Restriction Of Property Rights Research Articles

지역사회 토지이용자의 지상물매수청구권에 관한 연구

The Article 23 of the Constitution is being prescribed with saying that “The property rights of all citizens shall be guaranteed, but their contents and limits shall be determined by law, and that the exercise of property rights shall be allowed to be appropriate for public welfare.” The fundamental purport of this regulation is being interpreted to be what the acceptance, use or restriction of property rights due to the public needs is exceptionally permitted only if the requirements prescribed by the Constitution are met while giving a guarantee to the free use, profit, and disposal of all citizens' property rights under the basic principle dubbed the guarantee of the private property system.
 By the way, as the mandatory provision with saying what is available for asking a landowner to buy at a certain price without removing or collecting the ground objects by land users given the expiration date after the use or profit in accordance with the agreement of the parties concerning the land of another person, it is being regarded as the formative right. However, in terms of applying and interpreting the Article 283 of the Civil Code by the person with superficies pertinent to the Right to Demand for the Ground Facilities Purchase, it is considered to be appropriate to see it as a case of corresponding to being below the minimum duration of the superficies in the Article 280 of the Civil Code according to the term of the contract of the parties.

농지법상 ‘농지’ 정의와 농지취득자격증명 제도의 위헌성

This paper examines unconstitutional issues related to the Farmland Act for the purpose of protecting people's livelihood & resolving legal obstacles to be faced in the process of returning to farming and returning to village. Various restrictions on farmland from the public welfare perspective of preserving farmland and protecting the national environment, conform to the spirit of the Constitution and are reasonable for substantive justice. However, regulations on farmland, which is private property, are restrictions on the freedom and rights of the people, so they should be limited to the minimum necessary. It is the basic responsibility of the legislature, the executive branch, and the judiciary to find a balance between the protection and restriction of property rights. Recently, the Farmland Act has been revised to strengthen strict regulations, and concerns about not small evils are becoming a reality. Illegal diversion and dumping of agricultural land must be strictly and absolutely prohibited. However, due to the strengthening of the Farmland Act, the issuance of agricultural certificates is strictly rigid even by administrative authorities in rural areas that have nothing to do with speculative areas. In Chapter 2, this paper points out that the uncertainty of the definition of 'farmland' in the Farmland Act against the principle of clarity frequently leads to deviations and abuses of administrative discretion, which is likely to be unconstitutional. Chapter 3 focuses on the unconstitutionality of the regulations related to qualification certificates for acquisition of farmland. First, there is a fundamental infringement of property rights guaranteed by the Constitution by restricting the right to dispose of and acquire the right of ownership. Second, the freedom of residence & relocation and the freedom to choose a job are significantly violated. Third, it severely restricts the “right to live in a healthy and comfortable environment” and the “right to lead a life worthy of human beings”, and as a result, “dignity and value as a human being” and the “right to pursue happiness” are also significantly violated. Next, it is analyzed from the perspective of whether the principle of excessive prohibition is violated, the legitimacy of the purpose, the suitability of the means, the minimum of infringement, and the balance of legal interests. And it is also reviewed whether the right to equality is violated, and it is revealed that the denial of ownership transfer registration of illegally diverted farmland is unconstitutional. In addition, the possibility of unconstitutionality of the provision on limitation period for sanctions under Article 23, Paragraph 1 of General Act on Administration is also critically reviewed. Under the Criminal Procedure Act, there is a statute of limitations for the prosecution of a crime, and there is a long and short statute of limitations for various rights under the Civil Act. Citizens must file claims or lawsuits within a certain period of time to be protected in civil and criminal proceedings as well as administrative trials or litigation. It is to promote 'legal stability' to relieve the anxiety of the parties and excessive consumption of the national administrative and judicial system. In order to prevent the deviation and misuse of the discretion of administrative agencies, it is urgent to apply the limitation period for sanctions under the General Act on Administration. In Chapter 4, apart from the review of legal positivism and interpretive jurisprudence, an additional critical review of legal philosophy and general legal principles is attempted. First, there is a high possibility of unconstitutionality as the fairness in the legal treatment of unauthorized buildings and illegally-exploited farmland is significant. This is because the “Act on Special Measures for the Arrangement of Specific Buildings,” which has been enforced four times so far,

