SEPARATION OF OWNERSHIP AND COMPULSORY LAND LEASE IN LATVIA: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

• Authors: Arta Snipe
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

When independence was proclaimed in Latvia in 1990, one of the problems to be solved was restitution. Latvia decided to restore ownership rights to the former owners (or their heirs) of the properties nationalized since 1940 rather than paying out compensation. Although the aim of returning the original properties was “to create owners” and thus promote economic growth, the result was social tension between the groups put into controversial positions, with previous owners and their heirs versus the persons now using their property. In the cases where ownership rights of the former owners or their heirs were restored to land on which apartment houses were built during the Soviet times, a unique situation arose whereby the land and the buildings on it had different owners. This is an exception to the general principle that real estate of land and buildings are indivisible. No other country in Central or Eastern Europe chose to return the original property if it had changed so significantly (had been developed). In 2015, in Latvia there were 285 549 buildings located on 95 254 land plots, owned by physical persons or entities other than building owners. 3 677 of those were apartment houses (totaling 110 970 apartments) located on 7 354 land plots. These numbers show the importance of the described problem as at least one tenth of the society is directly or indirectly involved in the problem of split ownership of a property. In 1991, the legislature of Latvia made the decision to regulate the relationships between the landowners and building owners as lease agreements. Practice has shown that apartment owners are unwilling to enter into lease contracts and pay the land lease. The courts are overwhelmed with statements of claims and civil proceedings between landowners and apartment owners. Apartment owners lodge complaints to the government, parliament, and ombudsman while landowners go bankrupt as they do not have the income to cover real estate taxes that they now must pay. Thus, it is apparent that even after almost three decades of independence and almost thirty years after the beginning of land reform Latvia has not dealt with the consequences of the decisions the legislature made in 1990s. It is now acknowledged by the government that policy and regulations should be adopted to solve the problems related to separation of ownership and resolve the social tension arising from the consequences of restitution, including compulsory land lease. The article discloses the main legal problems associated with separation of ownership and compulsory land lease, giving an insight into the historical circumstances that have led to the current situation.

Keywords

EN

property reform,; restitution,; separation of ownership,; compulsory land lease.

• Publisher: Daugavpils University, Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences
• Journal: Sociālo Zinātņu Vēstnesis
• Year: 2019
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 67-86

Contributors

author

Arta Snipe

Identifiers

ISSN

1691-1881