Will You Sweep Away the Righteous with The Wicked?’ Third-Party Rights in Forfeiture Law

This chapter explicates third-party property rights. A general principle of sales law indicates that the seller is liable to the buyer when delivering goods not free from third-party rights. Sellers can only escape liability when the buyer is aware of the encumbrance with third-party rights. Meanwhile, the rules on third-party rights in terms of non-conformity always relate to the physical properties of the goods. Legal systems differ with the legal regime applied to goods encumbered with third-party property rights. The circumstances in which third-party rights may affect the goods can be categorized into three groups: ownership rights, third party encumbered with goods, and the impact of public law.

International investment arbitration, though within the sphere of public international law, is organically linked with conflict of laws and private contract law. International investment arbitration will, therefore, always, follow the same trajectory as the contract law of the country whose laws parties have chosen to govern their contract or relationship. Scholarly conversation now emerges with regard to third-party rights in municipal contract law and the dwindling influence of the doctrine of privity in both municipal and international laws. This work aims at examining the effect of the evolving legal order relating to privity of contract on international investment arbitration. The contract law of the country, which the parties have chosen as the lex loci , undoubtedly, impacts the conduct of the arbitration between the parties; especially, as it relates to third-party rights to join in arbitration, enforcement of arbitration agreements, and enforcement of arbitral awards. Qualitative research methodology is adopted in the work and this enabled the interrogation of previous literature on the dwindling status of the doctrine of privity and emerging third-party rights in municipal contract law. The selected research methodology particularly enabled the researchers to examine the effect which emerging third-party rights may have on international investment arbitration. The work finds: (i) that international investment arbitration and private contract law are, indeed, organically connected and that this connection is causal; (ii) that international investment arbitration will, continually, follow the same trajectory as the domestic contract law of the country whose laws parties have chosen to govern their contract or relationship; and (iii) that the national contract laws of some countries now contain third-party rights, which provide leeway for participation by third parties in arbitral proceedings in certain instances. The work recommends that the inroad of the privity of contract doctrine in international investment arbitration is salutary and that maximizing the gains of this massive inroad necessitates increased legislative intervention, which will empower third parties who are able to show prima facie that the outcome of the arbitral proceedings will affect them one way or the other, to join in such arbitral proceedings in order to protect their rights or interests. This is especially so in international investment arbitration ensuing from the petroleum and mining sectors, where investment activities fundamentally disrupt the lives of locals and violate their internationally recognised human rights. Keywords : Arbitration, Contract, International law, Privity, Third-Party Rights DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/127-04 Publication date: December 31 st 2022

Encumbrances on real estate and on the right to use real estate are different legal institutions. Encumbrances that are created on the basis of law have a different legal substance. As a rule, encumbrances by law are significant and bring benefits to an unlimited number of rightholders. This type of encumbrances includes various protection zones, roads, nature reserves, etc. It is assumed that these encumbrances are for the common good; therefore, the rights of an owner may be restricted. Encumbrances on the right to use real estate are of an individual nature, referring to specific rightholders. Such encumbrances include, inter alia, easements and mortgages. In these cases, the owner may not freely dispose of his property right (property), without considering the rights of third parties. The article is devoted to the problems pertaining to the establishment of encumbrances on real estate. Encumbrances may be established by an agreement between the parties, and legislation allows establishing encumbrances without any authorisation from the real estate owner. The objective of the thesis is to analyse the legitimacy of encumbrances based on law in the context of the impairment of owner's property rights.

Third parties who own property in criminal cases often lack legal protection in recovering their property related to illegal logging This research discusses the legal protection for third parties in the recovery of their stolen property in a criminal act. This encourages this research to be conducted to find out whether there is legal protection for third parties for their property confiscated by the state in the criminal act of illegal logging and how the legislative policy on legal protection for property rights of third parties who have good faith in Law No. 18 of 2013 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction in the future. This study uses a normative legal research approach or literature law research, namely research conducted by examining library materials or secondary data alone. The results of the study concluded that the legal protection in Law No. 18 of 2013 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction against third parties whose property has been confiscated by the state does not yet exist, resulting in a legal vacuum because normatively there is no legal protection for the property rights of third parties in good faith who become a victim of their property that is confiscated by the state in not criminal illegal logging