법규정의 간극과 해석에 의한 보충

The Constitution stipulates “The property rights of all citizens are guaranteed. The content and limitations are determined by law.” in Article 23 Paragraph 1, and paragraph 2 stipulates the constitutional limitations of property rights by stipulating that “the exercise of property rights should be suitable for public welfare.” And paragraph 3 stipulates that “the expropriation, use, or restriction of property rights due to public necessity and compensation thereof shall be made by law, but legitimate compensation shall be paid.” The separation theory excludes unconstitutional infringement of property rights and guarantees the existence of specific property rights of the subject of fundamental rights. In the case of excessive restrictions beyond social restrictions, according to the separation theory, it is not understood as the expropriation of Article 23 (3) of the Constitution, and various measures (relaxation measures) to alleviate the excessive burden will be considered first. The basic structure of property rights can be divided into 'content regulations without compensation obligations', 'content regulations with (coordinated) compensation obligations', and 'expropriation regulations (with compensation obligations)'. The content regulation of property rights essentially means the protection of property rights in that it forms a property rights legal order, and the expropriation regulation means the restriction of property rights that make it impossible or remarkably difficult to act in the protected area. Therefore, both are independent legal systems.

국가의 손실보상법에 관한 비교법적 고찰

The loss compensation acts in Germany and Korea are similar in basic respects, but different parts are found in specific applications. Germany has applied the ‘expropriation-equal infringement(enteignungsgleicher Eingriff)’ to compensate for the void in legal principles for illegal and irresponsible infringement, and the ‘expropriable infringement(enteignender Eingriff)’ legal principles have been applied to property rights restrictions that appear as an atypical side effect of legitimate administrative action. Germany has elaborately developed the loss compensation act through the victim compensation claim(Aufopferungsanspruch), advanced since the 18th century in the philosophy of natural law, the right to claim the elimination of results, the right to claim damages based on the administrative legal claim-obligation relationships, the right to claim the compensation based on the management of administrative affairs, and the right to claim the reimbursement under public law, in addition. Unlike Germany, Korea does not recognize ‘expropriation-equal infringement’, ‘expropriable infringement’, and other claims, and unlike Article 14 (3) of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which stipulates ‘expropriation’, Article 23 (3) of the Korean Constitution additionally stipulates the ‘use or restriction of property rights by public purpose. It could not be applied indiscriminately as the legal principles such as expropriation-equal infringements, expropriable infringements, and the victim compensation claim developed in Germany are not perfect theories, however. It is not necessary to accept these claims as the right to claim damages based on the administrative legal claim-obligation relationships and the right to claim the compensation based on the management of administrative affairs could be resolved through the application of civil law regulations, and the right to claim the reimbursement under public law could be settled by the principle of general unfair profits, in addition. The recent side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine are an opportunity to develop discussions on vaccination damage compensation as the compensation by the State. Germany has resolved the damage compensation for vaccination through the right to claim sacrifice compensation. Korea does not recognize the right to claim sacrifice compensation, but seeks to compensate for vaccination damage through Article 71 of the 「Act on the Prevention and Management of Infectious Diseases(abbreviation: Infectious Disease Prevention Act)」. Since the scope of vaccination damage compensation is narrow, the cause-and-effect relationship should be alleviated in the future, and it is required to prepare specific vaccination damage compensation standards and add compensation methods through pension receipt in the 「Infectious Disease Prevention Act」 and Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Principle of Proportionality and Classification of Measures Implementing the Principle of Proportionality in the Context of Interim Measures

This article analyzes the application of the principle of proportionality in the context of interim measures. The study reveals how and to what extent is the principle of proportionality regulated by law in the application of interim measures. The author distinguishes measures implementing the principle of proportionality in the context of interim measures according to different criteria: (a) the nature of the issue; (b) the subject carrying out the proportionality assessment; (c) the time (stage) at which the proportionality assessment is carried out. For this study, the author analyzed the case law of both the Lithuanian Court of Appeal and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the proportionality of the restriction of property rights in the context of interim measures.

