Search results

1

Z prawnej problematyki nabycia służebności przesyłu przez zasiedzenie

100%

Hasińska I.

Studia Iuridica Agraria

|

2016

|

vol. 14

389-400

EN

Ownership is the main property right which gives the fullest control over a thing and, simultaneously, imposes the obligation to respect that control. The situation is totally different in respect of limited property rights. The limited property rights entitle a person to exercise some rights, which are typically given to an owner, on another person’s thing. The right of transmission easement constitutes a special, separate type of easement and it limits the ownership. The introduction of that right was a legislator’s response to the postulates made by transmission entrepreneurs to regulate the use of the real estate on which distribution equipment has been or is planned to be constructed. The possibility to acquire transmission easement by acquisitive prescription still causes numerous disputes both in the doctrine and among legal practitioners. That claim raised by the entrepreneurs entails the necessity to prove that the transmission entrepreneur and their legal predecessors used another person’s real estate in exactly the same way as it would have been used by the person who is entitled to the transmission easement (from 2008) or to an easement analogical (similar) to the transmission easement (until 2008), namely by using permanent and visible facilities which in this case are designed to transmit electrical energy (energy transmission, equipment maintenance, checkups and repairs).

2

Z prawnej problematyki uprawnienia informacyjnego w świetle ustawy o ochronie prawnej odmian roślin

100%

Hasińska I.

Przegląd Prawa Rolnego

|

2016

|

issue 2 (19)

117-134

EN

The aim of the considerations presented in this article was an attempt to determine to what extent legal regulations ensure proper realisation of the breeder’s right to infor-mation. It is concluded that among other things neither the breeder’s application (of that of an organisation of breeders) requesting written information regarding the use of material from a plant variety protected by an exclusive right as seeding material, nor a claim con-cerning the obligation to provide information in a manner provided for in Article 23a clause 1 of the Act on Legal Protection of Plant Varieties are contingent upon determina-tion of a prior violation of the exclusive right.

IT

L’articolo si propone di rispondere alla domanda in quale misura la regolazione giuri-dica garantisca l’attuazione delle competenze di fornire informazioni da parte dell’allevatore. Nella parte conclusiva, l’autrice afferma tra l’altro che sia la domanda dell’allevatore (esattamente dell’organizzazione di allevatori), la quale obbliga a dare informazioni scritte riguardo all’uso del materiale proveniente dalla raccolta della specie protetta col diritto esclusivo come sementi, sia l’azione ingiuntiva volta ad imporre l’obbligo informativo a seconda del rito dell’art. 23 della legge sulla tutela giuridica delle varietà vegetali, non dipendono dal dimostrare una precedente violazione del diritto esclusivo. La loro espressione è la realizzazione delle competenze economiche dell’allevatore e il legislatore non impone condizioni specifiche in materia.

3

Ewolucja od rolnika indywidualnego ku przedsiębiorcy rolnemu. Uwagi na tle statusu prawnego rolnika i spółki cywilnej

100%

Hasińska I.

Przegląd Prawa Rolnego

|

2017

|

issue 2 (21)

103-117

EN

The subject of the considerations presented in this paper are issues related to the evo-lution of the concept of an entrepreneur and the status of an individual farmer as an entre-preneur in comparison to the status of a partnership. Differences in the status of entrepre-neurs in private and public law result in the fact that the same entities may be considered as entrepreneurs under private law but no longer as such under public law. Such a phe-nomenon occurs, among other things, in the event of the qualification of an individual farmer as an entrepreneur. On the other hand, a partnership has no legal subjectivity under private law. Agricultural activities carried out in the form of a partnership are performed solely by the partners themselves. However, this did not prevent a partnership from being granted the status of agricultural producer in the Act on the National Producer System, the farm register or the records of payment applications. In consequence, there arises a tech-nical simplification that is contrary to the requirement of the clarity in the law.

IT

L’oggetto delle presenti considerazioni riguarda l’evoluzione della nozione di impren-ditore e lo status di agricoltore individuale in quanto imprenditore nel contesto dello status di società civile. Nel diritto pubblico e privato lo status di imprenditore è differente, ciò fa sì che gli stessi operatori vengano considerati imprenditori nell’ambito del diritto privato, ma non lo sono per il diritto pubblico. Il fenomeno in oggetto si verifica tra l’altro per quanto riguarda il problema di qualifica dell’agricoltore individuale come imprenditore. La società civile, invece, manca di personalità giuridica nell’ambito del diritto privato. L’attività agricola condotta in tale forma costituisce esclusivamente un’attività individuale svolta dai soci. Tuttavia ciò non è stato d’ostacolo per assegnare lo status di produttore agricolo alla società civile nell’ambito della legge sul sistema nazionale di produttori, il registro delle aziende agricole e il registro delle domande di pagamento. Si verificano così “semplificazioni tecniche”, il che non va di pari passo con il postulato di chiarezza giuridica.

Refine search results

2 Przegląd Prawa Rolnego

1 Studia Iuridica Agraria

3 Hasińska I.

1 2017

2 2016

Z prawnej problematyki nabycia służebności przesyłu przez zasiedzenie

Z prawnej problematyki uprawnienia informacyjnego w świetle ustawy o ochronie prawnej odmian roślin

Ewolucja od rolnika indywidualnego ku przedsiębiorcy rolnemu. Uwagi na tle statusu prawnego rolnika i spółki cywilnej