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:  possessor
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

O bezumownym korzystaniu z gruntów znajdujących się w Zasobie Własności Rolnej Skarbu Państwa

100%
Michałowski R.
Studia Iuridica Agraria
|
2013
|
vol. 11
179-189
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.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Изразяване на посесивност (притежателност) в производната субстантивна лексика в българския и чешкия език

88%
Аврамова [Avramova] Ц. T.
Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej
|
2018
|
vol. 53
EN
Expression of possessiveness in derivative substantive vocabulary of the Bulgarian and Czech languagesThe article is dedicated to researching the manifestations of possessiveness in some nouns of the Bulgarian and Czech languages. We start from the definition of possessiveness as a relation between the objects of extralinguistic reality, whereby one is the possessed object (possessum), the other one is its holder (possessor). In possessive semantics, a central place amidst the nouns is assigned to the nomina posessiva. Nevertheless, possessiveness is also expressed by nouns belonging to other word formation categories, where possessive semantics is not the leading one. Sposoby wyrażania posesywności w derywatach rzeczownikowych języka bułgarskiego i czeskiegoArtykuł rozpatruje sposoby wyrażania posesywności niektórych rzeczowników w języku bułgarskim i czeskim. Podstawą jest definicja posesywności jako stosunku między obiektami z rzeczywistości pozajęzykowej, z którym jeden jest obiektem posiadania (possessum), a drugi posiadaczem (possessor). Centralne miejsce wśród rzeczowników z semantyką posesywną zajmują nomina posessiva. Posesywność wyrażana jest jednak również przez rzeczowniki z innych kategorii słowotwórczych, w których nie dominuje semantyka posesywna.
3

Czy genetiw to przypadek? Co to znaczy „przypadek adnominalny”?

88%
Topolińska Z.
Slavica Wratislaviensia
|
2017
|
vol. 165
413-418
EN
The author defines case as asemantically motivated syntactic relation between apredicate and its implied argument. She argues that in light of that definition the genitive cannot be considered as acase. The author proposes to define it as asemantically motivated relation between the two implied arguments of the predicate “have”.
RU
В настоящей статье даётся определение падежа как семантически обусловленного синтаксического отношения между предикатом и его аргументом, в связи с чем генетив не может рассматриваться как падеж. Автором статьи предлагается понимание генетива как семантически обусловленного отношения двух аргументов предикатива ‘habere’ (иметь).
4

Zakres zastosowania przepisów o roszczeniach uzupełniających

75%
Stelmach B.
Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego
|
2016
|
vol. 25
|
issue 4
745-767
EN
The article concerns problems related to the scope of application of Art. 224 § 2 and 225 of the Civil Code. Complementary claims provided in Art. 224 § 2 and Art. 225 of the Civil Code, ie.: claim for due to unauthorized use, the recovery of benefits or their values, and claim for compensation due to deterioration, wear or loss of things, which are applied in facts justifying lodging a vindication claim (Art. 222 § 1 of the Civil Code). According to the classical concept presented in the doctrine, complementary claims function only along with rei vindicatio, ie. they are inherent property infringement consisting in depriving the owner governance over the thing. The traditional conception - in connection with the forming up from over ten years the new line of rulings of the Supreme Court - needs revision. This article is dedicated to the analysis of the possibility of complementing actio negatoria (Art. 222 § 2 of the Civil Code) and claims provided in the Art. 151 and 231 of the Civil Code. Most of the current views of jurisprudence and doctrine allows such an application of Art. 224-225 of the Civil Code. This work - primarily - focuses on criticizing of stable current opinion. Simultaneously there is presented approbation of the classical concept of application of the provisions about the complementary claims (Art. 224 § 2 and Art. 225 of the Civil Code).
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.