Ugovor or prodaji buduće stvari sa posebnim osvrtom na prodaju nepokretnosti and izgradnji

For a longer period of time land registers in Bosnia and Herzegovina do not reflect the actual situation regarding property rights. The reasons should be sought in the poor quality of and inconsistent legislation that allowed non-registered acquisition of real property rights. On the basis of such legislation earlier Yugoslav jurisprudence had permanently denied the acquisition of property rights based on the principle of trust in the land registry. A new definition of the principle of trust, which implies the protection of the rights acquired on the basis of incorrect and incomplete land registry status, was introduced with the entry into force of the new entity laws on land registry. The main intention of the legislature is reaffirmation of the land registry and its basic principles, which is a precondition for faster and easier real estate transactions. However, the new law provides for real solutions that prevent the full application of the principle of trust, which results in the adoption of different and unequal judicial decisions. The paper presents analysis of such legal solutions, also defects that generate the emergence of different concepts of law are detected, and proposals de lege ferenda are listed in order to create the legal conditions for uniform jurisprudence.

By entering into effect of the new Entity laws on the land registry, a new definition of the principle of trust is introduced, a definition that aims at the protection of the rights that have been acquired on the basis of incorrect or incomplete land registry status. However, the question arises of whether the third conscientious person will have any protection regarding the acquisition of property rights on real estate that is a part of marital assets, when such real estate is recorded in the land registry only belonging to one marital partner. In the legal theory and jurisprudence the issue of validity of the legal relation regarding the sale and the burdening of such real estate by the registered right holder has been raised. Bearing in mind the fact that in our legal system the principle of causal tradition is applied, coming to the correct position on this legal issue is very significant. Further scientific research in this area is of particular importance due to the ongoing process of the reform of land registry law, whose purpose is the reaffirmation of the land registry and the creation of legal presumptions for a faster and simpler legal disposition of real estate.

The purpose of the article was to study the legal nature, concept, and motives for the acquisition of property rights in Russian civil law. The main method of documentary research. The article also uses the inductive method, the method of systematic scientific analysis, comparative legal methods, and historical methods. The main method underlying the solution of the problem is to study the legal bases and characteristics of the acquisition of property rights. The article demonstrates the theoretical irresoluble of the problem of scientific understanding of the grounds for acquiring property rights in the civil law of Russia and other countries. The authors of the article consider that the interpretation of Russian legal norms on property rights is multidimensional in contrast to the relatively recent past. It is concluded that judicial argumentation has occupied an important place in the modern scientific interpretation of civil law rules on property rights. Both the modern legal state and the constitution were created by interpretation and argumentation, including the rules of the property law institute.

Land or land rights can be obtained by someone as an heir, either a biological child or a living spouse, either individually or jointly between the biological child and the living spouse. The acquisition of property rights over land occurs through inheritance, which is the transfer of land rights due to the death of a person or heir who holds land rights. The objective of this research is to identify and analyze the regulation of land ownership rights for foreign nationals according to Article 21 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) and to identify and comprehend the implementation of land ownership rights by the State for foreign nationals at the Badung Regency Land Office. This research applies empirical legal research method with statutory approach, legal concept analysis and factual approach. The results of this research indicate that the regulation of the acquisition of property rights to land for foreign nationals according to Article 21 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Agrarian Law is that heirs with foreign citizenship are obliged to relinquish the right within a period of 1 year since the loss of Indonesian citizenship. The implementation of the granting of land ownership rights by the State for foreign nationals in the Badung Regency Land Office is that a foreign national may receive inheritance of land and/or buildings with property rights status (such as a house). However, within one year, the foreign national must transfer his/her rights to the land and/or building to another person.

Under the so-called causal tradition system governing the transfer of property, in order to acquire property rights on immovable property under the contractual acquisition rules, the acquirer first has to conclude a legally valid contract with the real estate owner, and then enter the acquired property into the Real Estate Cadastre. The acquisition of the ownership right will not occur in case the registration was made on the basis of an invalid contract or in case the contract has been concluded with a non-owner (which is determined only after the registration). If the acquirer had disposed of the acquired right before the contract was cancelled, the right to acquire ceases to exist for all subsequent acquirers. Nevertheless, due to the legal effect of the principles of trust and security of legal transactions, a conscientious (bona fide) third party remains the owner or the holder of another real estate right (e.g. mortgage) that was acquired from the registered owner who was wrongly or incompletely entered into the real estate register. The principle of trust in real estate records refers to reliance on all legal data that can be established by inspecting the land registry or cadastral records, which are complete and trustworthy. A third party is conscientious (bona fide) acquirer if, in the circumstances governing the conclusion of the contract and the state of affairs in the cadastral records, he/she could not have had any reason to suspect or doubt the accuracy or veracity of data from the public cadastral records. In Serbian legislation and judicial practice, in order to maintain the presumption of conscientiousness (acting in good faith), it is necessary to check whether the person is a registered owner or an unregisted owner. Although such practice may call into question the effect of the principle of trust, the author considers it to be justified because the cadastral records are still not completely accurate. De lege ferenda, the principle of trust should apply to a conscientious (bona fide) acquirer. Conscientiousness entails the examination of the registered owner but, if the circumstances of the case cast any doubt on the accuracy of cadastral records, conscientiousness must also include the examination of the unregistered owner.

