需要更新和无意识财产

Q4 Social Sciences
Hano Ernst
{"title":"需要更新和无意识财产","authors":"Hano Ernst","doi":"10.3935/zpfz.72.12.15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 2020 earthquakes that struck the City of Zagreb and the areas of Sisačko-moslavačka, Karlovačka, Zagrebačka and Krapinsko-zagorska counties have resulted in damages of approximately 17 billion euro that must be repaired as quickly as possible. The Reconstruction Act envisages various forms of reconstruction the execution of which is dependent on an accurate and complete state of title, irrespective of whether such reconstruction is financed by public or private funds. The current state of the land register presents itself as inadequate, essentially jeopardizing reconstruction, for numerous reasons. The incongruence between the land register and the land cadaster makes it impossible to accurately publish property rights over land because the land registration system is dependent on current cadastral data. Land registration renewal proceedings, in progress today, are belated by decades, making them so much more complex due to continuing urban development and legal transactions that were remained uninterrupted by a dated land record. The socialist era in property law has during its various stages led to quick unrecorded mass transfers in the form of socializing land and creating new property rights over socially owned land that were only partially recorded in the land register, both due to inactivity of the governent and due to proactive measures of preventing registrations under spatial planning, building, and tax regulation that all unnecessarily involved the land register in the system of monitoring the application of public law. In the transitional period characterized by the transformation of social ownership and restitution property law changes were also unrecorded, occurring by way of a myriad of complicated and segmented provisions, while processes that would have resulted in an “orderly“ state of land records, such as expunging social ownership and the unification of land records, determining co-ownership shares for condominiums, linking land registers and deed registers, and renewing land registers, were absent or slow-paced. Concurrently, unrecorded transfers and universal successions were present during this entire period, causing multiple transfers and making it more difficult to determine an unbroken legal chain in transferring ownership. The starting point of the amended Reconstruction Act—that public financing is the answer to existing clouded title—is incorrect because co-owner participation is necessary for deciding to proceed with reconstruction, for initiating requisite proceedings, and for participating in the reconstruction by concluding and satisfying construction or reconstruction contracts. Even though the Reconstruction Act facilitated decision-making in co-ownership by modifying the requisite majority, the fundamental question of who participates in the majority or minority has remained open, and insufficient thought has been given to the position of other property right holders. This problem also reflects itself on the procedural pane in terms of determining the eligibility of the filing party i.e., its procedural role as party to the proceedings. Even though a determination of ownership is available under the provisions on preliminary issues, in most cases it will not result with a solution due to the incongruence of the land register and the land cadaster, and particularly not in case of unrecorded transactions. Similar problems may arise in litigation and in special correction proceedings, especially in complex cases where unrecorded transfers coincide with universal successions. Land registration renewal, carried out sua sponte, presents itself as the only systemic solution that can bring about reasonably final results grounded in an equitable finding of the court. Even though this solution is not ideal, itself being prone to certain ambiguities and objections, it is currently the only available legal tool for resolving clouded title cases en masse. Alternative legal models grounded in deviations from the principle of public faith of registration have demonstrated a limited application and problems of borderline constitutionality, while models grounded in sequestration are insufficiently developed.","PeriodicalId":34908,"journal":{"name":"Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Potresna obnova i neizvjesno vlasništvo\",\"authors\":\"Hano Ernst\",\"doi\":\"10.3935/zpfz.72.12.15\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The 2020 earthquakes that struck the City of Zagreb and the areas of Sisačko-moslavačka, Karlovačka, Zagrebačka and Krapinsko-zagorska counties have resulted in damages of approximately 17 billion euro that must be repaired as quickly as possible. The