Restriction of Property Rights: Expropriation, Nationalization

Everyone has the right to own and use their lawfully acquired property, and no one shall be deprived of their property, except in the public interest, under the conditions laid down by law and as a result of the payment of a fair amount of compensation. I will attempt to perform a non-exhaustive, brief analysis of how well this has been achieved over the last hundred years. Furthermore, I am looking for the answer as to what extent the restitution provides full compensation in the case of nationalized real estates.

Protection of general (public) interest as a criterion for restriction of constitutional rights and personal freedoms

The article is devoted to the study of the protection of general (public) interest as a criterion for restricting the constitutional rights and freedoms of the individual. It is substantiated that the presence of general (public) interest in accordance with the legislation of Ukraine may be grounds for: restriction of property rights, other constitutional rights, in particular, the right to access public information, the right to freedom of association in political parties and public organizations, peacefully, without weapons and to hold meetings, rallies, marches and demonstrations, the right to strike; in administrative proceedings - to resolve the issue of consideration of the case in the general
 claim proceedings, the possibility of cassation (third) review of the case, determining the amount of costs for legal assistance and the distribution of court costs.
 The author argues that the issue of protection of general (public) interest is closely related to such an important issue as trust in the judiciary. It is proved that the special vocation of administrative courts is that they are responsible for resolving the extremely difficult issues of finding a fair balance between general (public) and private interests, using the procedural mechanisms enshrined in the CAS of Ukraine.
 An analysis of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, based on which the components of the rule of law, which must be provided by the state and its bodies during: the establishment of legal restrictions on the exercise of constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen; regulation of public relations in the social sphere; redistribution of public expenditures and public income; establishing restrictions on the right to appeal and cassation appeal against a decision of a court of general jurisdiction.
 On the basis of the conducted research it was offered to supplement Art. Art. 56 and 65 of the Constitution of Ukraine in order to unify the approach to determining the grounds for restriction in exceptional cases of constitutional rights and freedoms of the individual.

Restrictions of Private Property Right in Terms of the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Experience of the US, UK and Ukraine

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on human rights. Many rights have been restricted to prevent the spread of infection. The restrictions on private property rights during the pandemic were not so obvious, but no less significant. The massive closure of restaurants, cafes, cinemas and other crowded places has resulted in significant losses for business owners. The question arose about the admissibility of such restrictions on the rights of owners, as well as the need to compensate for the losses caused. The purpose of this article is to study the criteria developed by international practice under which the restriction of property rights is allowed, and approaches to resolving issues of compensation for losses caused to owners when it is necessary to ensure a balance of private and public interests in Ukraine. The article also analyzes approaches to resolving issues of compensation for losses caused to owners as a result of restrictions on their rights, developed in the case law of the United States and Great Britain.

PROBLEM OF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO BUSINESS OWNERS DURING THE QUARANTINE PERIOD: ANALYSIS OF DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN EXPERIENCE

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact in all areas of human life. Many rights have been restricted to prevent the spread of infection. The restrictions on private property rights during the pandemic were not so obvious, but no less significant. The massive closure of restaurants, cafes, cinemas and other crowded places has resulted in significant losses for business owners. The question arose about the admissibility of such restrictions on the rights of owners, as well as the need to compensate for the losses caused. The purpose of this article is to study the criteria developed by international practice under which the restriction of property rights is allowed, and approaches to resolving issues of compensation for losses caused to owners when it is necessary to ensure a balance of private and public interests in Ukraine. In order to understand whether the owners, whose rights were restricted during the pandemic by depriving them of the opportunity to use their property in business, have the right to compensation, the article analyzes the meaning of "possessions" used in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It is concluded that future income within the meaning given by the European Court of Human Rights should also be considered a type of property, so depriving owners of the opportunity to receive income could to some extent be considered as confiscation of property. This approach suggests that during the quarantine the owners were in a sense deprived of property, which raises the question of the need to compensate the owners for the losses incurred during the quarantine measures. The right of owners to compensation is analyzed in the light of the conditions developed in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights for interfering in the peaceful possession of property and the recommendations developed by the United Nations to limit human rights in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is concluded that it is necessary to comply with the principle of legality in case of state intervention in the peaceful possession of property. However, this principle was violated in Ukraine, as the restrictions were introduced not by law, but by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. This gives grounds to challenge the actions of the state and demand payment of compensation for losses incurred by the owners. The article also analyzes approaches to resolving issues of compensation for losses caused to owners as a result of restrictions on their rights, developed in the case law of the United States and Great Britain.

