scholarly journals Restrictions of Private Property Right in Terms of the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Experience of the US, UK and Ukraine

2021 ◽  
pp. 263-277
Author(s):  
Kateryna Nekit

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on human rights. Many rights have been restricted to prevent the spread of infection. The restrictions on private property rights during the pandemic were not so obvious, but no less significant. The massive closure of restaurants, cafes, cinemas and other crowded places has resulted in significant losses for business owners. The question arose about the admissibility of such restrictions on the rights of owners, as well as the need to compensate for the losses caused. The purpose of this article is to study the criteria developed by international practice under which the restriction of property rights is allowed, and approaches to resolving issues of compensation for losses caused to owners when it is necessary to ensure a balance of private and public interests in Ukraine. The article also analyzes approaches to resolving issues of compensation for losses caused to owners as a result of restrictions on their rights, developed in the case law of the United States and Great Britain.

2021 ◽  
pp. 61-70
Author(s):  
K.H. Nekit ◽  
◽  
◽  

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact in all areas of human life. Many rights have been restricted to prevent the spread of infection. The restrictions on private property rights during the pandemic were not so obvious, but no less significant. The massive closure of restaurants, cafes, cinemas and other crowded places has resulted in significant losses for business owners. The question arose about the admissibility of such restrictions on the rights of owners, as well as the need to compensate for the losses caused. The purpose of this article is to study the criteria developed by international practice under which the restriction of property rights is allowed, and approaches to resolving issues of compensation for losses caused to owners when it is necessary to ensure a balance of private and public interests in Ukraine. In order to understand whether the owners, whose rights were restricted during the pandemic by depriving them of the opportunity to use their property in business, have the right to compensation, the article analyzes the meaning of "possessions" used in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It is concluded that future income within the meaning given by the European Court of Human Rights should also be considered a type of property, so depriving owners of the opportunity to receive income could to some extent be considered as confiscation of property. This approach suggests that during the quarantine the owners were in a sense deprived of property, which raises the question of the need to compensate the owners for the losses incurred during the quarantine measures. The right of owners to compensation is analyzed in the light of the conditions developed in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights for interfering in the peaceful possession of property and the recommendations developed by the United Nations to limit human rights in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is concluded that it is necessary to comply with the principle of legality in case of state intervention in the peaceful possession of property. However, this principle was violated in Ukraine, as the restrictions were introduced not by law, but by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. This gives grounds to challenge the actions of the state and demand payment of compensation for losses incurred by the owners. The article also analyzes approaches to resolving issues of compensation for losses caused to owners as a result of restrictions on their rights, developed in the case law of the United States and Great Britain.


1978 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 450-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman Furniss

This paper attempts to throw new light on what one might terra the ‘operational component’ of social democratic thinking, functional socialism, by focusing on the creation. organization, and transformation of property rights. I argue that while democratic socialism does provide a political and philosophical schema that justifies distribution rules not sanctioned in ‘the market’,1 the novelty of the solution (and thus the necessary difference from existing advanced industrial societies, including the United States) is exaggerated. In addition. the tension between the attenuation of private property rights and their arrogation by the state on the one hand and citizen control over state activities on the other is not sufficiently perceived. My main purpose is to delineate and explore these problems. I also suggest ways in which the argument might be strengthened.


Google Rules ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 65-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne Elizabeth Gray

This chapter provides an examination of Google’s US copyright case law, covering disputes over Google’s use, without permission, of copyrighted content in Google Search, Google Images, Google Books, YouTube, and its phone operating system Android. When resolving Google’s copyright disputes, US courts have considered the public benefits of Google’s services and have exhibited a willingness to limit private property rights in favor of the public interest in accessing information and content. These decisions have legitimized Google’s activities, and they have gifted Google private gains that fuel its information empire.


Author(s):  
Caitlyn Ashley ◽  
Elizabeth Spencer Berthiaume ◽  
Philip Berzin ◽  
Rikki Blassingame ◽  
Stephanie Bradley Fryer ◽  
...  

Eminent Domain is the power of the government or quasi-government entities to take private or public property interests through condemnation. Eminent Domain has been a significant issue since 1879 when, in the case of Boom Company v. Patterson, the Supreme Court first acknowledged that the power of eminent domain may be delegated by state legislatures to agencies and non-governmental entities. Thus, the era of legal takings began. Though an important legal dispute then, more recently eminent domain has blossomed into an enduring contentious social and political problem throughout the United States. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Thus, in the wake of the now infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London, where the Court upheld the taking of private property for purely economic benefit as a “public use,” the requirement of “just compensation” stands as the primary defender of constitutionally protected liberty under the federal constitution. In response to Kelo, many state legislatures passed a variety of eminent domain reforms specifically tailoring what qualifies as a public use and how just compensation should be calculated. Texas landowners recognize that the state’s population is growing at a rapid pace. There is an increasing need for more land and resources such as energy and transportation. But, private property rights are equally important, especially in Texas, and must be protected as well. Eminent domain and the condemnation process is not a willing buyer and willing seller transition; it is a legally forced sale. Therefore, it is necessary to consider further improvements to the laws that govern the use of eminent domain so Texas landowners can have more assurance that this process is fair and respectful of their private property rights when they are forced to relinquish their land. This report compiles statutes and information from the other forty-nine states to illustrate how they address key eminent domain issues. Further, this report endeavors to provide a neutral third voice in Texas to strike a more appropriate balance between individual’s property rights and the need for increased economic development. This report breaks down eminent domain into seven major topics that, in addition to Texas, seemed to be similar in many of the other states. These categories are: (1) Awarding of Attorneys’ Fee; (2) Compensation and Valuation; (3) Procedure Prior to Suit; (4) Condemnation Procedure; (5) What Cannot be Condemned; (6) Public Use & Authority to Condemn; and (7) Abandonment. In analyzing these seven categories, this report does not seek to advance a particular interest but only to provide information on how Texas law differs from other states. This report lays out trends seen across other states that are either similar or dissimilar to Texas, and additionally, discusses interesting and unique laws employed by other states that may be of interest to Texas policy makers. Our research found three dominant categories which tend to be major issues across the country: (1) the awarding of attorneys’ fees; (2) the valuation and measurement of just compensation; and (3) procedure prior to suit.


2012 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 877-907
Author(s):  
Teresa Scassa

Trademarks play an important role in facilitating critical speech in an increasingly corporate capitalist society. Not only do they serve as markers for expressive content on the Internet, they can also be used as vehicles for the communication of critical messages about the trademark owner or its products or services. In this paper, the author examines the implicit balance in the Trade-marks Act between freedom of expression values and trademark rights, and argues that it is being significantly altered by the contemporary push for greater trademark protection. The author identifies specific problems that emerge from Canadian case law relating to freedom of expression and trademark law. These include the treatment by courts of intellectual property rights as private property rights, inattention to the trademark/copyright overlap, the troublesome distinction between commercial and non-commercial uses, and the phenomenon of trademark bullying. The author argues for a sharp evolution in Canadian case law that would establish clear parameters for critical speech using trademarks.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document