Search

The French Reformed church of Maastricht, founded in 1632 following the Dutch takeover of the city, was a geographically isolated institution within the Dutch Republic. This isolation was reinforced by the city's unique status, which allowed the public exercise of Catholicism. Within this context, and situated next to the hostile Principality of Liège, the French church had to develop survival strategies and establish relations not only with the States-General and the Walloon synod, but also with the urban authorities and the Dutch Reformed church, in order to withstand the influence of Catholicism. Yet even though Maastricht was on the confessional and military front line—a place of passage for merchants, refugees, and Catholic clergymen—the French Protestant community survived the French occupation of 1673–1678 and managed to absorb the massive influx of Huguenot refugees from 1686 onwards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The condominium regimes in selected civil law jurisdictions are investigated. • The allotment of co-ownership shares in the selected condominium regimes is compared. • Use of different criteria for different functions of the co-ownership share is proposed. • A transparent and participatory approach is emphasized for the allotment of co-ownership shares. Condominium is a special and relatively new type of property right emerged in the last century to be a remedy for the management problems in multi-unit buildings. There are many types of condominium regimes, as described in EUI (2005) , UNECE (2005) and van der Merwe (2016). The common elements include: (a) Individual right to an apartment, (b) co-ownership (joint ownership) of the common property or the whole property, and (c) membership of an incorporated or unincorporated owners' association (van der Merwe, 2015, p. 5). The ownership shares in the common property are here referred to as co-ownership shares; yet, alternative terms include ownership fraction, condominium share, participation quota, share value, and unit entitlement. Generally, these shares will determine the proportional contribution to the common expenses and the share of common profits, as well as the voting power of each condominium unit owner in the administration of the condominium. The most common approaches to the determination of the co-ownership shares are based on equality, relative size or relative value of each condominium unit, or a combination of such (van der Merwe, 1994, p. 57–58). The literature presents detailed descriptions and comparative analysis related to condominium systems in different jurisdictions (e.g. van der Merwe, 2015; 2016; Paulsson, 2007; EUI, 2005; UNECE, 2005); however, the procedural aspects related to the allotment of co-ownership shares still need to be further investigated. This article aims to describe condominium systems in the Netherlands, Sweden and Turkey, and compare legal provisions and procedures related to the allotment of co-ownership shares in these jurisdictions. The main purpose is to clarify the methodologies behind the determination of the co-ownership shares in national systems to bring new insights to countries, which are trying to revise their national provisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]