Тhe functional interpretation of double payment under article 201 of the Law on obligations: Between doctrine and judicial practice

Macedonian law adopts a comprehensive approach to unjust enrichment under Articles 199 and 201 of the Law on Obligations. Article 199 establishes the general rule requiring restitution where property passes without legal basis, while Article 201 creates a specific corrective mechanism for double payment of the same debt. This contribution analyzes the relationship between these two provisions, arguing that they form an integrated normative framework wherein Article 201 displaces the general requirement of absence of legal basis and the specific requirement of error for condictio indebiti. The contribution traces the historical development of Article 201 from the YU court practice, examines the doctrinal foundations in the authoritative commentaries and Macedonian legal literature, and analyzes the relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence. It further addresses the accompanying practical questions of the statute of limitations (dies a quo) and the accrual of interest on restitution claims. The contribution concludes that Article 201 operates as a sui generis category of unjust enrichment, ensuring that no person retains a benefit acquired at the expense of another where the same obligation has been effectively discharged twice—regardless of the presence of an enforcement title.