SIGNS OF AN ACTION FOR THE RECOGNITION OF A PROPERTY RIGHT

2021 ◽  
pp. 172-183
Author(s):  
Tikhon P. Podshivalov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Legal Uncertainty ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The article examines the definition of a closed list of features of a claim for the recogni-tion of a property right. The establishment of the features of a claim for the recognition of property right allows to correlate, distinguish the claim for the recognition of property right with other property claims and methods of protection of property rights, which ensures the prevention of competition lawsuits. Peculiarities of the action for recognition of property right are conditioned by its proprietary nature, i.e. by attributing it to proprietary lawsuits. The features of the action for recognition of the right in rem shall characterise the subject matter of proof and the conditions of satisfying such an action. The peculiarities of an action for recognition of property right may be divided into special and general characteristics - special characteristics are of qualifying nature allowing to distin-guish it from other property lawsuits; general characteristics result from the characteristic of this method of protection as a type of property action, since these characteristics are inherent to all property lawsuits. An action for recognition of property right is characterized by the following specific features: presence of the plaintiff's lawful possession of the subject of dispute; proprietary right acquired by the plaintiff on sufficient legal basis and preserved, exists for him at the time of the dispute; there is legal uncertainty in belonging of a person to a proprietary right; presence of the defendant's contesting the presence of proprietary right of the plaintiff; exclusive nature of application; independent legal significance of the claim for recognition of property right; non-contractual nature of claim; legal nego General, universal features of an action for recognition of property rights are as follows: non-contractual nature: there must be no binding relations between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the subject matter of the dispute; legal uncertainty concerns individually identified thing, in most cases immovable thing, which physically exists at the moment of court decision; restoration character - vindication and negative actions restore situation existing before violation - restoration of possession and restoration of c An action for recognition of a property right cannot have the following properties: abso-lute nature of the claim; existence of a subject of ownership; absence of grounds indicating termination of ownership right; universality in application.

scholarly journals The Right to Property and Property Rights as Objects of Possession, which is Committed by the Abuse of an Official by his Official Position (Part 2 of Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (15) ◽  
pp. 126-149
Author(s):  
Pavlo Serhiiovych Berzin ◽  
Ruslan Anatoliiovych Volynets ◽  
Mykhailo Mykhailovych Khomenko
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Official Position ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The article analyzes the criminal and civil understanding of the concepts of "foreign property", "right to property" and "property law". Different meanings of these concepts are considered. Differences in criminal and civil law understanding of these concepts and their relationship are established. It is substantiated that the subject of possession provided for in p. 2 art. 191 of the Criminal Code is only someone else's property, not the right to property and property rights. It is substantiated that the concept of "property" in the relevant compositions of criminal offenses against property performs other functions than the concept of "property" in civil law, and that the criminal law understanding of property and civil law definition of property in p. 1 of art. 190 of the Civil Code are unequal (different). On this basis and taking into account the legal positions of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, the conclusion is formulated that the subject of possession in the relevant composition of criminal offenses against property can be only someone else's property, not the right to it or not a property actions. The concepts of “property right” and “right to property” are not identical, and the concepts of “property right”, the term "right to property" constitute real rights on the property, but no other rights that are not property. In view of this, the possession by an official by abusing his official position the right to property or, in other words, the possession by an official by abusing of the right to property cannot be qualified under the relevant part of art. 191 of the Criminal Code. In addition, the article analyzes the definition of "right to property", which affect the recognition of the right to property as a kind of "subject" of the so-called "selfish abuses" under art. 364, 364-1 of the Criminal Code. It is emphasized that when an official possession the right to property committed by abusing his official position, he cannot qualify under the relevant part of art. 191 of the Criminal Code, as there is no such mandatory feature of p. 2 of art. 191 of the Criminal Code of abuse as someone else's property that is the subject of abuse.

