Search

Objectives: Possession is one of the reasons for acquiring ownership, and the principle of possession in movable property applies to property owned by others. As for movable property with no owner, it is considered permissible. Once someone takes possession of it, ownership is transferred to them immediately without the need for specific conditions. The Palestinian Civil Law Project explicitly refers to this principle, unlike the Code of Civil Procedure, which did not explicitly mention it but introduced an alternative principle known as the theory of contract invalidity. In addition to the general conditions for possession, such as peaceful possession, clarity, and visibility (i.e., not being hidden), there are specific conditions for the possessor to acquire ownership of the movable property. Methods: The researcher employed the analytical descriptive methodology through describing the legal textx. Results: These conditions include the existence of tangible movable property, the possessor having good intentions, and the possession being based on a valid reason. Conclusions: If these conditions are met, the possessor gains ownership of the movable property according to the law without the need for a specific time period. This rule does not apply to stolen or lost property. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. The article is devoted to the establishment of differential semantic features of the Buryat term ed baraa, presented in the monuments of Old Mongolian writing of the 18th–19th centuries, reflecting the usual legal practice of the Buryats in relation to the totality of things owned by a person. The relevance of the study is due to the interest in the specifics of understanding property relations and the formation of property terms in the Buryat language of that time. Materials and methods. The research material was written sources from the collection “Customary Law of the Khorin Buryats. Monuments of Old Mongolian Writing”, which presents the legislative acts of the Khorin Buryats. The introduction briefly describes the extent to which the problem has been studied and defines the research methodology. Results. Analysis of the texts in which the term under study functions allowed the authors to establish that ed baraa is an invariant term for movable property. Ed baraa serves to designate the totality of household material objects and things in the possession of a person, excluding livestock, in addition, it participates in the implementation of the property rights of the owner in relation to material goods belonging to him. Based on the internal form of the word, ed baraa is a paired word, formed by adding two independent words with a coordinating connection, and having an abstract meaning. The abstractness and collective meaning of the term becomes possible as a result of summing up the meaning of the words and its components, where ed delegates the sign of a relatively large property quantity and represents a characteristic of the components in abstraction from specific signs. Baraa, as a nominee of the nuclear component, carries the attribute ‘small property, household items, belongings’. The internal form of the word contains a key feature of the plurality of goods, which is considered as property. This term implies the semantics that this property can be the subject of purchase and sale; there is an indication of the acquisition of property, since it was a product of labor produced for sale, in order to exchange for other products of labor or money.

Copyright of Journal of Soochow University Philosophy & Social Sciences Edition is the property of Soochow University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Selcuk Law Review / Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Selcuk Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

When a lien is established by entry in a specific public register (registry), it is a registered lien – a mortgage. According to the method of establishment, the right of lien, which is established by entry in the public register (registry), is called a mortgage. In modern real law insurance systems, an important place is occupied by lien law insurance, which allows the creditor, upon maturity of the claim, if it is not settled, to be settled from the value of the pledged thing, regardless of whether the thing at the time of settlement is owned by the pledge debtor or not. In this sense, the arrangement of lien insurance on things that are restricted in circulation for social, political and security reasons is particularly important. Thus, for weapons, a special regulation has determined the regime of legal circulation characterized by various restrictions, approvals and records of possession and ownership. Possession of weapons in the Republic of Croatia is governed by the Act on the Acquisition and Possession of Weapons by Citizens. However, the assumptions, effects and procedure for registration of a registered lien on weapons as movable property are governed by the Act on the Register of Court and Public Notary Security of Claims on Movable Property and Rights. In this regard, there are various registers in which different actual rights to weapons are registered, and which are kept by different state bodies. The paper analyses the actual legal significance (declaratory and constitutive) of the registration of weapons in various registers, the procedure and legal consequences of the registration. Open issues of establishment and transfer of lien rights, satisfaction of the lien creditor, right to possession and use of weapons as pledge are highlighted. The adequacy of the existing types of entries in the Register of Court and Public-Notary Security of Claims on Movable Property and Rights is analysed. The paper offers to provide guidelines and possible solutions for the regulation of these issues de lege ferenda that would meet the general, political and legal interests, as well as interests in private law of real rights holders on weapons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Srpska Pravna Misao is the property of University Banja Luka, Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The problem of the correlation of the concept of «property» (or «private property») with the situation in Russia in the pre-reform period is insufficiently studied in historiography. There is no definite opinion about the time of the appearance of this concept in the socio-political life of the Russian Empire, about what was considered movable and immovable property (especially in the countryside) then, especially since about the middle of the XVIII century, how the owner (landowner) peasantry was perceived in legislation and in practice in this context – as movable or immovable property of landowners-nobles, whether the owner peasants themselves at that time had rights to movable or immovable property. To study the problem, the author draws on numerous materials of noble projects for solving the peasant question, published by him in a number of collections of documents, as well as data on legislation, memoirs, etc. At the same time, only a part of them is directly used in the study itself. The materials of pre-revolutionary, Soviet and modern Russian historiography, as well as some studies of foreign historians related to this issue, are drawn. As a result of the analysis of sources, literature and materials of his own research, the author first raises questions, offering in some cases certain intermediate solutions, drawing attention to the need for historians to develop a certain consensus on the use of certain concepts in this context, since the materials of legislation and its implementation in the practical life of the prereform time allow for different interpretations. The work is in a certain sense a continuation of the author's research on the main components of serfdom in Russia in the last 1.5 centuries before the peasant reform of 1861.

