Search results

1

Prawa rzeczowe przysługujące obywatelom Ukrainy na tle obowiązujących w Polsce norm kolizyjnych

100%

Górecki J.

Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego

|

2023

|

vol. 32

EN

Mass inflow of Ukrainian citizens into Poland gives rise to many legal issues, including conflict-of-law questions about rights in rem held by such persons both in respect of property left in Ukraine and property brought to Poland. In the context of the prolonged stay of such persons in Poland, one crucial task may be, for example, to establish the law applicable to the disposal of their property brought to Poland under legal acts made in Poland.The Agreement between the Republic of Poland and Ukraine on legal aid and legal relationships in civil and criminal matters, done at Kiev on 24 May 1993, applicable in Polish-Ukrainian relations, devotes several provisions to those questions.However, the Agreement ignores the question of the law applicable to property law relationships having movable items as their objects. In particular, it does not designate the law applicable to contracts transferring the ownership of movable assets and contracts encumbering such assets with limited rights in rem. The relevant norms in this regard are conflict-of-law rules of the Polish Act of 04 February 2011 - Private International Law, and of the Ukrainian confl ict-of-law Act of 23 June 2005, designating the law applicable to property.Accordingly, as long as movable items are located in Poland, Polish law will apply with regard to the respective property law relationships. This is provided for in Article 41 (1) of the Private International Law Act. However, Polish law will not apply to obligational and property rights having as their object immovable properties located in Ukraine, which is covered by Article 32 of the Agreement of 24 May 1993. In this regard, Ukrainian law is exclusively applicable.Under Article 41 (2) of the Private International Law Act, in the assessment of legal relationships relating to a movable property brought to Poland from Ukraine, one should also consider legal events taking place when the asset in question was still in Ukraine. However, the assessment of legal events having an impact on property law relationships taking place in Poland and relating to movable items brought back to Ukraine will be based on the Ukrainian law.

2

Contracts Concerning Rights in Immovable Property in the Light of Directive 2011/83/EU, and the Consumer Rights Act Implementing It

72%

Kaźmierczyk A.

Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

|

2017

|

issue 8(968)

57-73

EN

The Consumer Rights Act of 30 May 2014 implements to the Polish legal system the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2011/83/EU of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights. It should therefore provide a comprehensive regulation on the contracts whose parties are the trader and the consumer. For the correct determination of the legal situation of the traders concluding contracts with the consumers, it is therefore important to specify a catalogue of contracts to which the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act apply. This catalogue (the subjective scope of the Act) came in for criticism by the legislature, which enumerated the contracts to which the provisions of the Act do not apply. This article focuses not so much on an overall analysis of the types of contracts excluded from the application of the Consumer Rights Act, but rather attempts to diagnose whether, and to what extent, contracts regulating the rights in immovable property have been excluded from the Act. In addition, it asks whether the regulations that shape these exclusions in the Consumer Rights Act in fact reflect the intention of the European legislature expressed in the Directive. To verify the aims of the study, the regulations of the Act that form the exclusions of the contracts concerning rights in immovable property are presented. As shown by the undertaken analysis, the content of the regulations affecting the exclusions regarding the contracts for the rights in immovable property can be interpreted inconsistently, which results in doubts as to what kind of contracts the Act applies to in full, and which contracts have been excluded from its regime and to what extent. The analyses presented in the study also show that the regulations contained in the Consumer Rights Act do not contain a proper reflection of the intentions of the European legislature. In respect to the exclusions of the application of the Consumer Rights Act to the contracts for the rights in immovable property, the Consumer Rights Act differs from the Directive.

PL

Ustawa o prawach konsumentów z dniem 30.05.2014 r. implementuje do polskiego porządku prawnego dyrektywę Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady 2011/83/UE z dnia 25.10.2011 r. w sprawie praw konsumentów. Katalog umów, do których mają zastosowanie przepisy ustawy o prawach konsumentów, został oznaczony przez ustawodawcę w sposób negatywny, poprzez wyliczenie umów, wobec których przepisy ustawy nie mają zastosowania. Przedmiotem artykułu uczyniono próbę zdiagnozowania, czy i w jakim zakresie spod reżimu ustawy wyłączone zostały umowy dotyczące praw do nieruchomości, jak też to, czy regulacje kształtujące te wyłączenia stanowią odzwierciedlenie intencji ustawodawcy europejskiego wyrażonych w dyrektywie. W celu zweryfikowania celu badania analizie poddane zostały przepisy ustawy, które tworzą wyłączenia umów dotyczących praw do nieruchomości. Jak wykazała przeprowadzona analiza, treść przepisów kształtujących wyłączenia w zakresie umów dotyczących praw do nieruchomości może być interpretowana niejednolicie, co powoduje, że powstają wątpliwości dotyczące tego, do jakiego rodzaju umów ustawa ma zastosowanie w całości, a które umowy i w jakim zakresie wyłączone są spod jej reżimu. Wykazano dodatkowo, że nie sposób przyjąć, iż regulacje te zawierają prawidłowe przełożenie intencji ustawodawcy europejskiego.

