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

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  acquisitive prescription
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Ownership is the main property right which gives the fullest control over a thing and, simultaneously, imposes the obligation to respect that control. The situation is totally different in respect of limited property rights. The limited property rights entitle a person to exercise some rights, which are typically given to an owner, on another person’s thing. The right of transmission easement constitutes a special, separate type of easement and it limits the ownership. The introduction of that right was a legislator’s response to the postulates made by transmission entrepreneurs to regulate the use of the real estate on which distribution equipment has been or is planned to be constructed. The possibility to acquire transmission easement by acquisitive prescription still causes numerous disputes both in the doctrine and among legal practitioners. That claim raised by the entrepreneurs entails the necessity to prove that the transmission entrepreneur and their legal predecessors used another person’s real estate in exactly the same way as it would have been used by the person who is entitled to the transmission easement (from 2008) or to an easement analogical (similar) to the transmission easement (until 2008), namely by using permanent and visible facilities which in this case are designed to transmit electrical energy (energy transmission, equipment maintenance, checkups and repairs).
EN
Perpetual usufruct is an ius in re aliena of a complex legal nature. Its subject may only be a property owned by the State Treasury or a local government unit. Under Article 177 of the Polish Civil Code, prescription by occupation of property classified as public was excluded. When this Article was repealed, the normative barriers to acquisitive prescription of the ownership of real estate given in perpetual usufruct disappeared. This paper is a discussion concerning the possibility of acquiring ownership of a part of such property. First, the capability of a given part of real estate for prescription by occupation is established and next differing opinions and arguments against the possibility of acquiring ownership, or prescription by occupation of certain parts of real estate are presented. The arguments raised by the opponents of prescription by occupation have been critically assessed. Further, the consequences of such acquisitive prescription have been identified. The consequences of perpetual usufruct on the property in question have been examined and the fate of the part of the property acquired by the owner as well as that of the remaining part, analysed and compared. The civil liability of the perpetual usufruct holder has also been addressed.
PL
Użytkowanie wieczyste jest prawem na rzeczy cudzej o skomplikowanym charakterze prawnym. Jego przedmiotem może być wyłącznie nieruchomość należąca do Skarbu Państwa lub jednostki samorządu terytorialnego, czyli nieruchomość publiczna. Zasiedzenie nieruchomości państwowych było (na mocy art. 177 k.c.) wyłączone, co przesądzało o niemożliwości zasiedzenia własności nieruchomości oddanej w użytkowanie wieczyste. Po jego uchyleniu zniknęły normatywne przeszkody nabycia w drodze zasiedzenia własności nieruchomości oddanej w użytkowanie wieczyste. W niniejszej publikacji poddano analizie możliwość nabycia przez zasiedzenie własności fragmentu takiej nieruchomości. W pierwszej kolejności ustalono przedmiotową zdolność fizycznej części nieruchomości gruntowej do zasiedzenia. Ponadto przedstawiono poglądy kontestujące nabywanie przez zasiedzenie własności nieruchomości oddanych w użytkowanie wieczyste. Podniesione przez przeciwników argumenty zostały poddane krytyce. Wskazano również na skutki zasiedzenia w rozpatrywanym przypadku. Zbadano los użytkowania wieczystego na nabytym przez posiadacza fragmencie nieruchomości oraz na pozostałej właścicielowi części. Wskazano również na różne rodzaje odpowiedzialności użytkownika wieczystego.
PL
Odpowiedzialność w prawie międzynarodowym jest coraz trudniejsza do wyegzekwowania z uwagi na skomplikowane procedury oraz wielość różnorodnych czynników wpływających na zaistnienie danego zdarzenia. Nie ulega wątpliwości, że stabilność linii orzeczniczej MTS sprzyja jasnemu rozróżnianiu, co podlega, a co nie deliktowi międzynarodowemu. Wobec niestabilnej sytuacji na arenie międzynarodowej oraz wobec częściej niż dotychczas występujących incydentów stanowiących przesłankę odpowiedzialności państwa, tym bardziej w kontekście zasiedzenia, autorka zdecydowała się na analizę tego tak istotnego zagadnienia. Omówione zostaną przesłanki zaistnienia deliktu wraz z czynnikami statuującymi odpowiedzialność państwa za ich wystąpienie.
EN
Responsibility in international law is more and more difficult to enforce due to complicated procedures and the multiplicity of various factors affecting the occurrence of a given event. There is no doubt that the stability of the MTS jurisprudence line helps to clearly distinguish what is subject to and what will not be an international tort. In view of the unstable situation on the international arena, and more often than before to incidents that constitute the premise of state responsibility, the more in the context of acquisitive prescription, the author decided to analyze this important issue. Discussed will be the premises of the existence of the tort together with the factors that set the state’s responsibility for their appearance.
EN
The article attempts to answer the question of whether the Polish statutory regulation of acquisitive prescription is compatible with the Polish Constitution. Several possible variants of the understanding of ownership under the Polish Constitution are presented. Then . taking into account the various interpretative variants . an interpretation of the statutory regulation of acquisitive prescription was made. As a result of these considerations, it is argued that acquisitive prescription should take into account the interest of the previous owner and, despite the loss of title to the property, he should obtain the value of the lost right. Moreover, third party rights limiting the ownership should not be extinguished as a result of acquisitive prescription. The Polish legislator . differently than the Draft Common Frame of Reference . is silent on both issues. The inspiration for the article is the issue soon to be tackled by the Polish Supreme Court, which concerns whether, as a result of acquisitive prescription, the previous owner loses the claims to which it was entitled, for remuneration for non-contractual use of its property (inter alia against the previous holder who is the current owner of the property). Moreover, the article expresses the view that the Polish regulation on the statute of limitations of a claim for recovery of a movable thing, which the owner is entitled to against the possessor in bad faith (who, according to Polish law, cannot acquire ownership of the moveable thing by acquisitive prescription), is unconstitutional.
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.