The doctrine of renvoi is rightly described as "a subject loved by academics, hated by students and ignored (when noticed) by practising lawyers (including judges)". This article argues that the students have much the better of the argument. English commercial law has rightly rejected renvoi as a general rule, because it multiplies the expense and complexity of proceedings, while doing little to deter forum-shopping and enable enforcement. It should go even further to reject renvoi in questions of immovable property, because the special justification that this enables enforcement of English judgments against foreign land ignores the fact that title or possession of such land is generally not justiciable in English courts and such judgments will not be enforced irrespective of whether renvoi is applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Czech Journal of Historical Heritage Preservation / Zpravy Pamatkove Pece is the property of Narodni Pamatkovy Ustav and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Istanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Istanbul Medipol University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Civil Code grants in favor of the lienor a special privilege which becomes an accessory to the refusal of handovering the good as the main prerogative conferred by the lien. Although the cause of preference is not an result of the lien, its regulation demonstrates the will of the legislator to open for the lienor a way to capitalize on the seized property. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many people do not own immovable property to offer as security but do have movable property which can be offered as security for the repayment of a debt. In today's world, where the costs of a motor car can exceed that of a house, the increasing value of movable things makes them popular and appropriate security objects. Under the common law pledge, delivery of the movable property from the pledgor (the debtor) to the pledgee (the creditor) has to take place in order for the pledgee to acquire a real security right in the property. Delivery of the property is aimed at ensuring compliance with the publicity principle. The principle of publicity entails that the existence of a real security must be known to the public. With the aim of promoting commerce, certain countries have taken the initiative in reforming their laws on pledge to allow the debtor to retain possession of the movable property that serves as security. Furthermore, technology has advanced to a level where national registration systems which can be accessed easily and at minimal cost can be established. The South African legislature enacted the Security by Means of Movable Property Act 57 of 1993 which makes provision for a pledge without possession. This Act deemed a duly registered notarial bond over specified movable property to have been delivered as if delivery had in fact taken place, thereby substituting the common law delivery requirement with registration in the Deeds Office. On 30 May 2013 the Belgian House of Representatives adopted a Belgian Pledge Act which allows for a non-possessory pledge on movable property subject to registration in a newly created public register called the Electronic Pledge Register. This article therefore examines the efficacy of the registration system of special notarial bonds in South African law and whether this form of registration complies with the publicity principle looking at the developments of a computerised registration system taking place in Belgium.