3

Umowa przewłaszczenia nieruchomości na zabezpieczenie z uwzględnieniem nowej regulacji art. 387(1) Kodeksu cywilnego

72%

Komar W.

Zeszyt Studencki Kół Naukowych Wydziału Prawa i Administracji UAM

|

2017

|

issue 7

103-120

PL

Celem artykułu jest przeanalizowanie instytucji przewłaszczenia nieruchomości na zabezpieczenie oraz nowej regulacji kodeksu cywilnego. Poddano analizie dopuszczalność, formę i konstrukcję umowy. Badanie objęło prawa i obowiązki stron umowy, w szczególności przejście własności i zaspokojenie wierzytelności. Przedstawiono wybrane kontrowersyjne problemy podnoszone w doktrynie i orzecznictwie, m.in. obejście prawa przy przenoszeniu własności. Analizowany jest kształt, cel i skutki nowej regulacji w Kodeksie cywilnym. Opisane zostały przesłanki nieważności umowy wprowadzone nowelizacją.

EN

The aim of article is to analyze the institution of the transfer of ownership of immovable property for security and the new provision in the Polish Civil Code. The paper analyses admissibility, form and construction of the contract. Research contains rights and obligations of the parties in particular transfer of ownership and satisfying claims. It also shows selected controversial issues raised in doctrine and judicature, inter alia circumvention of the law when transferring the ownership. New regulation in the Civil Code, its form, aim and effects are also under analysis. The article contains description of grounds for voidness of the contract introduced by the amendment.

4

Reprywatyzacja w świetle zasad prawa

62%

Zdziennicki B.

Studia Prawnicze

|

2015

|

issue 3 (203)

5-34

EN

Restitution claims are divided in two groups. One of them questions legal continuity between the Polish People’s Republic and the Third Republic of Poland. As a non-sovereign country, Polish People’s Republic was supposed to become a “black hole” in the history of Polish statehood. Therefore its nationalisation and expropriation acts concerning restoration of the country from war damages and its development according to the principles of social justice should be considered void and the properties returned to their former owners. Private property is inviolable and should be restored. The second group of the claims recognizes legal continuity between Polish People’s Republic and the Third Republic of Poland but predicates that all nationalisation and expropriation decisions grossly violated the law and because of that should be cancelled according to mode supervisory procedures. The claims of both groups were supported by Institute of National Remembrance actions fighting “Communist regime’s crimes” and “Communist lawlessness” as well as in the programmes of the parties which would define postwar nationalisation as the plunder of inviolable private property, and also in Senat’s resolutions which regularly condemned “denaturalized” Polish People’s Republic. The large scale of restitution claims (at this moment they are approximately estimated at 250 billion zlotys) created a special type of “business” which is connected with numerous pathologies (frauds, forgeries, extortions etc.). The pressure coming from former owners’ inheritors and purchasers of their claims supported by signalled political-ideological actions unfortunately has affected the directions of administrative and judicial jurisprudence. It negated the meaning of acquisitive prescription (Civil Code, article No. 172) by assuming that the period of the Polish People’s Republic was force majeure (Civil Code, article No. 121, subparagraph 4 with regard to Civil Code, article No. 172) which made it impossible to start the limitation period or to stop it. Hence the Polish State could not prescribe the nationalised or the expropriated properties. The civil courts adjudge restitutions in kind or compensations for lost estate according to the Civil Code. In turn administrative courts started to cancel expropriating and nationalisating decisions without any censorship time and in this way started to run in civil courts the compensation from the State Treasury procedures. By cancelling these decisions, the administrative courts accepted incompatible with the Constitution interpretation of article 156 section 1 subparagraph 2 in fine with regard to section 2 Code of Administrative Proceedings. Incompatible because not limited with any censorship time. Currently ongoing restitution procedures with constantly growing range and pathologies connected with it are therefore based on incorrect understanding of applicable law. Claims of former owners or their legal successors can only have moral ground (sense of injustice) and because of that it is necessary to confront them with current public functions of estate taken over after the war and with rights of people who in the mean time obtained ownership as well as the possibilities of public finances. After balancing these causes (following the Constitution principles and values) and after having them accessed by a properly prepared referendum after which (with a positive result of it) an act about limited compensation with different subjective exemptions could be prepared. Reprivatisation proceeding today has therefore no legal ground and does a lot of harm. That’s why it should be stopped and settled according to supervisory proceedings.

