Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to comment on Section 20 of the Civil Code and explain (i) the problems associated with defining juristic (or legal) persons under private law; and (ii) the significance of Section 20 (2) for the definition of juristic persons of public law. If Section 20 (1) lays down that "[a] juristic person is an organised body whose legal personality is provided or recognised by a law", this must mean that the law combines the theory of fiction, according to which the will of a human is considered a fictitious will of a juristic person, and this fiction must be laid down in the law, and the organic theory, which is based on the assumption that a juristic person is a "spiritual organism" endowed with its own will, which is retrospectively recognised by the law.
For these reasons, the paper first analyses the theories of juristic persons (the theory of fiction; organic theory; interest theory; and combined theory) and then shows their significance, which may lie, e.g., in understanding the contradictions involved in the definition of juristic persons in Section 20 (1). If, according to Section 20 (2), "legal persons governed by public law are subject to laws under which they were established; the provisions of this Act only apply if they are consistent with the legal nature of these persons", it then needs to be explained what public-law juristic persons actually are, or what are their defining elements, and how they differ from juristic persons under private law.
At the same time, it has to be noted that Section 20 (2) does not define this term, but rather only lays down in which cases the provisions of the Civil Code will apply to juristic persons of public law.