Property Rights Of Owners Research Articles

Standard of protection of property rights of owners of residential premises in a democratic country – selected problems considered in the light of Polish constitutional law

The article focuses on presenting key issues revealed in the context of the standard of protection of property rights of owners of residential premises in a contemporary democratic state governed by the rule of law. The considerations presented take into account the perspective of Polish constitutional law and the guarantees of protection of ownership and other property rights as regulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of April 2, 1997 (with particular emphasis on Article 21 and Article 64). The issue addressed in this paper of particular importance from the Polish perspective because, on the one hand, Polish constitutional law formulates relatively broad guarantees for the protection of ownership and other property rights (including those rights of owners of residential premises and tenants – as outlined in Article 21 and Article 64 of the Polish Constitution). On the other hand, there are several practical problems in Poland in this context, including a very significant systemic issue related to the lack of any systemic solutions in the regulation of the short-term rental market by the Polish legislator.

Actual issues of property rights reform in Georgia

Creating legal framework and institutional guarantees compatible to modern standards of protection of human rights is among the main issues for Georgia. Georgia’s transition from soviet state to modern democracy is determined by the state of free entrepreneurship, free market economy and protection of property rights. Institutional reforms and conducted privatization underlined the importance of property rights, effective mechanisms of protection this rights and states limitation to interfere in and regulate these rights. Developing its state and democracy, Georgia had different approach concerning the ownership of agricultural land and creating mechanisms for protection of property rights of owners of real estate. At the initial state of reforms and privatization, the property right on agricultural land was granted only to Georgian citizens, while foreign citizens were permitted just lease, rent and possession. Later, companies registered in Georgia were added to the subjects of the property right on agricultural land. Next and important stage of developing property right on agricultural land was determined by the decision of Constitutional Court of Georgia declaring contradictory to the constitutional standards of property rights. Constitutional court declared that legal restriction and differentiation of foreign citizens’ rights on agricultural land contradicts to the property right granted by the Constitution of Georgia, because constitution does not consider such possibility for differentiation. Parliament with last constitutional changes in 2017, changed constitutional standard on agricultural land ownership and added provision granting the power of government to limit property rights on agricultural land of foreign citizens and foreign companies. This article analyses the practice of development of Georgian legislation and practice and compares to the German, French, Slovenia’s and Slovakia’s experience. Another actual issue discussed in this article concerns the importance of developing effective mechanisms additional to the judicial, for protecting owners’ rights. For a decade in Georgia existed non-judiciary administrative mechanism for protection of owners of real estate. While judiciary reform, weakly developed judiciary and time consuming proceedings was not effective and enough for protection and it was added by administrative execution, so called police extraction. Declaring priority of possessors’ rights protection over the owners’ rights, the Parliament of Georgia revoked this mechanism. Actual issues, problems and possible solutions for property right protection are analyzed in this article. Articulating the problems, analyzing legal basis and suggesting possible solutions, author supports the scientific discussion and research. This can assist to improve a practice of protection of property right, strengthening investing climate and free market economy, where ownership rights are duly guaranteed.

Waifs and Strays: Property Rights in Late Medieval England

AbstractThis article provides new insights into long-standing debates on lord-tenant relations in medieval England and how they were negotiated through the manorial court. We examine an institution, which we term thestray system, that facilitated cooperation between lords and tenants to manage stray livestock. Specifically, we argue that the stray system is a clear example of a public good. In this context, the system was a social benefit provided by lords to their tenants as a collective. In a world where most of the population was dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods, any potential damage to a crop would have been of real concern. However, in managing the threat of wandering livestock, the property rights of owners had to be clearly protected to avoid disputes over ownership. The manorial court's management of strays provided an institution to resolve these countervailing pressures. Ultimately, that system helped to protect a community's arable land—the most vital source of income for lords and tenants alike—while simultaneously assuring the property rights of those who had lost important capital assets in the form of livestock.

