Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  nadużycie prawa podmiotowego
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Abuse of Subjective Right in Cases of Establishing a Regime of Separate Property and Determining Unequal Shares in the Common Property

100%
Szczekala A.
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia
|
2020
|
vol. 29
|
issue 5
EN
The purpose of the study is to determine the scope of application of the construction of abuse of subjective rights in cases involving the establishment of a regime of separate property by the court and the determination of unequal shares in the common property. The prerequisite for both the establishment of the regime of separate property and the determination of unequal shares in the common property are “important reasons”. In order to determine the admissibility of the application of Article 5 of the Polish Civil Code it is therefore necessary to define the meaning of the terms “important reasons” and “rules of social coexistence”. It is assumed herein that general clauses are a kind of reference, in terms of the interpretation of provisions to generically defined norms and non-legal assessments, which have, in principle, an axiological moral justification and, consequently, that only evaluative phrases, as “rules of social coexistence” can be referred to using this term. “Important reasons”, on the other hand, are not an evaluative phrase but an estimative phrase and therefore not a general clause. It was also considered that it could not be ruled the assessment, under Article 5 of the Polish Civil Code, of the request for the regime of separate property to be established by the court or the request for the establishment of unequal shares in the common property, taking into account the extent to which each of the spouses contributed to its creation.
PL
Celem opracowania jest ustalenie zakresu stosowania konstrukcji nadużycia prawa podmiotowego w sprawach o ustanowienie rozdzielności majątkowej przez sąd i ustalanie nierównych udziałów w majątku wspólnym. Przesłanką zarówno ustanowienia rozdzielności majątkowej, jak i ustalenia nierównych udziałów w majątku wspólnym są „ważne powody”. Do ustalenia dopuszczalności stosowania art. 5 Kodeksu cywilnego konieczne jest ustalenie zakresów znaczeniowych pojęć „ważne powody” i „zasady współżycia społecznego”. W artykule przyjęto, że klauzule generalne to rodzaj odesłania w zakresie interpretacji przepisów do rodzajowo określonych norm i ocen pozaprawnych, mający co do zasady aksjologiczne uzasadnienie moralne, a co za tym idzie tylko zwroty wartościujące, jak „zasady współżycia społecznego”, mogą być określane tym mianem. „Ważne powody” natomiast nie są zwrotem wartościującym, lecz zwrotem szacującym i tym samym nie są klauzulą generalną. Uznano również, że nie można wykluczyć oceny przez pryzmat przepisu art. 5 Kodeksu cywilnego żądania ustanowienia przez sąd rozdzielności majątkowej czy też żądania ustalenia nierównych udziałów w majątku wspólnym z uwzględnieniem stopnia, w którym każdy z małżonków przyczynił się do jego powstania.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Aksjologia przedawnienia

100%
Bera-Adamczyk A.
Ius Novum
|
2022
|
vol. 16
|
issue 3
79-90
EN
The article is aimed at resolving a research problem on the basis of two methods: the axiologicalmethod and formal-dogmatic method, it also finds the answer to the question: what were thereasons which made the institution of limitation weak in terms of its axiological establishmentwithin the civil law. The axiology of limitation consists of protection of the debtor. Creditormay withhold obligation by means of plea that the action was time-barred, it deprives creditorfrom the opportunity to claim the obligation. The shape of the given regulation makes thesafety of the civil turnover jeopardised. The argumentation and the conclusions show clearlythat limitation can both foster and prevent the stability of the civil turnover. This fact isa clear indication that the institution of limitation indeed shows its weakness in terms of itsaxiological establishment within the civil law.
PL
Artykuł ma rozstrzygnąć problem badawczy na podstawie metod: aksjologicznej i formalno--dogmatycznej oraz odpowiada na pytanie: jakie przyczyny sprawiają, iż instytucja przedawnieniawykazuje słabe ugruntowanie aksjologiczne w prawie cywilnym. Aksjologia instytucjiprzedawnienia polega na ochronie dłużnika. Ustawodawca, dając zobowiązanemu możnośćuchylenia się od spełnienia świadczenia za pomocą zgłoszenia zarzutu przedawnienia, pozbawiawierzyciela możliwości dochodzenia dłużnego świadczenia. Kształt tej regulacji sprawia,że w stosunkach cywilnoprawnych może pojawić się zagrożenie dla bezpieczeństwa obrotucywilnoprawnego. Argumenty i wnioski wskazują jednoznacznie na to, iż przedawnieniemoże zarówno sprzyjać, jak i zapobiegać stabilizacji obrotu. Fakt ten świadczy o słabymugruntowaniu aksjologicznym tej instytucji.
3

Zbycie prawa własności mieszkania rodzinnego, będącego składnikiem majątku osobistego jednego z małżonków

80%
Szczekała A.
Rejent
|
2023
|
issue 12 (392)
36-61
EN
The study deals with the aspect of the so-called family-fortune dwelling (mieszkanie rodzinne), which is the object of a right vested exclusively in one spouse, extremely important in the light of the protection of interests of the spouse and the family. The legislature, in Article 281 of the Family and Guardianship Code (FGC), has explicitly granted a spouse the right to use the dwelling and household equipment which are the subject of a right vested exclusively in the other spouse, in order to meet the needs of the family. The spouse to whom the right of ownership of the family-fortune dwelling is vested may freely dispose of it, and the validity of the legal transaction made does not depend on the consent of the spouse who only has the right under Article 281 FGC. This raises the problem of effective protection of the interest of a spouse and family members against a disadvantageous disposal of the right to the family-fortune dwelling and, in particular, of the right of ownership vested in the other spouse. When looking for legal means of protecting the spouse, some scholars in the field allow for the possibility of assessing such a disposal through the prism of the clause of principles of social coexistence. However, neither the literature nor the judicature has considered the assessment of the disposal of the right to real property forming part of the personal property of one of the spouses in terms of its compliance with the social and economic purpose of this right. It should be noted that upon getting married, the socio-economic purpose of some of the spouses' personal assets, such as immovable property, may change if it is a family-fortune dwelling. The socio-economic purpose of such a property is to meet the housing needs not only of the spouse who is the exclusive owner of the dwelling, but also of the other spouse and other members of the so-called nuclear family. It seems therefore possible, in particularly justified cases, to assess the disposal by the spouse of an immovable asset forming part of his/her personal property, the so-called family-fortune dwelling, not only in the light of the principles of social coexistence, but also of the socio-economic purpose of that right.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.