University of Social Science and Humanities
CONTENTS: 1. Introduction. – 2. The claims of state treasury and the claims of creditors in Poland. – 3. The claims of state treasury and the claims of creditors in Italy. – 4. The fiscal claims and the claims of creditors in ancient Rome. – 5. Conclusions. – 6. Bibliography.– Abstract.
The subject of this study is the presentation and analysis of the sources of Roman law and selected contemporary legal solutions concerning the creditors' competition in the case of combining civil law claims, with particular regard to the position of claims of the State Treasury (fiscus) against other claims, in enforcement proceedings. In all legal systems of the Member States of the European Union, this proceeding is based on the enforceable title issued, which is the basis for enforcement of judgments and other acts issued in civil cases. This situation occurs when the debtor's assets are not sufficient to cover his obligations, which in consequence results in his bankruptcy. In this research, the administrative enforcement of fiscal receivables, especially tax claims, is omitted.
The problem itself is important for several reasons. First and foremost, we must point to the growing omnipotence of the state despite the far-reaching process of globalization. As a result of this phenomenon, there is increasingly favoring the state treasury claims against other receivables. This phenomenon, in turn, imposes the ever stronger economic position of large multinational corporations which easily use such instruments as arbitrage to make their claims not only against other creditors, but even against the claims of the host country. The re is thus a need to present, from a legal - comparative and legal - historical perspective, the legal arrangements for the order of satisfying creditors.
In order to start, a hypothesis should be drawn that the in certain countries, the current legal status of individual claims in enforcement proceedings is not uniform. Most often it is a product of historical development of a given legal system and the product of external influences. The first legal regulations governing the settlement of competition between creditors and the tax office come from the Roman law.
In this article, in addition to the analysis of solutions developed under the Roman law system, there are references to solutions currently operating under Polish and Italian law. The choice of these legal systems was based on the criterion of author’s origin and the criterion of publication of this study. In the first place, the solutions developed in the contemporary legal systems will be analyzed, and finally the solutions contained in the Roman law.
The Polish legal system is under a great influence of German, partly French and Austrian solutions. By the fact of membership of the European Union, Polish legal system is also affected by Community law. In the case of the Polish legal model as to the order of satisfying creditors in enforcement proceedings, it has a unique shape, distinct from those encountered in Europe. It is modeled on the Russian legislation and was transferred in the Polish legal system already in the interwar period. This allowed the liquidation of the existing differentiated legal solutions in that area, which were the result of the partition of Poland in the years 1795-1918.
The enforcement proceedings in Poland are based on the principle of formalism, which in turn guarantees the right of creditors to fully and equitably satisfy their claims. This law is based on the principle of equality of debt and the principle of privilege. According to this first rule, all claims are equal, regardless of the creditor. This rule, however, applies only to a group of claims falling under the same category.
The preference therefore concerns not individual claims, but their categories. The creditors are treated according to the principle of proportionality within a category. In this respect, the Act of 17th November 1964 - the Code of Civil Procedure (consolidated text OJ RP of 2016, item 1822) (hereinafter: the CCP) is the basic act regulating the order of satisfaction of creditors' claims by category. According to the article 1025, § 1 of the CCP, the Polish legislator introduced the following categories of claims:
1. the enforcement costs;
2. the maintenance (alimony or spouse support) claims;
3. the work salary for a period of 3 months up to the minimum wage specified in the separate regulations and the pensions for compensation for illness, incapacity for work, disability or death and the cost of the usual funeral of the debtor;
4. the receivables secured by a marine mortgage or by the privilege on a sea ship;
5. the mortgages, pledges, registered pledge and tax pledge or the use of statutory priority and the rights that prevailed on the property prior to the entry in the land register of the initiation of enforcement or before the filing of the application to make such an entry;
6. the work receivables unpaid in the third order;
7. receivables being a subject to the provisions of Chapter III of the Act of 29th August 1997 - Tax Code, unless they have been satisfied in the fifth order;
8. the receivables of creditors who carried out the execution;
9. the other receivables.
The above list of order of fulfillment claims substantially corresponds to the provisions of the article 345, § 2 of the Act of 28th February 2003 - Bankruptcy Law (consolidated text – OJ RP of 2016, item 2171). In this article, the Polish legislator decided that claims secured by mortgage, pledge, registered pledge, tax pledge and marine mortgage were satisfied in order of priority. This priority is set out in the above-mentioned article 1025, §1 of the CCP which states that fiscal claims arising from a pledge or compulsory mortgage are only in the 5th or 7th place in the hierarchy of claims.