Reconstruction Act envisages various forms of reconstruction the execution of which is dependent on an accurate and complete state of title, irrespective of whether such reconstruction is financed by public or private funds. The current state of the land register presents itself as inadequate, essentially jeopardizing reconstruction, for numerous reasons. The incongruence between the land register and the land cadaster makes it impossible to accurately publish property rights over land because the land registration system is dependent on current cadastral data. Land registration renewal proceedings, in progress today, are belated by decades, making them so much more complex due to continuing urban development and legal transactions that were remained uninterrupted by a dated land record. The socialist era in property law has during its various stages led to quick unrecorded mass transfers in the form of socializing land and creating new property rights over socially owned land that were only partially recorded in the land register, both due to inactivity of the governent and due to proactive measures of preventing registrations under spatial planning, building, and tax regulation that all unnecessarily involved the land register in the system of monitoring the application of public law. In the transitional period characterized by the transformation of social ownership and restitution property law changes were also unrecorded, occurring by way of a myriad of complicated and segmented provisions, while processes that would have resulted in an “orderly“ state of land records, such as expunging social ownership and the unification of land records, determining co-ownership shares for condominiums, linking land registers and deed registers, and renewing land registers, were absent or slow-paced. Concurrently, unrecorded transfers and universal successions were present during this entire period, causing multiple transfers and making it more difficult to determine an unbroken legal chain in transferring ownership. The starting point of the amended Reconstruction Act—that public financing is the answer to existing clouded title—is incorrect because co-owner participation is necessary for deciding to proceed with reconstruction, for initiating requisite proceedings, and for participating in the reconstruction by concluding and satisfying construction or reconstruction contracts. Even though the Reconstruction Act facilitated decision-making in co-ownership by modifying the requisite majority, the fundamental question of who participates in the majority or minority has remained open, and insufficient thought has been given to the position of other property right holders. This problem also reflects itself on the procedural pane in terms of determining the eligibility of the filing party i.e., its procedural role as party to the proceedings. Even though a determination of ownership is available under the provisions on preliminary issues, in most cases it will not result with a solution due to the incongruence of the land register and the land cadaster, and particularly not in case of unrecorded transactions. Similar problems may arise in litigation and in special correction proceedings, especially in complex cases where unrecorded transfers coincide with universal successions. Land registration renewal, carried out sua sponte, presents itself as the only systemic solution that can bring about reasonably final results grounded in an equitable finding of the court. Even though this solution is not ideal, itself being prone to certain ambiguities and objections, it is currently the only available legal tool for resolving clouded title cases en masse. Alternative legal models grounded in deviations from the principle of public faith of registration have demonstrated a limited application and problems of borderline constitutionality, while models grounded in sequestration are insufficiently developed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34908,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3935/zpfz.72.12.15\",\"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":"Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3935/zpfz.72.12.15","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: 1

摘要

2020年发生在萨格勒布市和西萨科-莫斯拉夫a卡、卡尔洛瓦卡、萨格勒巴卡和克拉平斯科-扎戈尔斯卡县的地震造成了大约170亿欧元的损失,必须尽快修复。《重建法》设想了各种形式的重建,其执行取决于准确和完整的所有权状况,无论这种重建是由公共资金还是私人资金提供资金。由于许多原因,土地登记的现状显示其不足,基本上危及重建。由于土地登记制度依赖于现行地籍数据,因此土地登记簿与土地地籍之间的不一致使土地产权无法准确公布。目前正在进行的土地注册续期程序迟了几十年,由于持续的城市发展和法律交易仍然受到过期土地记录的影响,使其变得更加复杂。物权法的社会主义时代在其各个阶段导致了以社会化土地的形式迅速进行的未记录的大量转让,并在社会所有的土地上创造了新的产权,这些土地只有部分记录在土地登记册中,这既是由于政府的不作为,也是由于防止在空间规划,建筑,而税收监管认为都不必要地涉及到土地登记制度对公法适用的监督。在以社会所有权转变和归还财产为特征的过渡时期,财产法的变化也没有记录下来,是通过无数复杂和分段的规定发生的,而可能导致土地记录“有序”状态的过程,例如取消社会所有权和统一土地记录,确定共管公寓的共同所有权份额,将土地登记册和契约登记册联系起来,以及更新土地登记册。缺席或节奏缓慢。同时,在整个期间存在未记录的转让和普遍继承,造成多次转让,使确定转让所有权的完整法律链更加困难。修订后的《重建法》的出发点——公共融资是对现有模糊所有权的解决方案——是不正确的,因为共同所有人的参与对于决定继续进行重建、启动必要的诉讼程序以及通过签订和履行建设或重建合同参与重建是必要的。尽管《重建法》通过修改必要的多数来促进共同所有权的决策,但谁参与多数或少数的根本问题仍然没有解决,对其他产权持有人的立场考虑不足。这一问题也反映在程序方面,即确定提交方的资格,即其作为诉讼当事人的程序性作用。尽管根据关于初步问题的规定可以确定所有权,但在大多数情况下,由于土地登记册和土地地籍簿不一致,特别是在没有记录的交易情况下,这种情况不会得到解决。在诉讼和特别纠正程序中,特别是在没有记录的转让与普遍继承同时发生的复杂案件中,也可能出现类似的问题。以自主方式进行的土地注册续期,是唯一能在法院作出公平裁决的基础上,带来合理的最终结果的系统解决办法。尽管这种解决方案并不理想,本身就容易产生某些模糊性和异议,但它是目前解决大量模糊所有权案件的唯一可用法律工具。以背离登记的公共信仰原则为基础的其他法律模式显示出有限的适用和边缘性合宪性问题,而以封存为基础的模式则发展不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Potresna obnova i neizvjesno vlasništvo