On issue of criminal liability for violations of intellectual property rights

The issues of criminal liability for violations of intellectual property rights in Ukraine as well as examples of foreign countries (Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic, United States of America, Swiss Confederation) were analyzed. The author has identified major international instruments that set out basic international standards for the protection of intellectual property rights. It has been determined that Article 61, Section 5, of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or the TRIPS Agreement, lays down provisions on criminal proceedings. The author analyzed the provisions of the current criminal legislation of Ukraine, according to which the occurrence of criminal liability is possible in case of violation of property rights of owners, without taking into account personal non-property rights. The article also states that, in accordance with the provisions of the articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, a peculiarity of domestic criminal legislation on infringement of intellectual property rights is that this type of liability can occur only if the owner of the rights of property damage in a large, large or especially large size. With regard to the Institute of Industrial Property, the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for liability for the unlawful use of an invention, utility model, industrial design or variety of plants, if the material damage was done, as previously stated, in a significant, large or particularly large sizes. The author has determined that the urgency of the solution requires the issue of extending legal protection to new and emerging technologies. As with this, the nature of the violations and the process itself change. Against this background, there is a serious challenge to the intellectual property system. In turn, the process of protection and protection of intellectual property may be enhanced by having an adequate and effective system of state mechanism for preventing and ending offenses. It can also be achieved by simplifying the process of proving infringement in the field of intellectual property, and thus the procedure for bringing the perpetrator to justice.

Problems Associated with the Legal Substance of Encumbrances on Real Estate and the Related Right of Use

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.

Problems Associated with the Legal Substance of Real Estate Encumbrances

The article is devoted to the problems pertaining to the establishment of encumbrances on real estate. 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. 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. To this end, both descriptive and analytical methods have been employed to analyse the legal grounds for encumbrances and related case-law. The study has relied on both legislation and case-law. The results of the study give strong grounds to conclude that a special procedure could be applied to the establishment of encumbrances in situations when those are intended to meet the needs of the entire society or individual communities of certain regions. Like any other encumbrances, those established by law restrict owner's property rights. A real estate encumbrance should be recognised as a restriction on owner's property rights. Certain remedies should be introduced with a view to balancing the rights and interests of the society and the owner and minimising the adverse effects of encumbrances. Such remedies could comprise an owner's right to claim reasonable compensation, challenge the establishment of encumbrances and initiate their annulment.

The protection of the image of a building under French law: where judges create law

Sabine Lipovetsky is an Avocat and Partner at Kahn & Associés in Paris. Sabine is also a Lecturer in Law at Paris X, Nanterre University (France). Emmanuèle de Dampierre is also an Avocat and Associate at Kahn & Associés in Paris. This article highlights a specifically French aspect of law, namely rights in the image of property, offering an overview of the French law relating to the image of a building, in particular where it benefits from copyright protection and is accessible from the public domain. Judges must balance the interests and rights of architects/artists and building owners and use two bodies of law: IP for architects who design an original building and for artists who add new original features to a pre-existing building, and property law for owners. Anyone may reproduce the image of a building, eg via a photograph or a video, subject to three conditions. First, where the building is a work of art, such reproduction is subject to the architect/artist's consent—or that of the holder of the patrimonial rights, who may be the building owner. Secondly, the use of the image must not infringe the architect/artist's moral rights. Finally, irrespective of whether the building is a work of art or not, the use must not cause an abnormal disturbance to the building owner's property rights. Judges have created rights to the benefit of property owners that do not exist in the French Civil Code, interestingly enough in a civil law country. However, traditional legal grounds such as civil liability and privacy rights may be more useful to property owners.

A Novel Security Scheme for Secret Data using Cryptography and Steganography

With the development of network techniques the problem of network security becomes more and more important. The use of Word Wide Web has grown extremely in the past few years. Furthermore, many end users can easily use tools to synthesize and edit multimedia information. Thus, security has become one of the most significant problems for distributing new information technology. It is necessary to protect this information while communicated over insecure channels. Thus, a need exists for developing technology that will help protect the integrity of digital content and secure the intellectual property rights of owners. Cryptography and Steganography are the two major techniques for secret communication. The contents of secret message are scrambled in cryptography, where as in steganography the secret message is embedded into the cover medium. In this proposed system we developed high security model by combining cryptographic and Steganographic security. In cryptography we are using advanced encryption standard (AES) algorithm to encrypt secret message and then pixel value differencing (PVD) with K-bit least-significant-bit (LSB) substitution is used to hide encrypted message into truecolor RGB image. Our proposed model gives two tier security to secret data. Further our proposed method gives high embedding capacity and high quality stego images.

Property Rights, Housing, and the American Constitution: The Social Benefits of Property Rights Protection, Government Interventions, and the European Court on Human Rights' Hutten-Czapska Decision

Nations around the world utilize government interventions to promote the availability and affordability of housing. This Article focuses on various types of government regulatory interventions, such as rent controls, building dedications and exactions, and density and growth controls on housing. These interventions are common in the United States and in other countries and may contribute to inefficient resource allocation and poor housing outcomes. This Article examines whether these types of government interventions may require, in particular cases in the United States, judicially required compensatory damages for affected property owners. The social costs of these forms of government intervention are examined from the perspective of the benefits accruing from a regime of property rights protection. This Article further explains that there is some existing precedent under international human rights norms, as illustrated by the Hutten-Czapska v. Polandi decision, for the standards used in the United States for protecting the property rights of owners and developers of housing from excessive and unwise government regulation.