Subordination, reordination and coordination ties in the structure of other measures of a criminal-legal nature

In order to determine the specifics of subordination, reordination and coordination ties in the structure of other measures of a criminal-legal nature, the content of the system of these measures is analysed, in which it is proposed to include measures related to isolation or restriction of personal freedom and measures related to the restriction of property rights. It is suggested to define a system of other measures of a criminal-legal nature as a holistic set, built on a hierarchical principle and divided into two subsystems, the normative reflection of which takes place in the provisions of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and social — in specific public relations arising from the commission of a crime and the need to apply criminal law measures to it. In the study of external subordinate relations, it is concluded that other measures of a criminal-legal nature have become a full-fledged component of criminal law, alternative to criminal punishment or supplementing the restrictions on the rights and freedoms of the convicted person arising from the application of punishment. Internal subordinate ties reflect the structure of the system of other measures of a criminal-legal nature and allows them to be distributed according to their functional purpose. The conclusion is made that the reordination ties demonstrate the cosubordination of the subsystem of the system for other measures of a criminal-legal nature, as well as a blanket (reference) interaction with other elements of the system of criminal-legal action, or with other spheres of social life, which intersect with negative social phenomena. Also, it is substantiated that coordination ties in the structure of the system of other measures of a criminal-legal nature are unilateral and create conditions for the use of discretionary powers related to the preservation of the application of these measures or refusal of them in favor of a stricter criminal-legal act, punishment.

О мерах процессуального принуждения, связанных с ограничением имущественных прав

The article considers the sufficiency of coercive procedural measures available in the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation related to the restriction of property rights and aimed at compensating for the damage caused by the crime and ensuring the enforcement of the court’s sentence in terms of property penalties and possible confiscation of property. In order to maintain a balance between the interests of the parties to the prosecution and that of the defence and to enhance the effectiveness of the work of the preliminary investigation agencies in property searching and locating with a view to its further arrest, it is proposed that a new coercive procedural measure be introduced in the form of an interim injunction of the disposal of property.

Сервітут як об’єкт цивільних прав

Виявлено історичні тенденції та стан сучасного правового регулювання речових прав на чуже майно. З’ясовано характерні ознаки й особливості сервітуту як об’єкта цивільних прав. Розглянуто способи набуття та припинення сервітуту, його обсяг і правовий режим, особливість публічних сервітутів. Сервітут як різновид речових прав, об’єктом яких виступають права на чужу річ, є особливою категорією майнових прав і специфіч-ним об’єктом цивільних прав з огляду на особливості, пов’язані з його оборотоздатністю. Сервітутне право не лише надає власнику змогу ефективно використо-вувати свою річ, а і передбачає задоволення інтересів, у тому числі і немайнових, інших осіб (наприклад, здійснювати право проходу чи проїзду через чужу зе-мельну ділянку навіть розміщати тимчасові споруди). Право власника земельної ділянки на обмежене корис-тування чужою земельною ділянкою зумовлено необ-хідністю та задовольняє потреби (чи усувати недоліки) цієї ділянки за рахунок інших, як правило, суміжних ділянок. В особи, яка у встановленому порядку набула сервітут, виникають правомочності, які і становлять зміст сервітутного права.За відсутності згоди щодо встановлення сервітуту зацікавлена особа має в суді довести неможливість нор-мального господарського використання ним земельної ділянки за відсутності сервітуту. Набуваючи серві-тут особа має уникати зловживання своїми правами. За відсутності підстав набуття речових прав, спроба на-бути їх у будь-який спосіб зумовлює нікчемність пра-вових наслідків.У сервітутних відносинах завжди виступають дві сторони: власник земельної ділянки та особа (чи кіль-ка осіб), яка набуває обмежене речове право на чужу земельну ділянку у вигляді сервітуту. Оскільки будь-який сервітут завжди є обмеженням чужого права, він встановлюється у спосіб, найменш обтяжливий для власника речі. З іншого боку, справедливо зазначи-ти, що обмеження майнових прав породжує для влас-ника необхідність утримання від певних дій, що мо-жуть порушити права іншої особи. Якщо особа набула обмежене право, то в неї не можуть не виникнути пра-вовідносини із власником речі. Різновид обмеженого права, тобто встановлені законом заборони, які звужу-ють зміст суб’єктивного речового права з метою охо-рони і здійснення речових прав інших осіб, і визначає характер таких відносин.

