Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/242126 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2018
Quellenangabe: 
[Journal:] DANUBE: Law, Economics and Social Issues Review [ISSN:] 1804-8285 [Volume:] 9 [Issue:] 2 [Publisher:] De Gruyter [Place:] Warsaw [Year:] 2018 [Pages:] 81-95
Verlag: 
De Gruyter, Warsaw
Zusammenfassung: 
Divided ownership gives rise to a number of problems. The reintroduction of the superficies solo 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-term limitation 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.
Schlagwörter: 
Divided Ownership
Superficiary Right to Build
Roman Law
Ownership
Persistent Identifier der Erstveröffentlichung: 
Creative-Commons-Lizenz: 
cc-by-nc-nd Logo
Dokumentart: 
Article

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
175.21 kB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.