the Civil Code—to award claims in foreign currencies. Moreover, the currency principle referred to in Article 358 § 1 of the Civil Code, provides no obstacle to expressing the amount of the claim in a foreign currency both in the statement of claim and in the judgment awarding the claim.
In the light of current regulation by the Civil Code, if one of the parties defaults in performance of a mutual contract, the other party, intending to withdraw from the contract, must set a deadline for the other party for the performance of the obligation, with the stipulation that, with the futile lapse of the deadline, the party stipulating the deadline shall be entitled to withdraw from the contract. Moreover, if the benefits to be rendered by both parties are divisible and one of the parties defaults only in respect of part of the benefit, the other party's entitlement to withdraw from the contract is subject to a limitation, i.e. according to its choice, either to that part or to the whole rest of the benefit not rendered. That party may withdraw from the contract in entirety if partial performance would be meaningless to the party due to the characteristics of the obligation or due to the goal of the contract as intended by the party and known to the defaulting party.
First it must be noted that each co-owner has a duty actively to participate in administering the jointly owned thing. In respect of administering a jointly owned thing, the Civil Code, without providing detailed definitions, differentiates between ordinary administration and activities exceeding the scope of ordinary administration. Ordinary administration activities require the consent of a majority of co-owners. In the absence of such consent, each of the co-owners may demand judicial authorisation to perform the activities. In turn, disposal of the jointly owned thing, and other activities exceeding the scope of ordinary administration, require the consent of all co-owners. Absent such consent, co-owners whose shares constitute at least a half may demand adjudication by a court, which will rule according to the goal of the intended activity and the interests of all co-owners.