СПЕЦИФІКА НОРМАТИВНО-ПРАВОВОГО РЕГУЛЮВАННЯ ОБМЕЖЕННЯ МАЙНОВИХ ПРАВ НА ТВОРИ В УКРАЇНІ

The article analyzes some issues and peculiarities of the legal regulation for the restriction on the author's property rights to works in Ukraine through the lens of European and international approaches. The author analyzes the legislation of Ukraine, international and European regulatory sources, directly investigates the completeness of the legal regulation of the lawful free use of the author's work and the restriction of his/her property rights to the work (as a consequence of his/her intellectual activity). The article examines the existing international treaties, ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and which are recognized as a part of the national legislation of Ukraine. It also analyzes codified and other legal acts adopted to implement the provisions of the Constitution and international agreements in order to determine the peculiarities of legislative regulation and consistency of terminology in the sphere of restriction of the author's property rights to works in Ukraine. As a result of the research, the author has highlighted the main inaccuracies and gaps in the legal regulation for the restriction on property rights to works and the free use of works as a copyright object. Namely, it is traced that in Ukrainian legislation there is a certain inconsistency between the provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Copyright and Related Rights" and the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which use identically in meaning the concepts of "free use of works", "restriction of property rights", "exceptions and restrictions on property rights", "the lawful use of a work without the author's consent", which is not in line with international experience. The author concludes on the full implementation of the provisions of the Berne Convention on the three-stage test in national regulations and further improvement of the legislation in order to avoid disagreements with the European legislation in the investigated subject, which should be implemented in the Ukrainian legislation. Keywords: property rights to works, restriction on author's rights to works, free use of works, cases of free use of works, a three-step test, international treaties governing the restriction on property rights to works in Ukraine.

RESTRICTIONS TO THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY: CONSTITUTIONAL VERSIONS IN THE POST-SOVIET COUNTRIES

Purpose: The paper deals with constitutional approaches to the formalization of restrictions and deprivation of property rights in 12 post-Soviet countries: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine.
 Methodology: As an analysis of specific constitutional approaches to the restriction of property rights, the paper pays attention to the conditions for the admissibility of its deprivation, compensated withdrawal and alienation of property as an object of property rights.
 Applications: This research can be used for universities, teachers, and students.
 Results: Based on the analysis, it was concluded that legal forms of restriction of the right to property are set forth in direct and indirect versions. The first reflects the direct wording of the permissibility of restricting the right to property; the second is due to the general rules of constitutional restriction of the rights of a person and citizen.