Territory — Occupation of — terra nutlius — Acquisition of Property Rights by Individuals in No Man's Land — Norway and Jan Mayen Island.

Legitimate land interests and prospects of their implementation in the conditions of digitalization of land relations

The subject of research in the paper will be the right of foreign citizens to inherit real estate and agricultural land in the Republic of Serbia. By using the methodologicaltheoretical framework, the aim of the work will be the analysis of the inheritance institute, which represents the basis of acquisition of property rights on real estate and agricultural land by foreign citizens. The era of globalization favors the movement of people between countries, but each country determines the availability and scope of rights of foreign nationals according to its interests. Therefore, in order to analyze the research subject, we will use historical, descriptive, normative and content analysis methods. The conclusion will summarize the results of research on inheritance as a basis for acquiring property rights on real estate and agricultural land by foreign citizens.rights over real estate and agricultural land by foreign citizens.

We plan to debate in the existing article the problematic of an aspect entirely special in the legal status of real estate and namely: acquiring property right upon the building area, analyzed in its legal and urban architectural dimension. This way of acquiring the property right of real estate is not something new, but was adjusted during time, to some legal regulations which belong to the sphere of civil right and that of urban planning law, subjected always to the changes of economic, social, juridical and architectural life. In legal terms, this regime of the building area has suffered several changes, adjustments through a complex legislation, with a lack of clarity and coherency needed for a legal document so vast and complex which raised and continues to raise numerous problems to the social and legal practice. The newest and most consistent clarifications are brought by the new Civil Code and the new Civil Procedure Code, but also through special legal norms belonging to the urban architecture field. These regulations try to cover some legal gasps and to offer some innovative solutions in agreement with the new Romanian realities required by the status of Romania as a state of the European Community. As it concerns the urban architectural field, the general legal code, is being assured by the regulations mentioned above which refers to the special legal norms of this field, especially the Law no.350/1991 concerning construction authorization and the Law no.350/2001 concerning land and urban space management. Based on these regulations, has been developed the general urban and local regulations, Regional Urban Planning (R.U.P) and General Urban Planning (G.U.P) and Detailed Urban Plan (D.U.P). Seen on a large scale, these documents are regulating the ways through which the cities can be developed based on the urbanism regulations and with a view based on a strategy of development, for a longer period of time. Iftime, E. Vagner, I. (2014). Acquisition of Property Rights of the Building Area. European Journal of Law and Public Administration, Year 2014, Issue 1, pp. 99-111. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18662/eljpa.2014.0101.08

The 2020 earthquakes that struck the City of Zagreb and the areas of Sisačko-moslavačka, Karlovačka, Zagrebačka and Krapinsko-zagorska counties have resulted in damages of approximately 17 billion euro that must be repaired as quickly as possible. The Reconstruction Act envisages various forms of reconstruction the execution of which is dependent on an accurate and complete state of title, irrespective of whether such reconstruction is financed by public or private funds. The current state of the land register presents itself as inadequate, essentially jeopardizing reconstruction, for numerous reasons. The incongruence between the land register and the land cadaster makes it impossible to accurately publish property rights over land because the land registration system is dependent on current cadastral data. Land registration renewal proceedings, in progress today, are belated by decades, making them so much more complex due to continuing urban development and legal transactions that were remained uninterrupted by a dated land record. The socialist era in property law has during its various stages led to quick unrecorded mass transfers in the form of socializing land and creating new property rights over socially owned land that were only partially recorded in the land register, both due to inactivity of the governent and due to proactive measures of preventing registrations under spatial planning, building, and tax regulation that all unnecessarily involved the land register in the system of monitoring the application of public law. In the transitional period characterized by the transformation of social ownership and restitution property law changes were also unrecorded, occurring by way of a myriad of complicated and segmented provisions, while processes that would have resulted in an “orderly“ state of land records, such as expunging social ownership and the unification of land records, determining co-ownership shares for condominiums, linking land registers and deed registers, and renewing land registers, were absent or slow-paced. Concurrently, unrecorded transfers and universal successions were present during this entire period, causing multiple transfers and making it more difficult to determine an unbroken legal chain in transferring ownership. The starting point of the amended Reconstruction Act—that public financing is the answer to existing clouded title—is incorrect because co-owner participation is necessary for deciding to proceed with reconstruction, for initiating requisite proceedings, and for participating in the reconstruction by concluding and satisfying construction or reconstruction contracts. Even though the Reconstruction Act facilitated decision-making in co-ownership by modifying the requisite majority, the fundamental question of who participates in the majority or minority has remained open, and insufficient thought has been given to the position of other property right holders. This problem also reflects itself on the procedural pane in terms of determining the eligibility of the filing party i.e., its procedural role as party to the proceedings. Even though a determination of ownership is available under the provisions on preliminary issues, in most cases it will not result with a solution due to the incongruence of the land register and the land cadaster, and particularly not in case of unrecorded transactions. Similar problems may arise in litigation and in special correction proceedings, especially in complex cases where unrecorded transfers coincide with universal successions. Land registration renewal, carried out sua sponte, presents itself as the only systemic solution that can bring about reasonably final results grounded in an equitable finding of the court. Even though this solution is not ideal, itself being prone to certain ambiguities and objections, it is currently the only available legal tool for resolving clouded title cases en masse. Alternative legal models grounded in deviations from the principle of public faith of registration have demonstrated a limited application and problems of borderline constitutionality, while models grounded in sequestration are insufficiently developed.