At the beginning, some general information about the Italian claim processing system will be provided. The legal basis, for determining the order in which claims of creditors are satisfied by the division of funds obtained during the execution of debtor's assets, is provided in the article 2741 of the Decree of 16th March 1942 - the Civil Code (OJ IT of 4th April 1942, no 262) (codice civile - further: c.c.). According to article 2741, paragraph 1 of the c.c., the creditors have equal rights to meet their claims with current and future debtor property. This rule may have limitations due to the privilege of certain claims, as well as pledges and mortgages (the article 2741, paragraph 2, c.c.). The distribution of the amount received from the sale of the property covered by the pledged or mortgaged under the article 541 of the c.p.c takes place according to the consensus established between the creditors. If they cannot reach this consensus then the division rules are set by the judge (article 542 c.p.c.).
To determine the order of satisfying the debt from the debtor's assets, the article 2748 of the c.c., which consists of two parts, is essential. The paragraph 1 of the article 2748 c.c. stated that special privileges cannot be exercised with the detriment to the pledge creditor. However, in the legal provisions, the other solutions may be found. In turn, in the paragraph 2, it is mentioned that the established enforcement of the immovable property permits the satisfaction of the privileged creditor in the first place, before the mortgage creditor.
The privilege of claim may be originated in a provision of law or in an agreement between the parties if such an opportunity is permitted under law (article 2745 c.c.). The privilege, under Italian law, does not create the right but imparts a specific qualification to a particular claim. Therefore, the order of claims does not depend on the moment of its creation, but rather on its qualifications resulting from the Act. A creditor, who has the privilege of enforcement from the real estate, outperforms the mortgage creditors (article 2748, 2 c.c.).
The Italian legislator divided the enforcement privileges into general and specific. The first group concerns only the movable property of the debtor (article 2746 c.c.). In the case of impossibility to satisfy creditors' claims from the movable property of the debtor, the benefit of the subsidiary enforcement also includes his unmovable property. The special claims are related to certain movable and immovable properties. Their existence is justified by the union of claims and things, such as the right of privilege of the hotel's owner to seizing the properties belonging to the hotel guests in the case of non-payment for the hotel.
From the point of view of the subject of this study, it is important to show the place of the state claims and, consequently, the local self-government claims, in the system of privileged claims. The privileged position of Treasury receivables in Italy arises from the article 2753 c.c. The Italian State Treasury ex lege is entitled to collect its receivables from movables of the natural and legal persons. According to the article 2752, paragraph 2 of the c.c., by the power of law, the State Treasury claims have a privileged position in relation to the movable property of the debtor for fiscal receivables arising from outstanding direct and indirect taxes and unpaid fines. The fiscal receivables gain privileged status only after entering them into a special register of receivables. The claims of local government units have an analogous position.
The order of privileged claims is regulated in the article 2777 of the c.c. and in the article 2778 of the c.c. According to the second mentioned article, the tax claims arising from not paying the land tax are already in second place. The tax claim resulting from unpaid indirect taxes is on the seventh position. Other fiscal receivables are only at the end of the list.
In addition to the privileged claims, in the Italian system, there is a possibility of securing receivables, including tax claims, by the pledge or mortgages. In principle, however, in Italy, tax claims are secured by a privileged claims clause.
The history of ancient Rome is a perfect example of the origins of the emerging European civilization. This state, existing the longest in human history, left many magnificent monuments, including the legal system that has become the cornerstone of continental legal culture. Many modern terms, as well as legal institutions, have their origins in the solutions developed in the Roman law. One of them is the enforcement of claims in case of debtor's insolvency.
The enforcement proceedings in the Roman law were an important element in the development of particular forms of the civilian Roman process. It was distinctly different from the executions in criminal proceedings in which the execution has a nature of punishment. The property seizure was most often one of the additional penalties, often accompanied by the death penalty. This area is completely omitted in our research.