UPOREDNI PRIKAZ HRVATSKOG I SLOVENAČKOG PRAVA GRAĐENjA

Glasnik prava ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-51
Author(s):  
Edina Kočan
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The Third ◽  
Conceptual Definition ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Construction Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The author presents a comparative legal analysis of the segments of construction law in Croatian and Slovenian law, with the aim of pointing out the differences that exist between them. Considering that this is a relatively new legal institute, which was somewhat earlier standardized in Slovenian law in relation to Croatian law, in the introductory exposition, a brief review was made of the occurrence of the construction law and the reasons for earlier non-regulation. The second part of the paper is dedicated to the stipulations of Act on ownership and Property Code of the Republic of Slovenia. This part refers to the conceptual definition of the construction law, in order to classify it in a certain broader unit, to which it belongs - genus proximum - searching for the closest relative, emphasizing the important characteristics that make it specific in relation to other property rights. In the third part of the paper, the author analyses the stipulations related to the subject of building rights, with reference to the dilemmas that exist in that sense, both in Croatian and Slovenian jurisprudence, as well as in the legal science of some other countries. The fourth part of the paper is dedicated to the stipulations that regulate the acquisition and duration of construction rights. Considering that derivative acquisition, among other things, characterizes the existence of bases and ways of acquisition, first possible bases of acquisition are presented, and then entry in appropriate public books as a way of acquiring this right and its duration. The concluding part of the paper summarizes the results of the analysis and evaluates the considered legal solutions, with the presentation of reasoned objections to the existing regulations, all with the aim of eventual amendment of the right to build in the legal systems in question.

scholarly journals Ghostwriters as a Legal Phenomenon: Features and Perspectives of Legal Regulation of Their Activity

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 19-27
Author(s):  
N. V. Zaitseva
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Fundamental Property ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Scientific Field ◽  
Property Right ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right

The paper is devoted to the problem of using the work of another person in the intellectual field, primarily in literary activity. The involvement of ghostwriters in writing literary works has created a legal phenomenon when the subject matter of contractual relations represents the inalienable non-property right, namely: the right of authorship the transfer of which is not possible in many jurisdictions, and in others, despite the absence of an explicit prohibition, there is no legal regulation of such alienation. However, the existence of ghostwriters cannot be assessed as a unique phenomenon of modernity. In our time, they have only gained new forms and a special place not only in the literary, but also in the scientific field. In this regard, the establishment of legal mechanisms for attracting and regulating ghostwriters is more effective than the establishment of a system of prohibitions.In the conditions of changing publishing businesses and increasing ways and forms of proof, questions about the authenticity of a person's authorship began to arise increasingly, especially in the field of scientific and scholarly literature, where the work of "new" researchers is often used. The issue of assignment of the right of authorship (copyright) — a fundamental property right — is treated differently in different legal systems. The continental system of law relies on impossibility of transferring copyright from one entity to another as part of a civil law transaction. Therefore, instances of attribution of authorship are assessed in the context of criminal or administrative law. It forms the legal essence of the division of rights of authorship into property and nonproperty ones: any commercial rights to intellectual property can be ceded except the authorship.

scholarly journals Team of Co-Owners as a Subject of the Right to Joint Shared Property

2019 ◽  
pp. 49-56
Author(s):  
A. V. Zarubin
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Actual Situation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Shared Property ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Joint Property

The author focuses on the similarity between relations of joint shared property and corporate relations, and proposes a “collective (a team of co-ownwers)” concept of joint property rights that is designed to solve the main problems of relations in question, including the definition of the subject of the right to joint shared property. From the point of view of the “collective” concept, the right to joint property is uniform. If the ownership of individual participants was extended to the whole thing, everyone’s will would be decisive in determining the fate of the thing, but the actual situation is not like this. In addition, possession is an external manifestation of ownership. At the same time, none of co-owners has the opportunity to appropriate the whole thing or even its part. He has only the right to claim possession. The general rule applies to the thing that is the object of the right to joint property. The right to joint property belongs to the team of co-owners as a non-entity community. There is no contradiction in the fact that the right belongs to an unauthorized association (a non-entity community), since the right can be attributed to the person whose will and domination is recognized by law, even if the law denies it as the subject (participant) of civil law relations.

scholarly journals The Subject Matter of the Lawsuit as a Feature Individualizing the Lawsuit

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 61-72
Author(s):  
V. N. Ivakin
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Legitimate Interest ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Substantive Law