This article offers a critique of the concept of ‘abandonment’ when utilized in relation to separated human biomaterials. In the absence of the recognition of even limited property rights in the human source of such materials, the author contends that utilizing abandonment is meaningless and misleading. Absurd consequences need not result from recognition of such rights and indeed most cases of purported abandonment of human tissue are more akin to voluntary transfers. Describing such transfers in terms of abandonment obscures questions as to the agency and the scope of the fiduciary duties of medical professionals and researchers. Income rights in such materials are more appropriately determined as normative questions as to who should benefit from windfall wealth in human biomaterials, not by reference to abandonment. An alternative framework that recognized that the source of human tissue had limited property rights in it would solve many of the conceptual difficulties outlined.

Water is subject to heterogeneous uses that put pressure on it and create rivalries between competing users. With this paper we analyse the conditions under which challengers are successful in gaining access to the resource and in imposing a change of behaviour on the incumbent users. We ask whether the acquisition of property rights is the only means for a challenger to get access to the resource. The empirical study compares eleven ‘most different’ cases of water rivalries in four water basins. We show that two main ‘paths’ explain success: either the challenger activates a property right and negotiates a solution at no cost for the incumbents or he or she activates a public policy that grants him or her a credible alternative to a negotiated agreement. Thus, the challenger must select the kind of rule, property right, or public policy that supports their position and then elaborate an appropriate strategy to impose this rule.

In accordance with the principle of legal unity of immovable property, immovable property consists of parcels of land and everything permanently connected to it, whether on the surface or underground. The reform of the system of real property law in the Republic of Srpska established the legal unity of immovable property between land, building, and separate parts of immovable property, making the owners of separate parts of immovable property (co)owners of the entire immovable property (land and building). Immovable property, which is identified with land, is the object of property rights and the object of a mortgage. In accordance with the principle of extensiveness, a mortgage exists with respect to immovable property as a whole, which means that a mortgage constituted on a land also covers the building as well as the separate part of the immovable property (apartment, business space, garage, etc.). Acquisition of property rights and acquisition of a mortgage on immovable property as a whole is possible on the basis of the principle of reliance, which takes precedence over the principle of Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet. When it comes to buildings and separate parts of immovable property under construction, the application of the principle of mortgage extensiveness or the principle of reliance depends on the moment the property rights or a mortgage are acquired. The principle of mortgage extensiveness takes precedence if the owner of the land managed to register the mortgage before the sale of the building or separate part under construction, and vice versa, the principle of reliance takes precedence if a conscientious buyer of an apartment in a building under construction managed to register ownership before the mortgage was constituted on the land.

The rapid development of the current era has given rise to various advances in the world of technology, one of which is marked by the presence of crypto assets. Crypto assets themselves have been widely used for various purposes in various countries, including Indonesia. However, of all the regulations regarding activities related to crypto assets, there is not a single regulation that explains the actual status of the property rights of these crypto assets. The purpose of writing this article is to determine the status of property rights and the acquisition of property rights from crypto assets. The type of research used is normative research by examining legal materials consisting of primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. Based on the results of this research, it was found that crypto assets can be said to be objects, in this case specifically intangible objects, movable objects, and some are consumable objects and non-consumable objects. According to the Civil Code, the method of obtaining the right is divided into several ways, namely claim, handover, inheritance, expiration, and withdrawal.

In a pre-digital epoch, humans possessed the material means of production through material labor, which allowed them to exercise subjective agency and establish their existence as subjects through the acquisition of property rights. As digital technology has advanced, our digital being now forms an integral element of our fundamental human existence. In the age of the “metaverse,” we must confront and provide an answer to the topic of how to thrive better in the digital virtual world. The rise of Crypto Art, now imbued with a tangible worth by the incorporation of Blockchain technology and Non-Fungible Tokens in the artistic sphere, has opened new vistas for us to verify our subjects within the “metaverse”, thereby securing the liberty of our digital existence. However, crypto art, as digital labor under the techno-capitalist system, inevitably brings about the problem of alienation of digital laborers and their products, impacting the vulnerable subjects in the “metauniverse”. The communitarian mechanism and spirit of consensus inherent within the blockchain present potential pathways towards resolution. In addressing this predicament, crypto art must first transform into a societal intermediary committed to fostering a community centered around the sharing of digital resources. This would empower digital workers to genuinely possess their labor and acquire property rights on a public and communal platform, ultimately leading to the restoration of subjectivity.