Undoubtedly, the most significant stage of this development was the transition from personal execution (nexum) to property executions, which took place on the basis of lex Poetelia Papiria in 326 BC. The main task, however, in this point, this is not to present the course of enforcement proceedings in Roman law because it was the subject of numerous Romanesque studies, but to show the place of debt of the tax in coincidence with other claims. To answer this issue is of particular importance in the case when the material resources received from the sale (licitatio) of the debtor's assets were not enough to cover all claims.
However, the origins of the privileged position of the fiscus in the Roman law should be sought in the reforms carried out by Octavian August on the basis of lex Iulia et Papia Poppaea of 9 BC. This law has introduced sanctions against two groups of people, namely caelibes – celibate and orbi – those who are in marriage (iustum matrimonium) but without children. The first group was completely deprived of the ability to acquire (capere) inheritance on the basis of a testament. On the other hand, Orbi could only receive half of what they supposed to receive on the basis of a testament. The remaining part increases the share of others inheritors in the inheritance. In the absence of others inheritors, the property was passed on to aerarium, and later in the period of the Principate, was passed on fiscus. Such goods were described as caducum. On the basis of these solutions, as part of the cognitive process, a claim was issued for the release of the vacant part of the inheritance - caducorum vindicatio
During the republic, the relationship between aerarium and the citizen was not based on civil or private proceedings. The state has always been stronger party of the proceedings on claims belonging to aerarium the state. This was due to the concept of a state understood at the time as a gathering of full-fledged citizens, but only free men. Such a state concept, in principle, contained the imperative for its dominance over society or its individual members.
The change of perception of the state took place only with the time of Principate and the identification of the state with the emperor-princeps. Hence, next to aerarium populi romani, fiscus, which was originally the private property of the emperor, began to function Fiscus gradually transformed itself into the main a state-run wealth with independent legal existence. Consequently, a fiscal revenue system and fiscal administration were created. New and increasingly frequent legal relationships of a binding nature between the fiscus (tax office) and private individuals have arisen. As a result, there were legal disputes in which fiscus became a party. To settle those disputes, the same rules like in disputes between private individuals were applied. The fragment of the panegyric, written by Pliny the Younger in honor of Trajan, is an example of such a practice. In this text, Pliny said that Nam tribunal quoque excogitatum principatui est, par ceteris, nisi illud litigatoris amplitudine metiaris.
Turning to the important issue of this study - the place of fiscus claims among the other claims, several sources, requiring analysis should be pointed to.
D. 49.14.11 (Iavolenus libro nono epistularum): Non possunt ulla bona ad fiscum pertinere, nisi quae creditoribus superfutura sunt: id enim bonorum cuiusque esse intellegitur, quod aeri alieno superest.
Iovelenus, a lawyer who lived at the turn of the first and second centuries after Christ, gave a very important rule in the reign of Trajan. This lawyer stated that if the sum of the debt exceeds the debtor's assets, then the fiscus should be satisfied only with what remains after the satisfaction of other creditors. It may be assumed that such a solution actually functioned in the early second century after Chr. However, over time, this rule was subject to far-reaching changes and the preserved sources from later period are the evidenced for such situation.
D. 184.108.40.206 (Callistratus l. primo de iure fisci): An bona, quae solvendo non sint, ipso iure ad fiscum pertineant, quaesitum est. Labeo scribit etiam ea, quae solvendo non sint, ipso iure ad fiscum pertinere. Sed contra sententiam eius edictum perpetuum scriptum est, quod ita bona veneunt, si ex his fisco adquiri nihil possit.
In the above-mentioned text, Callistratus quoted the opinion of Labeon. His statement concerned the indebted estate which fiscus claimed under the August law. According to a lawyer living at the turn of the first century before Christ and the first century after Christ, the property was, by law, owned by the fiscus and the fiscus overtook the claims of other creditors. According to G. Provera, Labeon represented the solution found in the Praetor’s edict Cui heres non extabit. Edict, and those solutions were a reflection of the regulations contained in lex Papia et Poppaea, under which act, caduca and vacantia belonged exclusively to the fiscal system.
