Results found: 2

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: unauthorized use

Sort By:

Limit search:

Zakres zastosowania przepisów o roszczeniach uzupełniających

100%

Stelmach B.

Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego

2016

vol. 25

issue 4

745-767

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).

Roszczenie współwłaściciela o wynagrodzenie za nieuprawnione korzystanie z rzeczy wspólnej przez innego współwłaściciela

100%

Stelmach B.

Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego

2016

vol. 25

issue 2

309-355

The article concerns problems related to Art. 224 § 2 and 225 of the Civil Code applied in relations between co-owners. So far, studies have focused primarily on the very essence of the claim - its admissibility as well as possible its legal basis. In this respect, the views were summed up in the Supreme Court resolution dated 19 March 2013, which strongly argued for the application of Art. 224 § 2 and Art. 225 of the Civil Code. This article is dedicated to the analysis of co-owner claim for remuneration due to unauthorized use of shared movable and immovable property committed by another co-owner. The main part of the paper aims to describe the premises of the aforementioned claim. The second important issue concerns the value of the remuneration. The third taken matter is the relation between the claim for remuneration and the vindication claim. Finally, I hope that this article shall cause substantial discussion of this topic.

Refine search results

2 Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego

2 Stelmach B.

2 2016

Search results

Zakres zastosowania przepisów o roszczeniach uzupełniających

Roszczenie współwłaściciela o wynagrodzenie za nieuprawnione korzystanie z rzeczy wspólnej przez innego współwłaściciela