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

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The findings presented in the commentary aim at assessing the legitimacy of the Supreme Court’s view expressed in the decision of 11 January 2018 (III CSK 349/16), according to which the co-owner is obliged towards other co-owners excluded from holding and using the item being the object of fractional ownership to pay the compensation for the use of this item by his household member. The discussion covers the concept and civil-law status of the household member and the admissibility of accepting the household member by the co-owner of a property owned as a fractional ownership. The problems of the co-owner’s liability for the behaviour of the household member and the liability of the household member for his/her own behaviour towards the co-owners deprived of the use of the joint property were also discussed.
PL
Ustalenia zawarte w glosie zmierzają do oceny zasadności poglądu Sądu Najwyższego wyrażonego w postanowieniu z dnia 11 stycznia 2018 r. (III CSK 349/16), zgodnie z którym współwłaściciel jest zobowiązany wobec współwłaścicieli wyłączonych od posiadania i używania rzeczy będącej przedmiotem współwłasności ułamkowej do zapłaty wynagrodzenia za korzystanie z tej rzeczy przez jego domownika. W ramach rozważań omówiono pojęcie i status cywilnoprawny domownika oraz dopuszczalność przyjęcia domownika przez współwłaściciela nieruchomości objętej współwłasnością ułamkową. Poruszony został także problem odpowiedzialności współwłaściciela za zachowanie domownika oraz odpowiedzialności domownika za własne zachowanie w stosunku do współwłaścicieli odsuniętych od korzystania z rzeczy wspólnej.
EN
Owners of separated premises, being at the same time co-owners of a common property, participate in the management of a common property in accordance with the principles set by the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Act of 24 June, 1994, on the ownership of premises. The afore-mentioned provisions do not regulate the rules of such participation in the event of  co-ownership of separated premises. In this respect interpretive doubts arise whether in passing resolutions on the managementof a common property, the co-owners of separated premises have one common vote, or whether they may vote individually. The present article attempts to determine the above question, by referring to the regulations under the act on the ownership of premises, concerning the relation between the separate ownership of premises and the shared co-ownership, and the Civil Code regulations on co-ownership. As a result of the findings, an interpretive conclusion is drawn in accordance with which co-owners of separated premises who participate in passing resolutions on the management of a common property, have one common vote carrying weight equal to their indivisible share in the  co-ownership of a common property. The discussion offers a series of arguments for the validity of the present thesis, and presents views on the problem discussed, as expressed in the science of civil law and judicial decisions.
PL
Artykuł nie zawiera abstraktu w języku polskim
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.