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

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  szkoda legalna
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Stygmatyzacja nieruchomości w otoczeniu lotnisk a syndrom Yeti przy ustalaniu odszkodowań

100%
Habdas M., Kucharska-Stasiak E., Konowalczuk J.
Rejent
|
2022
|
issue 11 (379)
9-49
EN
The purpose of this paper is to show that the public intervention consisting of establishing a restricted use area (RUA) is implemented with a systemic error at the stage of assessing compensation. The source of the error is a faulty interpretation of the law performed by the judges with the mistake being perpetuated by a mostly incorrect application of the economic concept of stigmatization. The analysed methodological matters have been illustrated by judgments and data from court documents of cases regarding RUA compensation disputes of five largest civil regional airports in Poland. Expert witnesses are provoked to prepare opinions that require them to make individual interpretations of law and to apply valuation methodology focused on searching for a justification of lower market prices within a RUA. This is performed with either no or faulty conceptualization of the differential method. Instead of assessing an objective diminution of value caused by an administrative restriction of ownership, a difference in values derived from the conditions in which the market functions are shown by the expert witness. The boundaries of the market are delimited in a manner allowing to prove damage (loss), which is then additionally explained by the notion of stigmatization. It is recommended that judges resort to experts opinions only after they have correctly interpreted the law and have completed all activities necessary to ascertain the factual and legal state of the immovable in question. In particular, this includes identifying the introduced restrictions on the use of land. Regarding expert witnesses it is suggested that they prepare opinions strictly within their competencies and formal certification, abstaining from activities reserved for the court or for scientific research.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Polish dilemmas in compensating landowners in the vicinity of airports – black letter law vs. law in action

100%
Habdas M.
Studia Prawnicze KUL
|
2020
|
issue 4
27-61
PL
Negatywne efekty zewnętrzne działalności lotniska, utożsamiane głównie z hałasem, stają się w miarę rozwoju transportu lotniczego coraz bardziej uciążliwe dla właścicieli nieruchomości mieszkalnych zlokalizowanych w sąsiedztwie lotnisk. W celu rozstrzygnięcia konfliktu sąsiedzkiego ustawodawca wprowadza regulacje dotyczące tworzenia obszarów ograniczonego użytkowania (OOU), na których dopuszcza przekraczanie norm hałasowych. W obszarach tych wprowadza ograniczenia w sposobie korzystania z nieruchomości, kształtując racjonalne zagospodarowanie przestrzeni wokół lotniska, oraz przyznaje właścicielom nieruchomości roszczenia odszkodowawcze. Mają one rekompensować planistyczne ograniczenia dotyczące nieruchomości w OOU oraz poniesione koszty na zapewnienie izolacyjności akustycznej budynków. Praktyczne stosowanie przepisów dotyczących OOU odbiega od ich brzmienia, powodując kompensację szkód bez uzasadnienia prawnego i ekonomicznego, a także niwecząc cel ustawowej regulacji. Postulowana jest rewizja aktualnej praktyki uwzględniająca prawne, społeczne i ekonomiczne znaczenie obowiązującej regulacji.
EN
Negative externalities of airport operations, associated mostly with noise, are becoming increasingly onerous to homeowners, as air transport develops. In order to resolve the neighbour conflict, the legislator introduces restricted use areas (RUAs) within which noise levels may be exceeded. In these areas, limitations in the use of land are introduced in order to ensure rational development of land surrounding airports and compensation claims are awarded to landowners. These claims compensate planning restrictions concerning the use of land and costs spent on ensuring sound insulation of buildings. The practical application of provisions on RUAs diverges from their literal content bringing about the compensation of loss without a legal and economic justification and the abandonment of the provisions’ objectives. It is argued that a revision of current practice is required in order to fulfill the legal, social and economic objectives of the regulations in force.
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.