The question concerning the concept of the subject matter of the claim, which is one of the features that individualize the claim, is one of the most disputable and unsettled in the doctrine devoted to the claim. A number of legal scholars define the subject matter of the lawsuit as the substantive law claim of the plaintiff against the defendant. However, this definition cannot be accepted as correct, since, first, petitioners bring claims that cannot meet the above requirement (for example, claims for recognizing transactions as invalid), and, second, the statements of claim filed with the court contain demand (request) for the court, rather than a claim against the defendant.According to another point of view, the subject matter of the claim should be understood as the subjective right indicated by the plaintiff and the corresponding obligation or civil legal relationship in general, about which the court must make a decision. It is also impossible to agree with the above definition of the subject matter of the lawsuit in view of the fact that, as A. A. Dobrovolsky correctly noted, the law provides that the statement of claim must indicate the plaintiff’s claim rather than the disputed legal relationship. We should also agree with the argument given by G. L. Osokina, according to which the logic and practice of the statement of claim for the defense dictate the need to include a subjective right or legitimate interest in the basis of the claim, and not in its subject matter. According to the point of view of K. S. Yudelson, the subject matter of the claim is the requirement to the court to protect the right in the form that corresponds to the stated requirement. However, since this definition is too general, it cannot be used to resolve the issue of the equivalence of claims. The definition of the subject matter of the claim as protection (V.N.Scheglov) or a method of protecting the right (G.L. Osokina) also have the similar drawback. The most correct is the definition of the subject matter of the claim as the protection of a subjective right, freedom or legitimate interest through the specific application of one of the methods provided for by law or the direct exercise of the right that the plaintiff asks the court about.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND TRANSLATIVE ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DOCTRINE OF OWNERSHIP TRANSFER

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myroslava Hudyma ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Property Right ◽  
Legal Capacity ◽  
Close Attention ◽  
Ownership Transfer ◽  
The Right ◽  
Qualitative Characteristics

Within the framework of the general doctrine of constitutive and translational acquisition of rights, the publication made an attempt to identify their suitability for describing the phenomenon of ownership transfer. The general characteristics of translational and constitutive acquisition of rights are analyzed, their differences are highlighted, and it is emphasized that the specified types can cover such legal situations as full transfer of the right (the right as a whole), and transfer of a part of powers (as components of the certain right). The paper underlines that the differences between the types of acquisition of rights are not so much quantitative (one jurisdiction or their complex is transferred), as qualitative characteristics and such issues are especially relevant in the spectrum of research on the transfer of ownership as a right that includes a triad of powers. Close attention is paid to the construction of constitutive acquisition of right, the possibility of use of which is extremely controversial, due to the overwhelming denial of the correctness of separation and alienation of a separate authority from ownership right, because the approval of the latter will lead to theoretical dissonance on the existence of incomplete (split ownership). It is emphasized that the application of the construction of the transfer of authority can take place in different shades of meaning and be combined with the right alienation, and without it. Therefore, the construction of right granting without alienation of the right is quite viable. Moreover, the transfer of one or even several powers of the owner is not only practically possible, but also necessary to establish limited property rights on the basis of full property right (ownership right). However, it is noted that in these cases, the acquirer will not receive the right of the alienator as a whole, but only certain legal possibilities of behavior in relation to a particular good. The legal capacity of the acquirer will not coincide with the legal capabilities of the alienator in content and scope, and therefore to talk about the transfer of ownership is incorrect, only a certain authority (powers) of the owner will be transferred, provided its (their) separation admissibility. The paper concludes that the specifics of property rights, which forms a triad of indivisible powers, determines the possibility of applying the construction «transfer of ownership» only to cases of translational acquisition of right, in which the acquirer receives a right identical to the right of the grantor both in content and volume.

Subjective Point of View of a Student on Ways of Subject Matter Structure Creation by the Teacher

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-171
Author(s):  
Denisa Gunišová ◽  
Jana Duchovičová
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Subjective Perception ◽  
Cognitive Frames ◽  
Teacher Work ◽  
Approach To Teaching ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Level Of Understanding ◽  
Education Process

Authors in this contribution focus on issue of subject matter structure creation by the teacher as an important psycho-didactic domain of education process and how does a student perceive this structure. The aim of the teacher is not only to impart the knowledge to students but also to show them and teach them possible ways of how to understand the subject matter better and how to get to the fundamentals of it. Based on the structure of subject matter created by the teacher a student creates cognitive frames which become basis for his further learning. We pay attention to definition of epistemology of subject matter structure, questions of psycho-didactic approach to teaching, creating structure of subject matter and how does the teacher work with the text. Empirical part of the contribution investigates teachers' preferences of subject matter structure and statistically describes subjective perception of level of understanding of the subject matter by a student influenced by the particular subject matter structure realized by the teacher.