The 2020 earthquakes that struck the City of Zagreb and the areas of Sisačko-moslavačka, Karlovačka, Zagrebačka and Krapinsko-zagorska counties have resulted in damages of approximately 17 billion euro that must be repaired as quickly as possible. The Reconstruction Act envisages various forms of reconstruction the execution of which is dependent on an accurate and complete state of title, irrespective of whether such reconstruction is financed by public or private funds. The current state of the land register presents itself as inadequate, essentially jeopardizing reconstruction, for numerous reasons. The incongruence between the land register and the land cadaster makes it impossible to accurately publish property rights over land because the land registration system is dependent on current cadastral data. Land registration renewal proceedings, in progress today, are belated by decades, making them so much more complex due to continuing urban development and legal transactions that were remained uninterrupted by a dated land record. The socialist era in property law has during its various stages led to quick unrecorded mass transfers in the form of socializing land and creating new property rights over socially owned land that were only partially recorded in the land register, both due to inactivity of the governent and due to proactive measures of preventing registrations under spatial planning, building, and tax regulation that all unnecessarily involved the land register in the system of monitoring the application of public law. In the transitional period characterized by the transformation of social ownership and restitution property law changes were also unrecorded, occurring by way of a myriad of complicated and segmented provisions, while processes that would have resulted in an “orderly“ state of land records, such as expunging social ownership and the unification of land records, determining co-ownership shares for condominiums, linking land registers and deed registers, and renewing land registers, were absent or slow-paced. Concurrently, unrecorded transfers and universal successions were present during this entire period, causing multiple transfers and making it more difficult to determine an unbroken legal chain in transferring ownership. The starting point of the amended Reconstruction Act—that public financing is the answer to existing clouded title—is incorrect because co-owner participation is necessary for deciding to proceed with reconstruction, for initiating requisite proceedings, and for participating in the reconstruction by concluding and satisfying construction or reconstruction contracts. Even though the Reconstruction Act facilitated decision-making in co-ownership by modifying the requisite majority, the fundamental question of who participates in the majority or minority has remained open, and insufficient thought has been given to the position of other property right holders. This problem also reflects itself on the procedural pane in terms of determining the eligibility of the filing party i.e., its procedural role as party to the proceedings. Even though a determination of ownership is available under the provisions on preliminary issues, in most cases it will not result with a solution due to the incongruence of the land register and the land cadaster, and particularly not in case of unrecorded transactions. Similar problems may arise in litigation and in special correction proceedings, especially in complex cases where unrecorded transfers coincide with universal successions. Land registration renewal, carried out sua sponte, presents itself as the only systemic solution that can bring about reasonably final results grounded in an equitable finding of the court. Even though this solution is not ideal, itself being prone to certain ambiguities and objections, it is currently the only available legal tool for resolving clouded title cases en masse. Alternative legal models grounded in deviations from the principle of public faith of registration have demonstrated a limited application and problems of borderline constitutionality, while models grounded in sequestration are insufficiently developed.
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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