The problem of legislation in management of cultural heritage

「문화재보호법」에 대해서 많은 문제점이 지적되고 있는 것이 사실이다. 이 글에서는 「문화재보호법」의 내용에 있어서 문화재보호와 재산권보호, 문화재 향유권 및 지정문화재, 등록문화재, 일반문화재의 성립과 그 구분에 관한 문제에 대해서만 살펴보기로 한다. 우선 문화재향유권은 우리 헌법상의 기본권으로 인정하는 것에 대해서는 이론이 거의 없는 것으로 보이나 구체적인 개인의 권리라고 보기는 어렵다. 따라서 「문화재보호법」의 개정을 통해 문화재향유권이 구체적인 개인의 권리로 도입하는 것이 타당하다. 문화재보호를 위한 지정행위 등으로 야기되는 재산권의 침해에 대한 구제를 위해서는 조정적 보상제도의 도입이 우리의 현실에서 가장 타당해 보인다. 이러한 것은 우리 헌법재판소가 여러 결정을 통해 이 제도를 적용하고 있는 것을 보아도 알 수 있을 것이다. 문화재보호법상의 문화재 지정행위 등에 의해서도 건물이나 토지 등 사유재산의 사용·수익이 사실상 폐지되어 더 이상 의미 있는 이용가능성이 존재하지 않는 예외적인 경우가 존재할 수 있고 이러한 경우에도 문화재보호법은 이에 대한 보상규정을 두고 있지 않기 때문에 문화재보호법의 위헌성이 인정될 수밖에 없을 것이다. 따라서 이러한 문화재보호법의 위헌성을 제거하기 위해서 조정적 보상제도 필요하다. 다만, 이러한 조정적 보상제도는 법률상 근거가 필요하므로 문화재보호법을 개정하여 조정적 보상제도를 도입하여야 할 것이다. 마지막으로 지정문화재, 등록문화재, 일반문화재의 성립에 있어서 등록문화재의 등록요건이 그 도입취지와는 무관할 만큼 지나치게 추상적인 용어들로 규정되어 있으며, 지정문화재의 경우 그 지정을 위한 신청권에 관한 규정이 존재하지 않는다. 또한 일반문화재의 경우 「문화재보호법」의 규정에 의하여 성립될 수밖에 없는데, 관련 규정이 지나치게 추상적이어서 어떠한 것이 문화재로서 「문화재보호법」의 적용을 받을 것인지 애매하다. 향후 법 개정을 통하여 개선이 요망되는 문제이다.State has duties to protect heritages for realizing the principles of cultural station on the constitution and Cultural Heritage Protection Act is in effect for performing the duties. But Cultural Heritage Protection Act has some problems for realizing the principles of cultural station on the constitution. First, The right of enjoyment of cultural heritage is not provided in Cultural Heritage Protection Act. The right is the constitutional right but is not the right to be realized concretely. So it needs to impose right of enjoyment of cultural heritage on Cultural Heritage Protection Act. Second, the status of heritages in Cultural Heritage Protection Act is not clear. The articles that regulate the status of heritages in Cultural Heritage Protection Act is important because they confirm the objects to protect. So it needs to be clear the status of heritages on Cultural Heritage Protection Act. Third is the problem of the relations of cultural heritage and property rights. The nation have to protect the cultural heritage. And the nation have to protect the property rights too. The Cultural Heritage Protection Act contains some restriction provsions of property rights without compensation. These rise a problem of the protection of property rights. So I wrote three alternatives to solve these problems. They are the compensation for loss, the transfer of development rights, the compensation for mediation. The compensation for loss cannot be allowed constitutionally. And the transfer of development rights cannot be used for practical problem. So the compensation for mediation is a proper alternative to solve the problem of the protection of property rights about restriction of property rights without compensation. It can remove unconstitutionality of restriction of property rights without compensation.