Abstract. The article is devoted to analysis of the effectiveness of the main procedural legal and financial (banking) mechanisms designed to ensure the protection of property rights’ immunity. The legally regulated procedures of such protection are analyzed on platforms — both procedural and legal as well as financial and economic. There is no doubt that only in a state where the immunity of property is declared and guaranteed to the person can be provided the development of economic, intellectual, socially oriented activities. The effect of the principle of immunity of property rights is not absolute, but its restrictions are possible only on the grounds and in the manner prescribed by law. The topicality of the inviolability of property rights is due to the role of law as a platform for citizens’ property independence and their participation in the processes of social reproduction. The guarantee of property independence is the right of ownership of property and non-property rights, which is realized by giving a person the right to freely, unimpededly, and fully exercise the rights of the owner of personal property. The compliance of the inviolability of property rights during criminal proceedings is not properly ensured in the current CPC (The Criminal Procedure Code) of Ukraine; in particular, the movement of confiscated property is not regulated, which questions the novelty of inviolability. To improve the procedure for the protection of property rights, this is necessary to regulate at the legislative level the mechanism of protection and restoration of property rights of persons victimized by criminal offenses. The etymology of «inviolability» guarantees by law the protection of the status of the person from any encroachment. Inviolability in the economic and legal context is mainly understood as a person’s legal status, which is an unalterable guarantee against unauthorized restrictions by the state institutions — law enforcement, financial, court, and individuals and legal entities. An attempt is made to accumulate most of the latest achievements (both legislative, theoretically investigative and applied) on the issues of legal regulation of the studied financial and legal relations, based on which scientific views are substantiated, and proposals are developed to improve regulations in this area. The main vectors of economic and legal mechanisms for the protection of the inviolability of property rights, which would correlate with generally accepted European and world standards, have been identified. Keywords: the inviolability of property rights, property rights, principles of proceedings, judicial protection, seizure of property, financial guarantee, financial risks. JEL Classification G28; К14 Formulas: 0; fig.: 0; tabl.: 0; bibl.: 12.

Land is an important commodity in society that it is both permanent and indestructible, two features which distinguish it from other forms of property. More than one person can have a relationship with the land and share the right to possess it. The right to possess a land is known as ownership right, but it is also common for people to have enforceable rights in other people’s land. This is a third-party right, an example of which is where the owner of a house in a residential area agrees with neighbours that the house will only be used as a residence. This chapter discusses land and property rights, ownership rights, third-party rights, and conveyancing. It also examines the distinction in English law between real property and personal property, the meaning of land, items attached to the land, fixtures and fittings, and incorporeal hereditaments.

This study examines the execution auction in bankruptcy concerning land and buildings jointly owned by a third party and a bankrupt debtor. The importance of this study lies in protecting the property rights of third parties, which may be at risk during the auction process. There is a research gap in understanding the legal rights of third parties in joint ownership situations with a bankrupt debtor. The objective of this study is to identify the legal implications and protection mechanisms available to third parties. The methodology employed is a normative juridical analysis with a case study approach. The key findings reveal that third parties retain the right to file a lawsuit against the auction as an unlawful act (tort), but their claim of ownership is insufficient to nullify the auction conducted by the Office of State Wealth Service and Auction. This research implies a need for clearer regulations to protect third-party rights in similar cases.

Russian Civil contains an exhaustive list of methods of exclusive rights’ disposal subject to registration. The number of disposal methods is not limited by law: accordingly, not all of them are subject to registration. First of all, this is a unilateral transaction of the right holder, which contains permission to use the object of intellectual property rights (letters of consent). The order is also not subject to registration in contracts, the purpose of which is not related to the granting of the right to use the object, and the provision itself is only aimed at achieving the main contract’s goal. In practice, registration of the granting of the right to use a non-exclusive license makes no sense, because, unlike an exclusive license, it rarely affects the rights of third parties. In any case, for the parties to the license agreement, the absence of registration does not entail its invalidity. The inability to register the contribution of a right to the authorised capital may negatively affect the potential acquirer of such a right, therefore it seems important to finalise the relevant rules. Registration of a pledge and transfer of rights directly affects the rights of third parties and parties to the contract, therefore ignoring this requirement will entail negative consequences. In this case, the moment of transfer of the right in case of alienation and foreclosure is determined by making an entry in the register of Rospatent, and in case of succession — at the time of reorganisation or opening of inheritance.

The deceitful use of trusts has created a fair amount of controversy, specifically where it has appeared that a trust has been employed to limit the rights of third parties. This article argues that it is in the interests of the law to ensure that rights are vindicated when unlawfully limited. Similarly, it is in the interest of the common good that legitimately acquired rights are protected. Trust laws state that there must be a separation between control and enjoyment and, in cases where there is no separation, the courts may scrutinise the affairs of a trust. Recent developments have illustrated that measures that provide relief to spouses upon the dissolution of the marriage may not be readily invoked, especially for marriages in community of property. Family trusts have provided spouses with avenues for hiding assets that would otherwise fall into the joint estate. Courts need to adopt a robust approach when dealing with trust assets upon the dissolution of a marriage, particularly to protect the rights of competing spouses.

Public participation is central to the practice, legitimacy, and dominant normative principles of spatial planning. It has a strong presence in the discourse of communicative governance, which suggests that participatory rights should be strengthened as part of a systematic institutional design. Interest in the concept of rights within planning has been gathering pace, but is still undeveloped. In terms of third-party rights, attention has been focused on citizens as rights claimants and their use of rights to promote self-interest, rather than the values that should be protected by such rights or the balance of rights between different stakeholders. This paper explores some of the theoretical issues related to third-party rights in planning, using the existing literature on planning disputes to contextualise current debate. It examines a case study of third-party appellants in the Republic of Ireland and identifies five distinct ‘discourses of objection’. These discourses highlight the complex factors that stimulate third-party rights-claims and illustrate how they can be related to issues such as citizenship, the public interest, and property rights. The paper concludes with a number of general observations on the nature of rights in planning and the implications this has for the broader paradigm of communicative governance.