Intergenerational Wealth Transfer and the Need to Revive and Metamorphose the Israeli Estate Tax

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphna Hacker
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Wealth Transfer ◽  
Estate Tax ◽  
Inheritance Tax ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Rich ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Needy

Abstract This article suggests enacting an accession tax instead of the estate duty – which was repealed in Israel in 1981. This suggestion evolves from historical and normative explorations of the tension between perceptions of familial intergenerational property rights and justifications for the “death tax,” as termed by its opponents, i.e., estate and inheritance tax. First, the Article explores this tension as expressed in the history of the Israeli Estate Duty Law. This chronological survey reveals a move from the State’s taken-for-granted interest in revenue justifying the Law’s enactment in 1949; moving on to the “needy widow” and “poor orphan” in whose name the tax was attacked during the years 1959–1964, continuing to the abolition of the tax in 1981 in the name of efficiency and the right of the testator to transfer his wealth to his family, and finally cumulating with the targeting of tycoon dynasties that characterizes the recent calls for reintroducing the tax. Next, based on the rich literature on the subject, the Article maps the arguments for and against intergenerational wealth transfer taxation, placing the Israeli case in larger philosophical, political, and pragmatic contexts. Lastly, it associates the ideas of accession tax and “social inheritance” with inspirational sources for rethinking a realistic wealth transfer taxation to bridge the gap between notions of intergenerational familial rights and intergenerational social justice.

Observations on the Provenance of the Thames Valley Pick, Swalecliffe, Kent

1926 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 224-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. H. Worsfold
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Sloping Ground ◽  
Relative Age ◽  
Treasure Trove ◽  
The Road ◽  
University College London ◽  
Exact Position ◽  
The Subject ◽  
London Clay ◽  
The Right

From the Marine Parade, Tankerton, Whitstable, looking East, one obtains a capital view of Tankerton Bay, Swalecliffe, in which my discoveries have been made which are to form the subject matter of this paper. The grassy cliff at Priest and Sow corner at the end of the road stands at 55 O.D. This height gradually declining round the arc of the bay, to die out entirely in the Long Rock occupying the middle distance and through which the Swalecliffe Brook discharges into the sea. Just beyond, a little to the right, are the disused Swalecliffe Brick Works, with Stud Hill and Hampton lying further back. To the left and edging the horizon, Herne Bay Pier is clearly discernable. The accompanying copy of (Plate I.) the 25-in. Ordnance map of this Tankerton Bay section gives the exact position of the 650 yards from the Parish Boundary Stone eastwards indicated thereon with a X in which are found the gravels and brick-earths which have proved so rich in archaeological treasure trove. The whole of this south-easterly directioned well-drained gently sloping ground, from the Priest and Sow corner to the Swalecliffe brook, forms an ideal camping site. Last April a paper was read by me before the Geological Association, at University College, London, entitled “An Examination of the Contents of the Brick Earths and Gravels of Tankerton Bay, Swalecliffe, Kent,” in which the geological aspect of this section was fairly exhaustively treated, so that in this particular it will be unnecessary for me to do more than give a brief summary of the results of that examination as to the relative age and stratigraphical sequence of the Drift material found here overlying the London Clay.

Role of Option of Defect in Tenders: A Study under Omani Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Maen Mohammad al-Qassaymeh ◽  
Nayel Musa Shaker al-Omran
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Bilateral Contracts ◽  
Governmental Body ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Injured Party

Abstract Option of defect is an important theory regulated in Omani Civil Law. It gives the injured party in bilateral contracts an option to rescind the contract if they find a defect in the subject matter of the contract. This theory is deemed a legal basis to refuse objects of sale by tender. In particular, it is useful when a guarantee that is given to the governmental body is insufficient to cover damages, due to bad performance of the contract. This article discusses how the option of defect is applied to sale by tender in Omani law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document