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

Results found: 9

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
According to Article 172 § 3 of the Civil Code, title to agricultural property may be obtained by way of usucaption only by the individual farmer. This regulation has given rise to numerous doubts as to its interpretation. It should be noted here that for the purpose of determining the scope of application of this provision, one should not make references to the Act of 11 April 2003 on shaping the agricultural system to the extent that the same does not result directly from Article 172 § 3 of the Civil Code. Particular difficulties occur with the application of Article 172 § 3 of the Civil Code to mixed type of property, which is only partially agricultural, held under acquisitive prescription by a person who is not an individual farmer. In this case, one should assume that the person in question may only acquire title to the non-agricultural portion of such property. In the event of usucaption of agricultural property by the individual farmer, the Agricultural Property Agency may exercise its right of acquisition under Article 4 of the Act on shaping the agricultural system. However, this solution is highly dysfunctional as the exercise of the right of acquisition by the Agency may lead to division, or even liquidation, of the family farm run by the individual farmer.
PL
Zgodnie z art. 172 § 3 Kodeksu cywilnego zasiedzieć nieruchomość rolną może jedynie rolnik indywidualny. Uregulowanie to jest źródłem wielu wątpliwości interpretacyjnych. Wskazać trzeba, że określając zakres zastosowania tego przepisu, nie należy sięgać do regulacji ustawy z dnia 11 kwietnia 2003 r. o kształtowaniu ustroju rolnego w zakresie, w jakim nie wynika to wprost z art. 172 § 3 k.c. Szczególny problem z zastosowaniem art. 172 § 3 k.c. pojawia się w sytuacji, gdy posiadacz samoistny, niebędący rolnikiem indywidualnym, włada nieruchomością o mieszanym, jedynie częściowo rolnym charakterze. Wówczas należy przyjąć, że zasiedzieć może on jedynie jej część nierolną. W razie zasiedzenia nieruchomości rolnej przez rolnika indywidualnego Agencja Nieruchomości Rolnych może wykonać prawo nabycia z art. 4 ustawy z dnia 11 kwietnia 2003 r. o kształtowaniu ustroju rolnego. Jest to rozwiązanie dysfunkcyjne, ponieważ wykonanie prawa nabycia przez Agencję może doprowadzić do rozbicia, a nawet likwidacji gospodarstwa rodzinnego prowadzonego przez rolnika indywidualnego.
EN
Tender is fundamental procedure leading to conclusion of the sale agreement of the properties belonging to the Agricultural Property Resources of the State Treasury in accordance with the Act on the Management of Agricultural Properties owned by the State Treasury. The author distinguishes several principles, which shall be applied to the above way of conclusion of the sale agreement. The general principle of the proper management reflects in all legal forms of disposition of agricultural properties owned by the State Treasury. Its violation doesn’t cause an invalidity of the sale contract. Appropriate principles, which shall be applied to the tender are as follows: principle of openess, principle of equal treatment and equal access to the tender, principle of fair competition, principle of uniformity and principle of equivalency. Unlike opinions in legal doctrine, the author states that the openess and uniformity are the separate principles. All principles indicate values on which the legal institution of the tender is founded. These principles are also the grounds to formulate the rules of interpretation, which are useful during the operation of decoding of the legal norms.
EN
The issue of sale of agricultural properties in tender procedures on the basis of legislation regulating the principles of real estate management is associated with a number of interpretation problems. These arise from the fact that the legislator has failed to distinguish clearly between these regulations and the legislation on shaping of the agricultural system. This issue has not been subjected to a thorough analysis in legal texts so far. Sale of agricultural properties should, in such case, take place on the basis of an open tender, with potential modifications justified by the specific nature of statutory requirements with regard to consent to the purchase of agricultural property, issued by the Managing Director of the KOWR (National Support Centre for Agriculture). There is no basis to state that under the current state of law, it is not possible to sell agricultural properties on the basis of the act on real estate management in the course of a tender procedure, or that in such case, a restricted tender procedure must be carried out, allowing only for participation of individual farmers.
