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

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  usucaption
help Sort By:

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

Odpowiedź na uwagi polemiczne dotyczące problematyki intertemporalnej służebności przesyłu

100%
Mularski K.
Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego
|
2016
|
vol. 25
|
issue 1
207-214
EN
The paper, refuting objections formulated in a polemic, upholds fundamental points worded in the previously published article, according to which "easement corresponding to transmission easement" and "transmission easement" have exactly the same meaning. Such easement could not have existed before the date of entry into force of the provisions of the Polish Civil Code constructing this limited right. Since the easement could not have existed before the date of entry into force of the provisions that construct it, it could not have also been acquired either by legal action (in particular by an agreement), or by usucaption. The period of usucaption of such easement runs from the date of entry into force of the provisions constructing the easement, and is reduced — by a maximum of half the time required by the law — in the case in which prior to the entry into force of these provisions there existed a status on the property which after their entry into force would justify the establishment of transmission easement.
2

Problematyka intertemporalna służebności przesyłu

88%
Mularski K.
Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego
|
2015
|
vol. 24
|
issue 1
91-152
EN
Transmission easement began to exist as a legal institution with the entry into force of the provisions of the Civil Code which established it. Such easement could not have existed before the date of entry into force of the provisions of the Civil Code constructing this limited right. "Easement that corresponds to transmission easement" could not also have existed, as the terms "transmission easement" and "easement that corresponds to transmission easement" have exactly the same meaning. There could not also have been an "easement appurtenant" which as a result of a "dynamic" or "modern" interpretation acquired characteristics of the transmission easement. "Easement that corresponds to transmission easement" is only a misleading name given to the transmission easement. Since the easement could not have existed before the date of entry into force of the provisions that establish it, it could not also have been acquired either by legal action (in particular by an agreement), or by usucaption. The period of usucaption of such easement runs from the date of entry into force of the provisions constructing the easement, and is reduced — by a maximum of half the time required by the law — in the case in which prior to the entry into force of these provisions there existed a status on the property which after their entry into force would justify the establishment of transmission easement. At the same time, the entry into force of the provisions on transmission easement does not affect any other types of easements. In particular, it does not have any effect on the interpretation of the provisions on the easements appurtenant. All of these arguments are radically contrary to the well-established judicial decisions of the Supreme Court. The Court, concealing the real intention of its decisions (which, let us recall, is the protection of consumers against price rises of utilities, especially electricity), introduces disorder into the legal culture. It breaks the rules of interpretation and inference established in this culture, considers those standards valid which almost certainly would be recognized by the Constitutional Co
3
Content available remote

Ownership in Good Faith as Grounds for the Acquisitive Prescription of a Predial Servitude

63%
Pawełczyk M., Jankowska M.
Świat Nieruchomości
|
2013
|
issue 2(84)
20-25
EN
In the amendment of the Civil Code introduced on 30th May 2008, the institution of the utility servitude was intended to regulate the legal state of utility facilities established on other people’s property. As it turns out, in practice, utility enterprises are not always interested in establishing a chargeable utility servitude through an agreement. With increasing frequency, these companies are turning to acquisitive prescription of a predial servitude resembling the utility servitude. This is particularly the case when they feel entitled to the servitude because they have owned facilities on somebody else’s land for decades. This would lead to the assumption that acquisitive prescription would mostly take place after a period of 30 years, and in bad faith, due to the difficulties in finding proof and determining good faith in relation to a utility servitude. However, a judgement of the Court of Appeal in Katowice dated 6th March 2012 provides an example of commuting the premise concerning the acquisition of ownership of an servitude in good faith by acquisitive prescription. An extensive explanation of the court has been presented in this paper.
PL
Wprowadzona nowelizacją z dnia 30 maja 2008 r. instytucja służebności przesyłu miała na celu uregulowanie stanu prawnego urządzeń posadowionych na cudzych nieruchomościach. Jak się okazuje w praktyce, przedsiębiorstwa przesyłowe nie zawsze zainteresowane są odpłatnym ustanowieniem służebności przesyłu w drodze umowy. Znacznie częściej rozważają przesłanki zasiedzenia służebności gruntowej o treści służebności przesyłu zważywszy, że czują się do tego uprawnione z uwagi na fakt posiadania urządzeń na cudzym gruncie przez okres kilkudziesięciu lat. Wydawać by się mogło w związku z tym, że zasiedzenie to następować powinno przede wszystkim po upływie 30 lat (w złej wierze) z uwagi chociażby na trudności dowodowe związane z istnieniem dobrej wiary po stronie przedsiębiorstwa przesyłowego. Wyrok Sądu Apelacyjnego w Katowicach z dnia 6 marca 2012 r. dostarcza przykładu złagodzenia tej przesłanki zasiedzenia dopuszczając zasiedzenie służebności w dobrej wierze. Obszerne uzasadnienie sądu zostało przedstawione bliżej w niniejszej publikacji.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Issues Related to the Acquisitive Prescription of Agricultural Property by the Individual Farmer