Using the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, Roes and Raymond (2003) find that large societies are more likely to be located in resource-rich environments, engage in warfare, and hold beliefs in gods actively supporting human morality (“moralizing gods”). We revisit the Roes and Raymond study, using the methods presented in a series of papers by Dow and Eff. Our findings suggest that moralizing gods are less likely to be found in resource-rich environments or amongst societies frequently engaged in external warfare. We find that cultural transmission over geographic space is the most significant force in conditioning belief in moralizing gods; that moralizing gods are more likely to be found in pastoral societies; and that the relationship between society size and moralizing gods is non-linear, with both very large and very small societies less likely to have moralizing gods. We explain this non-linearity by arguing that the functions of moralizing gods can also be performed by the state, and we also argue that moralizing gods play an important role in stabilizing property rights.

The economic development of some East Asian states generates interest for the key features of East Asian national legislation when applying their experience in the law-making activities of the other states. One of these key features can be represented by a special model of cross-border property relations regulation concerning movables that tend to have a considerable influence on transnational business interaction. The aim of the article is to look over the patterns of European and Asian regulatory models of cross-border movable property relations and to compare their ability to induce cross-border economic cooperation. This article examines the opportunity to adopt the successful experience of legal regulation in this sphere and also highlights some of the differences that may inhibit business interaction between entrepreneurs from European and East Asian countries.

The paper indicates instruments of possession protection as well as description of their distinctive or dependent character. The differences between an owner-like and a subsidiary owner have been defined. Self-help nature was shown as an operating tool without authorities' approval. A time relationship nature was described, which must occur between threat and action. Moreover, a variety of rights concerning real property and movable property was mentioned. Also a distinction between self-help and selfdefence was indicated. The development of self-help in Poland was described, as well as its progress from ancient times. Additionally, self-help was defined and its publication in provisions of Civil Code. Persons authorised to possession protection, were mentioned, including a term of owner, co-owner, holder, and a holder of precarium. The paper also describes premises concerning infringement of movable property and real property possession, as well as immediacy. Also a legal nature of an aggressor and a person entitled to protection was discussed.

Copyright of Imafronte. Revista de Historia del Arte is the property of Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Culturas: Revista de Gestion Cultural is the property of Universidad Politecnica de Valencia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper analyzes historical development of non–possessory security rights in movable property. Today in the world there is plurality and wide distribution of forms of non–possessory security in movables. This short overview, of the historical development of non–possessory security in movables, tries to determine the historical conditioning of various national regimes of this kind of security rights. It is necessary to try to reduce a wide array of non–possessory security in movables to a few basic models. Such models could help to detect common denominators which would be an “intellectual key” for understanding past developments, present diversities and possibly even to forecast future trends and the necessary harmonization or unification.

The article deals with the problem of using the Institute of purchase on limitation period as the basis of the right of ownership to movable property. This legal right is considered by the example of the Civil code of Ukraine. The author defines the basic elements of the content of this right, the legal grounds for its occurrence. Also identify gaps Ukrainian civil legislation, the Colosseum rules of the institution, proposed solutions to the contradictions that arise in the legal regulation of this elementa property relations.