In the meantime, as G. Provera rightly pointed out, there must have been another solution in the edict, namely, the property that was not sufficient to cover the debt should be sold. There was a discrepancy between the dissolution of the edict and the views of the doctrine which at that time was normative. G. Provera repeating S. Solazzi adopts a different version of the edict, namely, the claimants could only satisfy their claims if it could not or was not be done by the fiscus. Such a solution also results from the later Diocletian's constitution
C. 7.72.5: Imperatores Diocletianus, Maximianus. Si bona debitoris tui vacare constet et haec a fisco non agnoscantur, in possessionem eorum mitti te a competenti iudice recte postulabis. * DIOCL. ET MAXIM. AA. ET CC. ABYDONIO. *<A 293 XVII K. IAN. AA. CONSS.>
The content of this constitution shows that creditors could only satisfy their claims if the fiscus did not meet their claims from vacantia, because for example nobody reported the fact to the fiscus or the fiscus had satisfied its claim directly from the debtor. In my opinion, the solution contained in the Diocletian's constitution is rather a reflection of the evolution of the development of the rules governing the location of fiscus claims in the run-up to the claims of other creditors. Hence, it should be assumed that the texts of Modestinus and Iovelenus, and thus of the Praetor’s edict, are original. The change of concept occurred only during the reign of Diocletian. Such argumentation is also justified in the fact that Diocletian built a strong state, modeling on the Eastern despots, gradually appropriating the priority of fiscus claims against others.
The subject of this study was an analysis of the sources of law in order to present elaborated rules concerning the order of fulfilling claims from the debtor's property and the place of fiscal claims in coincidence with other types of receivables. Three solutions operating in three different legal systems - Polish, Italian and Roman law have been a subject to this analysis. It was relevant to this research to use not only the law-dogmatic method, but also comparative-historical method, which allows seeing the similarities and differences in solutions to determine the order of satisfying the claims of the debtor's property. For methodological purposes, positive systems were first analyzed, and finally the solution adopted in Roman law was presented. You also need to know that publishing restrictions do not allow for a broader view of this subject.
The contemporary solutions are similar and at the same time quite different from each other. The similarity between the Polish and Italian systems is evident in the fact that in both cases the order of claim fulfillment is legally guaranteed. Thus, the stability and legal certainty for economic turnaround are here. In both systems civil tax claims are among the privileged claims. However, the order of privileged claims was different. In Poland, the order of fulfilling creditors' claims was introduced by the legislator in the code of civil procedure (Article 1025 of the CCP). In Italy, in turn, the legislature introduced a category of senior claims, among which tax claims have very strong position (Article 2752, paragraph 2). There is also common factor for both systems which is the ability to enforce civil tax claims - the state treasury is on the same terms as other citizens using enforcement proceedings.
Those solutions, which today seem obvious, were created over several centuries in the Roman law. In the republican period, it was not possible to talk about equality of fiscal claims with claims of the state. Omnipotence of the state determined the absolute priority of the aerarium claims against other claims. The change of this concept was possible only with the change of the political system to the Principate. The private property of the emperor, which was a fiscus, became not only a state-run wealth but it received a legal entity. Thus, in disputes with the fiscus, citizens may have disputes before the courts. Fiscus had his representative in the advocatus fisci person, as in Poland today the function is the General Counsel to the Republic of Poland or Avvocato dello Stato in Italy. The development of the Roman concept of fiscal claims in coincidence with other claims was an important contribution to today's solutions at least in continental Europe.
Bartolini F., Dubolini P. (ed.), Il codice civile. Commento con la giurisprudenza, Piacenza 2001.
Bellomo M., L’Europa del diritto comune, Il cigno Galileo Galilei, Roma 1994.
Berman H.J., C.J.JR Reid, Roman Law in Europe and the “ius commune”, in Studi G. Gorla, Milano 1994.
Biondi B., Istituzioni di diritto romano, Milano 1972.
Cascione C., Bonorum proscriptio apud columnam Maeniam, Labeo 42/1996, p 444-455.
Cassola F., Il nome e il concetto di Europa, Convegno per Santo Mazzarino, Roma 1998, pp 9-54.
Coccia B. (ed.), Il mondo classico nell'immaginario contemporaneo, Roma 2008.
Dajczak W., Die Aufhebung der Beschränkungen der capacitas von Ehegatten in der nachklassischen Periode: ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Lex Iulia et Papia, RIDA 42/1995, pp 155-166.
Dzwonkowski H., Ordynacja podatkowa. Komentarz, Warszawa 2016, Legalis.
Esther A., Civitas Romana: Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht im alten Rom, Regensburg 2007.
Giuffre’ V., Sull’origine della “bonorum venditio” come esecuzione patrimoniale, Labeo 39/1993, pp 317-364.