5

OGRANICZENIA EGZEKUCJI SĄDOWEJ NIERUCHOMOŚCI ROLNYCH NA TLE ZMIAN W USTAWODAWSTWIE O OBROCIE PRAWNYM NIERUCHOMOŚCIAMI ROLNYMI

58%

Ziajka A.

Roczniki Administracji i Prawa

|

2018

|

vol. 2

|

issue XVIII

235-244

PL

Wraz z wejściem w życie ustawy ograniczającej egzekucje z nieruchomości rolnych doszło do wprowadzenia do polskiego porządku prawnego chaosu. Niniejszy artykuł stanowi przegląd oraz analizę orzecznictwa sądów w zakresie prowadzenia egzekucji z nieruchomości rolnych. W pierwszej części przedstawiono definicję ustawową nieruchomości. W części głównej artykułu szczegółowo przedstawiono egzekucję z nieruchomości rolnych po wejściu w życie nowelizacji ustawy. Wskazano, jakie warunki strony muszą spełnić, aby w drodze wyjątku uzyskać prawo własności do nieruchomości rolnych zgodnie z prawem. Analizie poddano fakt, iż zgodnie z polskim ustawodawstwem prawo pierwokupu jest przyznane tylko współwłaścicielom nieruchomości rolnych.

EN

The article provides an overview and analysis of the case law of courts in the field of execution concerning agricultural real estate. In the first part shows a statutory definition of real property. Thereafter, the main part of the article presents in detail an execution concerning immovable property after entering into force on amendment act. The article points out the conditions which have to be fulfilled in order to exceptionally obtain the ownership of agricultural real estate in accordance with law. Regulation were analysed in view fact, that pursuant to the Polish legislation, the right of pre-emption is granted only to coowners of agricultural real estate.

6

Problematic Case Law of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic on the Legal Nature of the Pavement – Is It a Separate Immovable Thing or Part of the Land? Commentary on the Decision of the Constitutional Court of 25 June 2019 (no. III. ÚS 2280/18)

58%

Široký R.

Studia Iuridica Lublinensia

|

2024

|

vol. 33

|

issue 1

361-379

PL

Charakter prawny obiektu budowlanego jest częstym tematem w czeskiej praktyce orzeczniczej i piśmiennictwie. Podstawowym problemem całego zagadnienia dotyczącego ustalenia, co jest, a co nie jest budynkiem, jest przewaga myślenia prywatnoprawnego i brak podejścia do budynku jako pojęcia publicznoprawnego, zwłaszcza w świetle prawa budowlanego. Charakter prawny chodników jest przedmiotem żywej dyskusji. Charakter prawny chodnika był tematem dyskusji w przeszłości i nie sposób ocenić, czy może być traktowany jako nieruchomość w świetle prawa czeskiego bez poznania konkretnych faktów. Zgodnie z wyrokiem Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego Republiki Czeskiej z dnia 24 stycznia 2018 r. (nr 6 As 333/2017) o charakterze chodnika decyduje stan faktyczny występujący na danym gruncie. Sąd Konstytucyjny Republiki Czeskiej podniósł również kwestię charakteru prawnego chodnika w kontekście sporu o własność. W glosie odrzucono pogląd przyjęty w komentowanym orzeczeniu, zgodnie z którym chodnik stanowi odrębną rzecz, a nie część składową innej rzeczy, w tym przypadku gruntu.

EN

The legal nature of construction is a popular topic in Czech case law practice and legal literature. The basic problem of the whole concept of determining what is and is not a building is the prevalence of private law thinking and the disregard of building as a public concept, especially in the light of construction law. The legal nature of pavements has been highly debated. The legal nature of the pavement has already been the subject of some debate in the past, and it is not possible to decide whether it can be regarded as an immovable property under Czech law without knowing specific facts. According to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic of 24 January 2018 (no. 6 As 333/2017), the character of a pavement is determined by the factual situation on the ground. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic also raised the question of the legal nature of the pavement in the context of the dispute over ownership. The commentary rejects the legal opinion adopted in the commented judgment, according to which the pavement constitutes a separate thing, not a part of another thing, in this case, the land.

Refine search results

1 Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego

1 Roczniki Administracji i Prawa

1 Studia Iuridica Lublinensia

1 Studia Prawnicze

1 Zeszyt Studencki Kół Naukowych Wydziału Prawa i Administracji UAM

1 Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

1 Górecki J.

1 Kaźmierczyk A.

1 Komar W.

1 Zdziennicki B.

1 Ziajka A.

1 Široký R.

1 2024

1 2022

1 2018