Many people do not own immovable property to offer as security but do have movable property which can be offered as security for the repayment of a debt. In today's world, where the costs of a motor car can exceed that of a house, the increasing value of movable things makes them popular and appropriate security objects. Under the common law pledge, delivery of the movable property from the pledgor (the debtor) to the pledgee (the creditor) has to take place in order for the pledgee to acquire a real security right in the property. Delivery of the property is aimed at ensuring compliance with the publicity principle. The principle of publicity entails that the existence of a real security must be known to the public. With the aim of promoting commerce, certain countries have taken the initiative in reforming their laws on pledge to allow the debtor to retain possession of the movable property that serves as security. Furthermore, technology has advanced to a level where national registration systems which can be accessed easily and at minimal cost can be established. The South African legislature enacted the Security by Means of Movable Property Act 57 of 1993 which makes provision for a pledge without possession. This Act deemed a duly registered notarial bond over specified movable property to have been delivered as if delivery had in fact taken place, thereby substituting the common law delivery requirement with registration in the Deeds Office. On 30 May 2013 the Belgian House of Representatives adopted a Belgian Pledge Act which allows for a non-possessory pledge on movable property subject to registration in a newly created public register called the Electronic Pledge Register. This article therefore examines the efficacy of the registration system of special notarial bonds in South African law and whether this form of registration complies with the publicity principle looking at the developments of a computerised registration system taking place in Belgium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, an increase in flood damage has been observed; therefore, the assessment of potential damage is becoming more important. Estimation of potential flood damage can be achieved with various existing models. However, their transferability is questionable and the actual availability of input data is often limited. To overcome these shortcomings, a new model has been developed to effectively estimate flood damage in Croatia. The proposed model uses only publicly available data such as the CORINE data set and information from censuses. The model was developed in an open source Geographic Information System programme. Validation of the model's performance was performed using data from the extreme May 2014 flood that occurred in the Balkan Peninsula. Furthermore, the model has already been used in practice and has proven to be user‐friendly due to the minimum input required from open source data, allowing for insights to be gained from data updates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper indicates instruments of possession protection as well as description of their distinctive or dependent character. The differences between an owner-like and a subsidiary owner have been defined. Self-help nature was shown as an operating tool without authorities' approval. A time relationship nature was described, which must occur between threat and action. Moreover, a variety of rights concerning real property and movable property was mentioned. Also a distinction between self-help and selfdefence was indicated. The development of self-help in Poland was described, as well as its progress from ancient times. Additionally, self-help was defined and its publication in provisions of Civil Code. Persons authorised to possession protection, were mentioned, including a term of owner, co-owner, holder, and a holder of precarium. The paper also describes premises concerning infringement of movable property and real property possession, as well as immediacy. Also a legal nature of an aggressor and a person entitled to protection was discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If until 1989, trading goods through consignment agreement was rarely used, the structural changes in the economy have imposed a broad application of the agreement in trade in post-revolutionary period. The consignment agreement has the following legal characteristics: main agreement, synallagmatic, for good and valuable consideration, intuitu personae, commutative, consensual, with no transfer of property and it is a named agreement. The conclusion of this agreement gives rise to obligations on the consignor and consignee. On the other hand, the execution of the consignment agreement gives rise to legal effects in relations between the consignee and third parties (buyers). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper indicates instruments of possession protection as well as description of their distinctive or dependent character. The differences between an owner-like and a subsidiary owner have been defined. Self-help nature was shown as an operating tool without authorities' approval. A time relationship nature was described, which must occur between threat and action. Moreover, a variety of rights concerning real property and movable property was mentioned. Also a distinction between self-help and selfdefence was indicated. The development of self-help in Poland was described, as well as its progress from ancient times. Additionally, self-help was defined and its publication in provisions of Civil Code. Persons authorised to possession protection, were mentioned, including a term of owner, co-owner, holder, and a holder of precarium. The paper also describes premises concerning infringement of movable property and real property possession, as well as immediacy. Also a legal nature of an aggressor and a person entitled to protection was discussed.

The linguistic interpretation of verbal phrase (included in art. 284 § 1 of Polish Penal code): appropriating of property rights, can lead as to conclusion that polish legislator was tending to penalise the behaviour consisting in appropriating of right to immovable – for example: the ownership, perpetual usufruct and others stipulated by the polish law. However, that interpretation can fail on the ground of requirement of indicate the criminal consequence of an offence as well as the exercising a factual control toward a property right to immovable. Therefore this article shows the differences between the meanings of words movable property and property right, conducted from the scope of civil and criminal substantive norms. Namely this issue needs to emphasize the impossibility of exercising a factual control toward property right in the same way toward movable property. Preferably would be define it as a “the circumstance of possibility to exercise the property right”. It deals with overleaping between the scope of penal-law’s meanings for terms: property right, movable property, document. With the regard to the requirement of indicate criminal consequence issue, must be underline existing obstacles in proving the changes to the detriment of victim in the same way it is caused in the scope of appropriating of movable property. Especially worth mentioning is lack of civil law consequence involving the transfer of property right to immovable thing, duo to improper contract (negotium claudicans). Ipso facto it is presumption to refuse the occurrence real property damage or circumstance creating real danger of that damage.