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.

Specific Notarial Protection of the Testator's Exclusive Rights: Kazakh and International Experience

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 770
Author(s):  
Karlygash Asilkhanovna JUMABAYEVA ◽  
Lola Furkatovna TATARINOVA ◽  
Gulnaz Tursunovna ALAYEVA ◽  
Saule Zhusupbekovna SULEIMENOVA ◽  
Danila Vladimirovich TATARINOV
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
International Experience ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Main Function ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

This study is concerned with one of the most burning issues of intellectual property rights, namely the notarial protection of the testator's exclusive rights. The article analyzes the Kazakh and international experience in solving this issue. In the course of the study, the authors obtained the following results: - In legal practice, the non-acceptance of inheritance and refusal to inherit exclusive rights have their specific features; - It is proposed to supplement the existing civil legislation on the protection of the testator's copyrights. ‘Kazakhstan Authors' Society’ conducts its activities in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Its main function is to manage the property rights of authors. This management includes the issuance of permits to use deliverables on behalf of authors, as well as the collection, distribution and payment of royalties. It has been established that a notary has the right to apply to ‘Kazakhstan Authors' Society’ to determine one's authorship. The authors have revealed that the current Kazakh legislation does not state the creation time of some deliverable and does not provide for the notarial certification of a web page (in case of copyright infringement). Thus, a notary takes measures to protect the intellectual property rights owned by the copyright holder that might become the subject of succession.

scholarly journals Charakter prawny ograniczeń sposobu korzystania z nieruchomości w związku z ochroną zasobów środowiska – refleksje na temat art. 129 Prawa ochrony środowiska

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1 (3)) ◽  
pp. 185-198
Author(s):  
Sławomir Pawłowski
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Environmental Resources ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Property

The subject of the discussion is the legal nature of restrictions on the use of real estate in relation to the protection of environmental resources. Art. 129 of Environmental Law can have the effect that the use of a property or its part is impossible or substantially reduced. In doctrine, the dominant view is that such public-law interference in the right of property assumes the form of restriction referred to in Art. 64, par. 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Another interpretation is also possible. Since the depth of the interference with property rights can lead to the effect that this property will become, as the Ombudsman has pointed out recently, “useless” to the owner, it would be reasonable to consider whether or not such property is de facto being expropriated. In such a case, the standard of constitutional control would be Art. 21, sec. 2.

1. The Scope of the Subject

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark P. Thompson ◽  
Martin George
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Residential Area ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Real Property ◽  
Personal Property ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Subject ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Ownership Rights

Land is an important commodity in society that it is both permanent and indestructible, two features which distinguish it from other forms of property. More than one person can have a relationship with the land and share the right to possess it. The right to possess a land is known as ownership right, but it is also common for people to have enforceable rights in other people’s land. This is the third party right, an example of which is where the owner of a house in a residential area agrees with neighbours that the house will only be used as a residence. This chapter discusses land and property rights, ownership rights, third party rights, and conveyancing. It also examines the distinction in English law between real property and personal property, the meaning of land, items attached to the land, fixtures and fittings, and incorporeal hereditaments.

Caring for the Dying: From a “Negative” to a “Positive” Legal Right to Die at Home

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Israel Doron
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
At Home

The choice of the old and terminally ill to die at home has been the subject of various types of research. However, one of the aspects of this subject, which has been investigated very little, is its legal context. The absence of such legal research is contrasted by the vast amount of academic writing on the legal aspects of the right to die with dignity and euthanasia. The object of this article is to analyze and break down the “right to die at home” into its different legal components. This legal analysis will be based on Professor Isaiah Berlin’s definition of two different concepts of liberty: negative and positive freedoms. The main conclusion from the legal analysis presented in this article is that it is important to understand that at the legal level the right to die at home is dependent on many different elements. These elements may be classed in two basic categories: negative and positive freedoms and rights. Even though the former is a necessary condition of the latter, without the latter the first remains purely theoretical for many old people.

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.

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.

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 Current Issues of Qualified Legal Assistance in the Post-Soviet Space

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-263
Author(s):  
Nurana Gurbanova ◽  
Semen Raspopin ◽  
Nikolai Iurtaev ◽  
Dmitrii Bardokin
Keyword(s):  
Law Firms ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Eurasian Economic Union ◽  
Economic Union ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

Modern processes of regulation of the legal market in Russia and other post-Soviet countries take place in the context of the right to qualified legal assistance. The authors used a set of such comparative legal methods as synchronous and intra-system comparison, as well as problem-chronological and formal legal methods. The paper focuses on the definition of qualified legal assistance and its criteria. The research involved a group of entities that provide qualified legal assistance: public authorities, civil society institutions, i.e. bar, notary, legal clinics, public associations, etc., commercial organizations, and individual lawyers. The comparative legal analysis featured qualified legal assistance in the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union. A key aspect of the right to qualified legal assistance is the state system of legal aid. The article describes Russian and Belarusian models. The authors believe that there is no appropriate definition of qualified legal aid and that the bar holds the dominant position in the professional lawyers' community. Some countries of the Eurasian Economic Union preserved Soviet experience of bar associations. These countries demonstrate some specific traits of advocacy activities. For instance, institutions of legal consultants function as an alternative to the bar. The Republic of Armenia declared legal practice a business activity. The Republic of Belarus legally regulates specialized bar associations, e.g. legal counseling and law firms that specialize in a particular branch of law. As for free legal assistance, Russian model proved to be more advanced than that of Belarus, as Russia has no statutory mechanisms for obliging legal firms to provide free legal assistance at their own expense. In addition, Russia has a wider range of population categories entitled to receive free legal aid. Another advantage of the Russian free legal aid system is a detailed regulation of the status of legal clinics.

Delving into Horror

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 135-150
Keyword(s):  
The Self ◽  
Time And Space ◽  
The Third ◽  
The World ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Perception Of Time ◽  
Definition Of

The springboard for this essay is the author’s encounter with the feeling of horror and her attempts to understand what place horror has in philosophy. The inquiry relies upon Leonid Lipavsky’s “Investigation of Horror” and on various textual plunges into the fanged and clawed (and possibly noumenal) abyss of Nick Land’s work. Various experiences of horror are examined in order to build something of a typology, while also distilling the elements characteristic of the experience of horror in general. The essay’s overall hypothesis is that horror arises from a disruption of the usual ways of determining the boundaries between external things and the self, and this leads to a distinction between three subtypes of horror. In the first subtype, horror begins with the indeterminacy at the boundaries of things, a confrontation with something that defeats attempts to define it and thereby calls into question the definition of the self. In the second subtype, horror springs from the inability to determine one’s own boundaries, a process opposed by the crushing determinacy of the world. In the third subtype, horror unfolds by means of a substitution of one determinacy by another which is unexpected and ungrounded. In all three subtypes of horror, the disturbance of determinacy deprives the subject, the thinking entity, of its customary foundation for thought, and even of an explanation of how that foundation was lost; at times this can lead to impairment of the perception of time and space. Understood this way, horror comes within a hair’s breadth of madness - and may well cross over into it.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document