Divided Ownership-Development and Perspectives

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989592%3A15220%2F18%3A73593123" target="_blank" >RIV/61989592:15220/18:73593123 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://obd.upol.cz/id_publ/333173009" target="_blank" >https://obd.upol.cz/id_publ/333173009</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2047/danb-2018-0006" target="_blank" >10.2047/danb-2018-0006</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Divided Ownership-Development and Perspectives

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Divided ownership gives rise to a number of problems. The reintroduction of the superficiessolo cedit principle and the superficiary right of building into the Czech law does not,of course, mean the return of feudal relationships. However, it should be reminded that it disrupts indivisibility (exclusivity, completeness, limitlessness) of ownership, which is traditionally seen as the foundation of ownership right. The authors use primarily comparative and historical methods in their research on this topic. In its today form, we understand divided ownership as a simplification that serves as ideological abstraction for a situation where the owner is subject to a long-termlimitation by a very broad in rem right of another, which is hereditary and alienable. In this context we talk about three approaches to divided ownership in jurisprudence: (a) it does not exist at all; (b) it is limited solely to the feudal era; (c) it is a general term without relation to any specific social situation.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Divided Ownership-Development and Perspectives

Popis výsledku anglicky

Divided ownership gives rise to a number of problems. The reintroduction of the superficiessolo cedit principle and the superficiary right of building into the Czech law does not,of course, mean the return of feudal relationships. However, it should be reminded that it disrupts indivisibility (exclusivity, completeness, limitlessness) of ownership, which is traditionally seen as the foundation of ownership right. The authors use primarily comparative and historical methods in their research on this topic. In its today form, we understand divided ownership as a simplification that serves as ideological abstraction for a situation where the owner is subject to a long-termlimitation by a very broad in rem right of another, which is hereditary and alienable. In this context we talk about three approaches to divided ownership in jurisprudence: (a) it does not exist at all; (b) it is limited solely to the feudal era; (c) it is a general term without relation to any specific social situation.

Druh

J_SC - Článek v periodiku v databázi SCOPUS

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA15-08294S" target="_blank" >GA15-08294S: Dělené vlastnictví a jeho středoevropské konotace a perspektivy</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2018

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Danube

ISSN

1804-6746

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

2018

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

DE - Spolková republika Německo

Počet stran výsledku

17

Strana od-do

81-97

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85115195908