Heropolitańska I., Drewicz-Tułodziecka A., Hryćków-Mycka K., Kuglarz P., Ustawa o księgach wieczystych i hipotece oraz przepisy związane. Komentarz do art. 345, Warszawa 2017, Legalis;.
Hirschfeld O., Kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletian, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, Berlin 1905.
Lenel O., Edictum Perpetuum 3, Leipzig 1927, reprint Aalen 1985.
Maciejewski T., Historia prawa sądowego Polski, Koszalin 1998.
Monateri P.G., Giaro T., Somma A., Le radici comuni del diritto europeo. Un cambiamento di prospettiva, Roma 2005.
Provera G., La vindicatio caducorum. Contributo allo studio del processo fiscale romano, Torino 1964.
Puliatti S., De iure fisci di Callistrato e il processo fiscale in età severiana, Milano 1992.
Seel O., Römische Denker und römischer Staat, Leipzig/Berlin 1937.
Singh K., Ilge B., Rethinking Bilateral Investment Treaties: Critical Issues and Policy Choices, Amsterdam 2016.
Sitek B., Avvocatura dello stato – Rzecznik Generalny ds. ochrony praw i interesów państwa. Bezpieczeństwo ochrony praw i interesów państwa włoskiego. Journal of Modern Science 4/27/2015, pp 127-146.
Sitek, B. Deontologia prawnicza w praktyce advocatus fisci i radcy Prokuratorii Generalnej Skarbu Państwa, in:] K. Amielańczyk, A. Dębiński, D. Słapek, Prawo karne i polityka w prawie rzymskim, Lublin 2015, pp 145-157.
Spagnuolo Vigorita T., Casta Domus, Napoli 1998.
Szczurek Z., Stosowanie zasad naczelnych postepowania cywilnego w sądowym postępowaniu egzekucyjnym, PPE 2008, No 1-2, pp 35 – 62.
Talamanca M., La vendita all’incanto nel processo esecutivo romano, Studi De Francisci 2, Napoli 1956, pp 239-272.
Trimarchi P., Istituzioni di diritto privato, Milano 2011.
Weiss E., Proscriptio debiotrum, RIDA 3/1949, pp 501-506.
Żal T., Egzekucja z nieruchomości, Poznań 2012, rozprawa doktorska, p 276.
Zieliński A., Postępowanie cywilne. Kompendium, Warszawa 2010.
Zimmerman P., Prawo upadłościowe. Prawo restrukturyzacyjne, Warszawa 2016, komentarz do art. 245. Legalis.
The subject of this study is to present the place of civil claims of tax office in connection with other claims. The author, as a research hypothesis, assumed that fiscal claims are stronger than other claims. In order to meet the claims of the debtor's property, the state treasury is a stronger party. The aim of the study is to analyze the solutions in Poland and in Italy from a comparative and historical perspective. The solutions developed under Roman law have undoubtedly influenced the equal treatment of civil fiscal claims with others, at least in the same group of privileged claims in enforcement proceedings.
Keywords: fiscus, debt claim, privileged claims, satisfaction of claims, Roman Law Polish law, Italian law.
[Per la pubblicazione degli articoli della sezione “Contributi” si è applicato, in maniera rigorosa, il procedimento di peer review. Ogni articolo è stato valutato positivamente da due referees, che hanno operato con il sistema del double-blind]
 Speaking about the State Treasury, it is always thought about individual stationes fisci forming the State Treasury.
 This is one of the reasons why there is now a tendency to move states away from the signing the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) or to cancel them. An example of this is Italy, which terminated all of the previously signed BIT. Cfr. K. Singh, B. Ilge, Rethinking Bilateral Investment Treaties: Critical Issues and Policy Choices, Amsterdam 2016, 4.
 Cfr. P.G. Monateri, T. Giaro, A. Somma, Le radici comuni del diritto europeo. Un cambiamento di prospettiva, Roma 2005, 91-92.
 Principles and process of enforcement proceedings, cfr. A. Zieliński, Postępowanie cywilne. Kompendium, Warsaw 2010, 357.
 Cfr. T. Żal, Egzekucja z nieruchomości, Poznań 2012, rozprawa doktorska (phd dissertation, 276; T. Maciejewski, Historia prawa sądowego Polski, Koszalin 1998, 190.
