以公共法律的力量,寻求公证裁判发表公诉的权利

Q4 Social Sciences
Verwaltung Pub Date : 2019-10-01 DOI:10.3790/verw.52.4.529
A. Janssen
{"title":"以公共法律的力量,寻求公证裁判发表公诉的权利","authors":"A. Janssen","doi":"10.3790/verw.52.4.529","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In case the civil claim for return doesn’t help the public archive to recover dispossessed public archive material, it’s in question if the archive versus the material’s possessor has got a public-law claim for return by virtue of the public law of things. That’s generally not the case, contrary to a now as ever held opinion: If the archive - precisely: the public subject of the archive - has lost not only the possession but also the property right of the archive material, the archive is able to realize the recovery of the archive material neither by administrative action nor by action for performance through the administrative court. The same applies in case the archive hasn‘t lost its property right of the archive material but isn‘t able to realize the civil claim for return because of its statutory limitation. Here, too, a public-law request for return based only on the presumed public law of things is unsuccessful.\nSomething different applies to the Free State of Saxony and the Free State of Thuringia: Recently the state legislator has conceded a public-law claim for return to the public archives versus the possessor of dispossessed public archive material - a novelty in the entire public law of things. However, because of the constitutional property guarantee (Article 14, section 1 of the German Basic Law) the relevant state law (Section 8, paragraph 2, sentence 3 Saxon Archives Act; Section 2, paragraph 1, sentence 4 Thuringian Archives Act) has to be interpreted in conformity with the constitution: The state law grants the archives a public-law claim for return which is cognizable by action for performance through the administrative court. But only, although at least, versus the archive material’s possessor who isn’t the material’s proprietor.\nThis applies mutatis mutandis to other (i. e. non-archival) public things. In so far, however, because of the property guarantee (Article 14, section 1 of the German Basic Law) legislative amendments can be taken into consideration at most and only concerning unique specimens which are irreplaceable for public purposes: cultural assets with a unique character.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Zum Anspruch öffentlicher Sachherrn auf Herausgabe entzogener öffentlicher Sachen kraft öffentlichen Sachenrechts\",\"authors\":\"A. Janssen\",\"doi\":\"10.3790/verw.52.4.529\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In case the civil claim for return doesn’t help the public archive to recover dispossessed public archive material, it’s in question if the archive versus the material’s possessor has got a public-law claim for return by virtue of the public law of things. That’s generally not the case, contrary to a now as ever held opinion: If the archive - precisely: the public subject of the archive - has lost not only the possession but also the property right of the archive material, the archive is able to realize the recovery of the archive material neither by administrative action nor by action for performance through the administrative court. The same applies in case the archive hasn‘t lost its property right of the archive material but isn‘t able to realize the civil claim for return because of its statutory limitation. Here, too, a public-law request for return based only on the presumed public law of things is unsuccessful.\\nSomething different applies to the Free State of Saxony and the Free State of Thuringia: Recently the state legislator has conceded a public-law claim for return to the public archives versus the possessor of dispossessed public archive material - a novelty in the entire public law of things. However, because of the constitutional property guarantee (Article 14, section 1 of the German Basic Law) the relevant state law (Section 8, paragraph 2, sentence 3 Saxon Archives Act; Section 2, paragraph 1, sentence 4 Thuringian Archives Act) has to be interpreted in conformity with the constitution: The state law grants the archives a public-law claim for return which is cognizable by action for performance through the administrative court. But only, although at least, versus the archive material’s possessor who isn’t the material’s proprietor.\\nThis applies mutatis mutandis to other (i. e. non-archival) public things. In so far, however, because of the property guarantee (Article 14, section 1 of the German Basic Law) legislative amendments can be taken into consideration at most and only concerning unique specimens which are irreplaceable for public purposes: cultural assets with a unique character.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36848,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Verwaltung\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Verwaltung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.52.4.529\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Verwaltung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.52.4.529","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如果民事归还请求无助于公共档案馆收回被剥夺的公共档案材料,那么档案馆与材料所有者之间是否根据公法获得了公法归还请求,这是有问题的。通常情况并非如此,这与现在的观点相反:如果档案馆——确切地说,档案馆的公共主体——不仅失去了对档案材料的占有权,而且失去了对其财产权,那么档案馆既可以通过行政诉讼也可以通过行政法院的履行诉讼来实现对档案材料。档案馆未丧失档案材料的产权,但因其法定时效而无法实现民事返还的,也同样适用。在这里,仅仅基于假定的公法的公法要求归还也是不成功的。萨克森自由州和图林根自由州的情况有所不同:最近,该州立法者承认了一项公法要求归还公共档案的主张,而不是被剥夺的公共档案材料的拥有者,这在整个公法中是一个新颖的东西。然而由于宪法财产保障(《德国基本法》第14条第1款),相关的州法律(《萨克森档案法》第8条第2款第3句;《图林根档案法》(Thuringian Archives Act)第2节第1款第4句)必须根据宪法进行解释:州法律授予档案归还的公法请求权,该请求权可通过诉讼予以承认通过行政法庭履行。但只是,尽管至少,与档案材料的所有者相比,后者不是材料的所有者。这在必要的修改后适用于其他(即。 e.非档案)公共物品。然而,到目前为止,由于财产保障(德国基本法第14条第1节),立法修正案最多只能考虑到对公共目的不可替代的独特标本:具有独特特征的文化资产。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Zum Anspruch öffentlicher Sachherrn auf Herausgabe entzogener öffentlicher Sachen kraft öffentlichen Sachenrechts
In case the civil claim for return doesn’t help the public archive to recover dispossessed public archive material, it’s in question if the archive versus the material’s possessor has got a public-law claim for return by virtue of the public law of things. That’s generally not the case, contrary to a now as ever held opinion: If the archive - precisely: the public subject of the archive - has lost not only the possession but also the property right of the archive material, the archive is able to realize the recovery of the archive material neither by administrative action nor by action for performance through the administrative court. The same applies in case the archive hasn‘t lost its property right of the archive material but isn‘t able to realize the civil claim for return because of its statutory limitation. Here, too, a public-law request for return based only on the presumed public law of things is unsuccessful. Something different applies to the Free State of Saxony and the Free State of Thuringia: Recently the state legislator has conceded a public-law claim for return to the public archives versus the possessor of dispossessed public archive material - a novelty in the entire public law of things. However, because of the constitutional property guarantee (Article 14, section 1 of the German Basic Law) the relevant state law (Section 8, paragraph 2, sentence 3 Saxon Archives Act; Section 2, paragraph 1, sentence 4 Thuringian Archives Act) has to be interpreted in conformity with the constitution: The state law grants the archives a public-law claim for return which is cognizable by action for performance through the administrative court. But only, although at least, versus the archive material’s possessor who isn’t the material’s proprietor. This applies mutatis mutandis to other (i. e. non-archival) public things. In so far, however, because of the property guarantee (Article 14, section 1 of the German Basic Law) legislative amendments can be taken into consideration at most and only concerning unique specimens which are irreplaceable for public purposes: cultural assets with a unique character.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Verwaltung
Verwaltung Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信