СПЕЦИФІКА НОРМАТИВНО-ПРАВОВОГО РЕГУЛЮВАННЯ ОБМЕЖЕННЯ МАЙНОВИХ ПРАВ НА ТВОРИ В УКРАЇНІ

The article analyses specific issues on the legal regulation in the sphere of restriction on the author's property rights to literary and artistic works in Ukraine through European and international prism. The author examines the legislation of Ukraine, international and European regulatory sources for the purpose of regulating directly the cases of lawful free use of literary and artistic works of the author and the restriction on his prop- erty rights to literary and artistic works, as a result of his intellectual activity. The purpose of this study is to determine the specifics of legal regulation in the sphere of restriction of property rights to works in Ukraine. The philosophical, general-scientific and special-scientific methods of cognition have been used in the work, including comparative-legal method, struc- tural-functional, deductive, as well as methods of analysis, generalization and analogies. The author has found the basic inaccuracies and gaps in the legal regulation for of the restriction and free use of works as an object of copy- right. The author proves that the Ukrainian legislator did has not harmonized the provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Copyright and Related Rights" with the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Thus, the article shows that the use of such concepts as "free use of works", "restriction of property rights", "exceptions and restrictions on property rights", "legitimate use of a work without the consent of the author" are not in line with international practice. The author draws conclusions on the improvement of the legislation to avoid these problems. The implementation of Europe- an practice in the legislation of Ukraine is also highlighted. The results of the study can be used for further research in the field of copyright, including comparative copyright. These proposals may be applied to improve current intellectual property law.

The Issue of the Influence of Limited Use Areas on Real Estate Value

Comparative methods used in the valuation of real estate require the adoption of price-creating attributes, the number and type of which should take into account the specific conditions of the local real estate market related to the restriction of property rights. The subject matter concerns the legal and price analysis of real estate located in the areas of limited use of the Krakow-Balice airport. The paper is an introduction to the conducted research, the purpose of which is to construct models for the valuation of real estate located in these areas and assess the impact of such a location on the value of the property, taking into account their different purpose and use.

근대건축물의 등록문화재 등록 활성화 방안 연구: 재산권 제한에 대한 보전방안 중심으로

근대건축물의 등록문화재 등록 활성화 방안 연구: 재산권 제한에 대한 보전방안 중심으로

GROUNDS FOR LIMITING PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE APPLICATION OF TEMPORARY SEIZURE OF PROPERTY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

The purpose of the paper is to investigate reasons for the restriction of property rights in the application of temporary seizure of property in criminal proceedings and to determine promising directions for further research on the issues. The issue of measures to ensure criminal proceedings and observance of human and civil rights and freedoms was investigated by a number of domestic scientists, but the degree of investigation of grounds for restricting property rights in the application of temporary seizure of property in criminal proceedings in the context of amendments made to the CPC of Ukraine in recent years remains insufficient. That is why the study of the grounds for limiting property rights in the application of temporary seizure of property in criminal proceedings is now of particular urgency. Methodology. Methodological basis of the research is a set of philosophical, general scientific, special scientific methods. The method of logical-semantic analysis is used to clarify the meaning of multi-valued concepts, the application of the method of system analysis allowed investigating the place of the institute of property rights in legal literature and legislation of Ukraine. The method of grouping and the system and structural approach are used for classifying the distribution, ascertaining the internal structure, and analysing the interconnections between elements of the concept of ownership and the category of property rights restriction. Results. The paper examines the factual and formal legal grounds for limiting the ownership of a suspect, accused, and other persons in the application of temporary seizure of property in a criminal proceeding. The conclusion is drawn on the need to clarify the factual grounds for the temporary seizure of property for cases where such a seizure is carried out by a person who has carried out legal detention in the manner prescribed by Articles 207, 208 of the CPC of Ukraine and is not an investigator, prosecutor, or other authorized official. Practical implications. Proposals regarding the resolution of individual legal conflicts in the current CPC of Ukraine are provided.

Acquisition of agricultural land

The expropriation is a forced deprivation of property in the public interest, and represents a form of restriction of property rights. The core issue of expropriation is a expropriated real estate. In determining fair monetary compensation, it is necessary to fnd criteria which protect both sides and fnd a balance and proportionality between social and individual interests. In the procedure of question of the just monetary compensation to the owner of the determining the compensation for the expropriated property the court has a duty to determine fair monetary compensation so that there is no unjust enrichment of the owners of the real estate and the impoverishment of the user of the expropriated property or vice versa. This paper analyzes the rules by which it is acted upon when there is a need to expropriate and determine a fair monetary compensation that should belong to the owner of the expropriated real estate.