Transgenic mouse models of neurodegenerative diseases may have considerable commercial value. In many cases, that value is linked to the intellectual property rights associated with the model. This chapter discusses the protection of intellectual property, including patent, contract, and third-party rights, related to transgenic mouse models and addresses aspects of litigation, which can occur if intellectual property rights are infringed. Various methods of commercializing transgenic mouse models are considered, including how these various methods address concerns of the National Institutes of Health regarding the use of research tools.

Problem setting. Technologies affect many intellectual property issues, from inventions and technology brands to the content of transfer agreements, so the harmonious coverage of such aspects and consideration of the needs of interested parties in the current legislation is an urgent problem. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The new requirements of the technology transfer ecosystem affect the widening variety of intellectual property rights that arise with the creation of today’s technologies. Legislation should be flexible to such changes. Purpose of research is a critical review of the Law of Ukraine “On State Regulation of Activities in the Field of Technology Transfer” and the development of proposals for its improvement. Article’s main body. It is established that the said Law is more focused on inventions, while copyright, industrial designs, and trademarks are considered very limited, and separate provisions generally exclude the importance of such types of intellectual property for technology transfer; the said Law contains conceptual legal inaccuracies in the distinction between assignments and license agreements. It is proposed to replace the terms “patenting” and “patent immunity”, which appear many times in the document, with the broader and more flexible terms “acquisition of intellectual property rights” and “immunity from the intellectual property rights of third parties”, respectively. Such a proposal is justified as follows. In Ukraine, patents are granted only for inventions and utility models. Industrial designs receive a certificate of registration (as in the EU), the same applies to copyright (at the owner’s request) and trademarks. In the Digital Age, copyright now serves more than just the creative industries. Industrial designs are found everywhere and not taking into account this type of intellectual property from the economic evaluation of the technology or the research of promising areas is unjustified. A technology brand can move alongside it. Patent analysis provides insight into technologies and technological capabilities, as well as new business opportunities. Obtaining trademarks for patented solutions increases the value of these technical solutions, and trademark analysis provides information on the areas in which competitors operate, promising niches and regions, promising products and services, as well as customer interaction approaches and branding strategies. It is also proposed to set out in the document the definition of the term “technology transfer agreement” in accordance with Regulation 316/2014/EU, namely to add to the already existing definition that it can also be a license agreement entered into between two undertakings for the purpose of the production of contract products by the licensee and/or its sub-contractor(s). Conclusions and prospects for development. On the basis of the justifications given in the presented article, it is proposed to make appropriate amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On State Regulation of Activities in the Field of Technology Transfer” in Articles 7, 8, 13, 14, and 23 in the direction of expanding the types of intellectual property and in Article 1 in the direction of expanding definition of the term “technology transfer agreement”.

Civil asset forfeiture, equitable sharing, and policing for profit in the United States

Research SummaryFor several decades, critics have argued that civil forfeiture laws create incentives for law enforcement to increase departmental revenue by “policing for profit.” By using data on federal equitable sharing payments to nearly 600 local law enforcement agencies between 2000 and 2012, we examine the relationship between the characteristics of state forfeiture laws and equitable sharing payments to local agencies. Our results indicate that agencies in states with state laws that are more restrictive or less rewarding to police collect more in federal equitable sharing. This finding supports the critics’ argument that police behavior in regard to forfeiture activities is influenced by the financial rewards and burdens involved.Policy ImplicationsOur results reveal that the findings of investigative journalism and case study research, that is, that police forfeiture activities are influenced by financial rewards, may be more generalizable to law enforcement than previously thought. Despite recent state‐level reforms, federal equitable sharing and most state forfeiture laws provide limited due process protections and have minimal accountability or reporting requirements. Concerns about the impact of civil forfeiture practices on perceptions of procedural justice and police legitimacy are discussed, and possible policy reforms are reviewed.

The paper estimates the essence of intellectual property. Listed legal documents in which the procedure for assessment of intellectual property. Presented by reason necessary evaluation of intellectual property rights, for example to determine the real value and market value of the property; mooring at the balance developed its own facility; valuation of intellectual property in connection with the implementation of various corporate transactions; involvement of intellectual property rights to investment and innovation projects and more. An evaluation of the sequence of intellectual property, which consists of seven stages. The main parameters that determine the value of intellectual property, such as reliability of the object of legal protection; opportunity estimated object used freely in the market without violating the rights of third parties (figure Novelty item); technical and economic significance of the object of legal protection and more. Presents the principles underlying the evaluation of intellectual property. An instructional pidhody and characterized the evaluation of intellectual property and methods of calculation. Indicated advantages and limitations regarding the choice of approaches evaluation of intellectual property.