Thieving and Receiving: Overcriminalizing the Possession of Stolen Property

Historically, Anglo-American law has treated the offense of receiving stolen property in a variety of ways: it has regarded it as no crime at all; subjected it to accessory-after-the-fact liability; and treated it as a free-standing offense, subject, depending on the jurisdiction, to less punishment than theft, the same punishment as theft, or greater punishment than theft. To develop an analytical framework for determining which of these various approaches makes the most sense, we need to ask exactly what receiving statutes are meant to censure and deter. From a backward-looking perspective, receivers can be said to perpetuate the wrongful deprivation of the victim owner's property rights, effected in the first instance by the thief. From a forward-looking perspective, the act of receiving can, at least in some cases, be said to encourage the commission of future thefts by helping to create a ready market for stolen goods. The problem is that the offense in its current statutory formulation reflects only the backward-looking perspective, requiring nothing more than that the offender possess or receive stolen property (knowing that it is stolen), and saying nothing about the future effects of his act. And because perpetuating an owner's loss of property is a lesser wrong than causing him to lose his property to begin with (or so it will be argued), the receiver deserves less blame and punishment than the thief. Yet many modern statutes subject receiving to at least as much punishment as thieving. To avoid such disproportionality, various reforms in the law of receiving are recommended.

Byrne v. Maryland Realty Co. and the Elimination of Aesthetic Zoning in Maryland

Today's familiar cry of Not in my backyard! is not new to property owners. In 1915 the familiar cry was raised by a number of homeowners and building associations as they fought to prevent a developer from constructing rowhomes in northwest Baltimore. On May 12, 1915, an opportunity for building developers arose to challenge the limits of acceptable building restrictions in Baltimore with the filing of a permit to build in a restricted area. In a time when cottage style homes were in vogue and suburbanization was the high style, the residents of Forest Park, Baltimore saw the filing of this permit to build a group of rowhomes in their neighborhood as an invasion, an eyesore, and the antithesis of everything they had striven for as a community. For these residents, the sanctity of their quiet suburban cottage community was about to be destroyed solely to meet a growing need for housing. The residents feared the urbanization of their quiet community. The residents of Forest Park were able to breathe a temporary sigh of relief when on May 14, 1915, Mr. Clarence Stubbs, Inspector of Buildings, rejected the application for the permit to build. However, this was only a stay of execution for their cottage community. In less than one year, the idea that a community could shape itself through building type restrictions would disappear. The rationale behind the disagreement between the city with the residents of Forest Park and the Maryland Realty Co. may have been simply due to an overwhelming interest in preserving the continuity of the community and retaining the suburban quality of the area. However, a discriminatory intention may have underpinned the arguments of the residents and the city in favor of preserving the ordinance barring rowhomes in Forest Park. Byrne was not a case about discrimination, but rather, a case of perceived societal improvement through the restriction of the use of land using aesthetics as the key limiting factor. Byrne was about the tension between the owner's property rights and the power of the city to control development. At its most basic, Byrne was a case of dollars and cents, the value of the property to the residents of the quiet suburban community weighed against that individual right of the developer to do whatever he wished with his property.

Philip Bull, Land, Politics and Nationalism: A Study of the Irish Land Question. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Philip Bull's book is best described as a thoughtful essay on Irish nationalism and the land question. The basic argument can be summarized as follows. The Irish and the British had two incompatible models of land tenure, the Irish customary model, which recognized the proprietary rights of tenants, versus the British capitalist model, which recognized only the absolute property rights of owners. In the period immediately after the Great Famine, British legislators sought to strengthen the position of Irish landlords, hoping that they would make the investments necessary to modernize Irish agriculture. When it became clear that this was not working, the British shifted to legislation that recognized the fights of Irish tenants but repeatedly did too little too late, with the result that land agitation in Ireland became increasingly more radical and fused with the movement for Irish self-government. Since most landlords were Protestant and most tenants were Catholic, the fusion of the national question with the land question made the nationalist movement sectarian. The resolution of the land question by the Wyndham Act of 1903 offered the opportunity to separate the two and therefore also the opportunity to broaden support for Irish nationalism to include Protestants as well as Catholics. But the failure of Irish nationalist leaders to take up this opportunity preserved the sectarianism of the nationalist movement. In this way the fusion of the land question and the national question determined “the breakdown of pluralism in modem Ireland” (p. 4) and helped to bring about the partition of the country, which “is the most tangible legacy of the land question” (p. 191).