 Cfr. Z. Szczurek, Stosowanie zasad naczelnych postępowania cywilnego w sądowym postępowaniu egzekucyjnym, PPE 2008, Nr 1-2, 35-62.
 Cfr. I. Heropolitańska, A. Drewicz-Tułodziecka, K. Hryćków-Mycka, P. Kuglarz, Ustawa o księgach wieczystych i hipotece oraz przepisy związane. Komentarz do art. 345, Warszawa 2017, Legalis; P. Zimmerman, Prawo upadłościowe. Prawo restrukturyzacyjne, Warszawa 2016, komentarz do art. 245. Legalis.
 The rules concerning the origin of compulsory mortgages for the benefit of the Treasury and the pledge of tax are regulated in the articles 35 and 41 of the Act of 29th August 1997 - Tax Code. Cfr. H. Dzwonkowski, Ordynacja podatkowa. Komentarz, Warszawa 2016, Legalis.
 Cfr. F. Bartolini, P. Dubolini (red.), Il codice civile. Commento con la giurisprudenza, Piacenza 2001, 2227.
 The article 542 of Act from 28.10.1940 - Codice of Civil Procedure (O.J. IT, 28.10.1940 n. 1443).
 Cfr. F. Cassola, Il nome e il concetto di Europa, Convegno per Santo Mazzarino, Roma 1998, 9-54.
 The topic of the influence of Roman law on European legal culture was the subject of many studies, which all are impossible to mention here. It is enough to give some examples. Cfr. M. Bellomo, L’Europa del diritto comune, Il cigno Galileo Galilei, Roma 1994; H.J. Berman, C.J.Jr Reid, Roman Law in Europe and the “ius commune”, in Studi G. Gorla, Milano 1994, 1010; B. Coccia (ed.), Il mondo classico nell'immaginario contemporaneo, Roma 2008.
 The confiscation of property in criminal or political processes was already known in the republican period. The most famous to date are the so-called. presubscription lists. Those, who were on these lists lost their property. Cfr. C. Cascione, Bonorum proscriptio apud columnam Maeniam, Labeo 42, 1996, 444; E. Weiss, Proscriptio debitorum, RIDA 3, 1949, 501-506.
 Liv. 8.28: … pecuniae creditae bona debitoris, non corpus obnoxium esset. Ita nexi soluti, cautumque in posterum ne necterentur. Cfr. B. Biondi, Istituzioni di diritto romano, Milano 1972, 340.
 Cfr. V. Giuffre’, Sull’origine della “bonorum venditio” come esecuzione patrimoniale, Labeo 39/1993, 317-364.; M. Talamanca, La vendita all’incanto nel processo esecutivo romano, Studi De Francisci 2, Napoli 1956, 239-272.
 Cfr. T. Spagnuolo Vigorita, Casta Domus, Napoli 1998, 15; W. Dajczak, Die Aufhebung der Beschränkungen der capacitas von Ehegatten in der nachklassischen Periode: ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Lex Iulia et Papia, RIDA 42, 1995, 155-166.
 The definition of the state according to Cicerona de rep. 1.39 has fundamental importance for understanding the concept of the state in ancient Rome … Cfr. B. Wojciechowska Bianco, La concezione ciceroniana dello stato in Montaigne, in: Ciceroniana 7, 1990, 215-221. A. Esther, Civitas Romana: Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht im alten Rom, Regensburg 2007; O. Seel, Römische Denker und römischer Staat, Leipzig-Berlin 1937.
 In the time of Principate, the administration of the state was also expanded in the institutional and material spheres. The authorities (magistratus) had their offices and officials (apparitores), as well as property, including buildings. Cfr. O. Hirschfeld, Kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletian, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, Berlin 1905, 29-39.
 Cfr. G. Provera, La vindicatio caducorum. Contributo allo studio del processo fiscale romano, Torino 1964, 108. As part of the custody process, there was a fiscal process which had its own rules of procedure developed. Cfr. S. Puliatti, De iure fisci di Callistrato e il processo fiscale in età severiana, Milano 1992, 126.
 Cfr. B. Sitek, Deontologia prawnicza w praktyce advocatus fisci i radcy Prokuratorii Generalnej Skarbu Państwa, in: K. Amielańczyk, A. Dębiński, D. Słapek, Prawo karne i polityka w prawie rzymskim, UMCS, Lublin 2015, 145-157.