PL
Zagadnienie zbywania nieruchomości rolnych w trybie przetargowym na podstawie przepisów o gospodarce nieruchomościami napotyka szereg problemów interpretacyjnych. Ich źródłem jest zaniechanie przez prawodawcę wyraźnego wyznaczenia relacji między tą regulacją a przepisami z zakresu kształtowania ustroju rolnego. Problematyka ta nie była dotąd przedmiotem szczegółowej analizy w piśmiennictwie prawniczym. Zbywanie nieruchomości rolnych powinno odbywać się w takim przypadku w trybie przetargu nieograniczonego, z uwzględnieniem modyfikacji uzasadnionych specyfiką ustawowych wymogów w zakresie zgody na nabycie nieruchomości rolnej wydawanej przez Dyrektora Generalnego KOWR. Brak jest podstaw dla utrzymywania, że w obecnym stanie prawnym niemożliwe jest zbywanie przetargowe nieruchomości rolnych na podstawie ustawy o gospodarce nieruchomościami czy też że obligatoryjnym trybem jest w takim przypadku przetarg ograniczony, w którym mogą uczestniczyć wyłącznie rolnicy indywidualni.
EN
The main tasks of the Agricultural Property Agency have been changed during the last eighteen years. These tasks are defined in art. 6 of the act on management of agricultural property of the State Treasury. The most important changes in this respect were made in 2003 as a result of regulations introduced by the act on formation of agrarian system. In particular the Agricultural Property Agency is obliged to carrying out of the privatization and restructuring of the agricultural properties owned by the State as well as to support improvement of family farms structure. The Agricultural Property Agency, carrying out its tasks, sales and leases the state property by using the tender procedures. To improve family farms structure, the Agency was granted with a statutory pre–emption right as well as with a right of acquisition of agricultural property. However, the final results of its activity are not satisfactory, as in the Agricultural Resources of the State Treasury still remains 2,6 million hectares of land.
EN
The article deals with the issue of using on a non–contract basis properties from the Agricultural Resources of the State Treasury managed by Agricultural Property Agency. Above–mentioned problem is regulated in the art. 39b of the act on management of agricultural property owned by State Treasury. General provisions regarding to the problem of payment for using thing without contractual basis is governed by Civil Code, but the legislator introduced that special provision referring to the legal consequences of possessing state–owned properties. Author states that the result of the literal interpretation of art. 39b leads to unjust results and violates axiological values associated with this regulation. There are no axiological justification to assume that the possessor acting in good faith should be treated in the same way as possessor acting in bad faith. Only the result of functional interpretation is acceptable, because it leads to conclusion that possessor acting in good faith is not obliged to pay for using property without contractual basis.
EN
The main purpose of this paper is to analize few selected aspects of the article 28a of the Act on management of the agricultural properties owned by the State Treasury. It is one of the legal instruments aimed at prevention against excessive concentration of agricultural properties. Important issue is to verify opinions formulated in the legal doctrine regarding to legal sanctions associated with above mentioned regulation. Author states, that violation of that legal norm causes nullity of sale contract. There are no justified reasons to assume another concept formulated in legal doctrine. Particulary, the author disagrees that it is norm without a sanction. Paper deals also with the problem of the definition of family farm in the legal regulation of tender procedure conducted by Agricultural Property Agency. Family farm is defined in the act on formation of agrarian system and it is not necessary to create different definition exclusively for tender procedure regulation.
EN
Regulations of the Act on Protection of Agricultural and Forest Land are treated as a limitation of the right of ownership of the real estate. Unlike civil law regulations, in this Act the legislator defines agricultural land as the subject of obligations specified in the Act, treating them in separation from the issue of ownership relationships. Unlike in civil law regulations, apart from the owner, a number of obligations associated with the protection of agricultural land is also imposed on other entities, which make economic use of the real estate property. According to the Act, the owner of real estate property has a number of obligations, such as prohibition to use land for non-agricultural purposes without having obtained a decision to designate the land for non-agricultural purposes and consent for exclusion of land from production. The owner also has other positive duties, such as the duty to prevent land degradation and devastation. These obligations, however, do not shape the subjective right of ownership, but are external to it, although they should be treated as a limitation to this right.