63%
Michałowski R.
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia
|
2017
|
vol. 26
|
issue 1
EN
According to Article 172 § 3 of the Civil Code, title to agricultural property may be obtained by way of usucaption only by the individual farmer. This regulation has given rise to numerous doubts as to its interpretation. It should be noted here that for the purpose of determining the scope of application of this provision, one should not make references to the Act of 11 April 2003 on shaping the agricultural system to the extent that the same does not result directly from Article 172 § 3 of the Civil Code. Particular difficulties occur with the application of Article 172 § 3 of the Civil Code to mixed type of property, which is only partially agricultural, held under acquisitive prescription by a person who is not an individual farmer. In this case, one should assume that the person in question may only acquire title to the non-agricultural portion of such property. In the event of usucaption of agricultural property by the individual farmer, the Agricultural Property Agency may exercise its right of acquisition under Article 4 of the Act on shaping the agricultural system. However, this solution is highly dysfunctional as the exercise of the right of acquisition by the Agency may lead to division, or even liquidation, of the family farm run by the individual farmer.
PL
Zgodnie z art. 172 § 3 Kodeksu cywilnego zasiedzieć nieruchomość rolną może jedynie rolnik indywidualny. Uregulowanie to jest źródłem wielu wątpliwości interpretacyjnych. Wskazać trzeba, że określając zakres zastosowania tego przepisu, nie należy sięgać do regulacji ustawy z dnia 11 kwietnia 2003 r. o kształtowaniu ustroju rolnego w zakresie, w jakim nie wynika to wprost z art. 172 § 3 k.c. Szczególny problem z zastosowaniem art. 172 § 3 k.c. pojawia się w sytuacji, gdy posiadacz samoistny, niebędący rolnikiem indywidualnym, włada nieruchomością o mieszanym, jedynie częściowo rolnym charakterze. Wówczas należy przyjąć, że zasiedzieć może on jedynie jej część nierolną. W razie zasiedzenia nieruchomości rolnej przez rolnika indywidualnego Agencja Nieruchomości Rolnych może wykonać prawo nabycia z art. 4 ustawy z dnia 11 kwietnia 2003 r. o kształtowaniu ustroju rolnego. Jest to rozwiązanie dysfunkcyjne, ponieważ wykonanie prawa nabycia przez Agencję może doprowadzić do rozbicia, a nawet likwidacji gospodarstwa rodzinnego prowadzonego przez rolnika indywidualnego.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Nabycie służebności przesyłu w drodze zasiedzenia

63%
Sokołowski Ł.
Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review
|
2012
|
vol. 1
35-47
EN
The paper is an attempt to determine the admissibility of acquisition of a transmission easement by virtue of usucaption. It also contains the review and assessment of the main issues, doubts and discrepancies which are present in the doctrine and jurisprudence. The survey also deals with deliberations concerning the possibilities of usucaption of particular ways of using the facilities as referred in the article 49 of The Civil Code prior to the amendments of The Civil Code of 20 May 2008 that introduced a new legal institution of a utility of transmission easement.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Nabycie służebności przesyłu w drodze zasiedzenia

63%
Łukasz S.
Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review
|
2012
|
issue 1
35-47
PL
The paper is an attempt to determine the admissibility of acquisition of a transmission easement by virtue of usucaption. It also contains the review and assessment of the main issues, doubts and discrepancies which are present in the doctrine and jurisprudence. The survey also deals with deliberations concerning the possibilities of usucaption of particular ways of using the facilities as referred in the article 49 of The Civil Code prior to the amendments of The Civil Code of 20 May 2008 that introduced a new legal institution of a utility of transmission easement.
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.