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

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  ochrona posiadania
help Sort By:

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

Posiadanie - ogólny zarys konstrukcji (cz. II)

100%
Żuralski M.
Rejent
|
2021
|
issue 7 (363)
42-108
EN
The article presents an outline of Polish construction of possession. In particular, the paper presents S. Wróblewski's, F. Zoll’s and A. Kunicki’s views on possession. The author explains the relation between protection and exclusiveness of possession and points out that contrary to popular belief possessory proceedings are not quick and simple.
2

Glosa do uchwały Sądu Najwyższego z 29.06.2016 r., III CZP 25/16. Dochodzenie przywrócenia naruszonego posiadania, w sytuacji gdy w toku procesu posesoryjnego doszło do przeniesienia posiadania

100%
Wolak G.
Rejent
|
2020
|
issue 7 (351)
89-107
EN
In the gloss to the decision of the Supreme Court of 29 June 2016, III CZP 25/16, the author critically assessed the opinion expressed therein that it is not possible to effectively pursue an action for restoration of possession (release of things) against a person who infringed possession if that person transferred ownership to another person during the lawsuit. Because contrary to the opinion of the Supreme Court, it should be found that the Defendant’s standing in such a situation is possible due to the norm contained in art. 192(3) of the civil Code. This provision also allows for issuing a judgment which would be effective and enforceable against the person to whom the defendant transferred possession during the lawsuit.
3

Romantyczne inspiracje i bariery polskiej dyskusji o posiadaniu w XX wieku

84%
Dajczak W.
Studia Iuridica
|
2016
|
vol. 66
75-89
PL
Twentieth century Polish legal debate on possession adds an original element to the European legal tradition. The author has focused on the inspiring and limiting impact of the legal experience on this field. Legal debate on possession is meant here as legal experience of the discussion of academic lawyers, statutory regulations and judicial practice. The structure of the paper reflects three – distinguished be the author – key issues of this debate: how to precise the object of possession in the positive law? What should be the function of the possessor’s intention in the statutory regulation this legal concept? Are possessory remedies, if independent from the title to the object, legitimate and if so: should these remedies be limited by an exceptio iuris? Each question provokes tension between tradition and reinterpretation of the reasonability of possessory remedies. That tension shows the links between possession and political and economic context of law in action. The controversies have been accompanied by yearning for the balance between tradition and practicality. This Polish legal experience enriches historical-comparative discussion on the evolution and changes of the concept of possession in the Roman law tradition. The author concludes: in democratically made and independently applied private law, the possessory remedies should not be completely separated from the protection of property rights.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Romantyczne inspiracje i bariery polskiej dyskusji o posiadaniu w XX wieku

84%
Dajczak W.
Studia Iuridica
|
2016
|
vol. 66
75-89
PL
Twentieth century Polish legal debate on possession adds an original element to the European legal tradition. The author has focused on the inspiring and limiting impact of the legal experience on this field. Legal debate on possession is meant here as legal experience of the discussion of academic lawyers, statutory regulations and judicial practice. The structure of the paper reflects three – distinguished be the author – key issues of this debate: how to precise the object of possession in the positive law? What should be the function of the possessor’s intention in the statutory regulation this legal concept? Are possessory remedies, if independent from the title to the object, legitimate and if so: should these remedies be limited by an exceptio iuris? Each question provokes tension between tradition and reinterpretation of the reasonability of possessory remedies. That tension shows the links between possession and political and economic context of law in action. The controversies have been accompanied by yearning for the balance between tradition and practicality. This Polish legal experience enriches historical-comparative discussion on the evolution and changes of the concept of possession in the Roman law tradition. The author concludes: in democratically made and independently applied private law, the possessory remedies should not be completely separated from the protection of property rights.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Postępowanie w sprawach o naruszenie posiadania, czyli o konieczności ograniczenia ilości postępowań odrębnych w Kodeksie postępowania cywilnego. Wybrane zagadnienia

84%
Góra-Błaszczykowska A.
Studia Prawnicze KUL
|
2021
|
issue 3
83-103
EN
The topic is necessitated by the increase in the number of separate proceedings in the Polish Civil Procedure Code, which reverses previously existing and natural proportion between ordinary proceedings, normally used to hear most cases, and separate proceedings, which are only to be used to hear certain types of cases. Provisions of Articles 478 and 479 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code raise serious doubts in the practice of courts and are inadequate to the needs of the practice. They are also not fully correlated with the provisions of substantive law (the Polish Civil Code). Therefore, according to the author, proceedings in cases of infringement of possession do not require a separate regulation and should be removed from the Polish Civil Procedure Code.
PL
Podjęcie tematu wynika ze zwiększania liczby postępowań odrębnych w Kodeksie postępowania cywilnego, co powoduje odwrócenie istniejącej uprzednio i naturalnej proporcji między postępowaniem zwykłym, służącym rozpoznawaniu większości spraw, a postępowaniami odrębnymi, mającymi służyć wyłącznie rozpoznawaniu pewnych rodzajów spraw. Przepisy art. 478 i 479 K.p.c. budzą poważne wątpliwości w praktyce sądów, nie są adekwatne do potrzeb praktyki i nie są w pełni skorelowane z przepisami prawa materialnego. Dlatego postępowanie w sprawach o naruszenie posiadania nie wymaga, zdaniem autorki, odrębnej regulacji i powinno zostać usunięte z Kodeksu.
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.