PL
Uregulowania ustawy o ochronie gruntów rolnych i leśnych są traktowane jako ograniczenia prawa własności nieruchomości. Odmiennie niż w regulacji cywilnoprawnej prawodawca przedmiotem obowiązków określonych w tej ustawie czyni grunty rolne, których ujęcie abstrahuje od problematyki stosunków własnościowych. W przeciwieństwie do przepisów prawa cywilnego, oprócz właściciela, szereg obowiązków związanych z ochroną gruntów rolnych został nałożony także na inne podmioty, które wykorzystują nieruchomości w sposób ekonomiczny. Właściciel nieruchomości ma zgodnie z regulacją ustawy szereg obowiązków, takich jak zakaz jej nierolniczego wykorzystania bez uprzedniego przeznaczenia terenu na cele nierolnicze oraz bez uzyskania zgody na wyłączenie gruntów z produkcji. Obciążają go również czynne obowiązki, m.in. obowiązek przeciwdziałania degradacji gruntów. Powinności te nie kształtują podmiotowego prawa własności, ale pozostają wobec niego zewnętrzne, jakkolwiek powinny być traktowane jako jego ograniczenia.
EN
The decree of the Polish Comittee of National Liberation (PKWN) of 6th September 1944 on land reform and the decree of 6th September 1946 on the system of agriculture and settlement in the Regained Territories, are the most important legal acts that created Polish agrarian structure after the Second World War. The above-mentioned legal acts introduced the public- law model of property transfer for the land properties belonging to the State. Both decrees regulated two complexes of legal activities: taking over land properties by the state and the distribution of state-owned land properties. The State has become the owner ex lege. Pursuant to both of these both decrees, the acquisition process of the state-owned land properties by individual farmers was divided into a few phases. Both procedures were based on administrative law instruments.
EN
The article concerns the effects of the repeal of Article 172 paragraph 3 of the Civil Code, which provided that only an individual farmer could acquire agricultural real estate by way of acquisitive prescription. The aim of the deliberations is to determine whether, following the repeal of this provision, any entity established under civil law may acquire agricultural real estate by way of acquisitive prescription, or whether acquisition of such real estate in this manner falls within the scope of Article 2a of the Act of 11 April 2003 on the shaping of the agricultural system. In conclusion, the author states that Article 2a of the said Act applies to the acquisition of agricultural real estate by way of acquisitive prescription. Therefore, in principle, agricultural real estate by way of acquisitive prescription may be acquired by an individual farmer. There are also possible some exceptions to this rule as indicated in Article 2a, paragraph 3 of the Act. Doubts, however, arise with regard to the application to acquisitive prescription of agricultural real estate.
PL
Artykuł dotyczy skutków uchylenia art. 172 § 3 Kodeksu cywilnego, który stanowił, że nabywcą nieruchomości rolnej w drodze zasiedzenia mógł być wyłącznie rolnik indywidualny. Celem rozważań jest określenie, czy w związku z uchyleniem tego przepisu każdy podmiot prawa cywilnego może nabyć przez zasiedzenie nieruchomość rolną, czy nabycie takiej nieruchomości przez zasiedzenie jest objęte zakresem zastosowania art. 2a ustawy z dnia 11 kwietnia 2003 r. o kształtowaniu ustroju rolnego. W podsumowaniu autor stwierdza, że do nabycia własności nieruchomości rolnej w drodze zasiedzenia stosuje się art. 2a ustawy o kształtowaniu ustroju rolnego. Dlatego zasadniczo nieruchomość rolną w drodze zasiedzenia może nabyć rolnik indywidualny. Możliwe jest również zastosowanie niektórych wyjątków od tej zasady wskazanych w art. 2a ust. 3 tej ustawy. Wątpliwości rodzi stosowanie w odniesieniu do zasiedzenia zgody na nabycie nieruchomości rolnej przewidzianej w omawianej ustawie.
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.