Lecture 2

 —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — —

Sup­port trans­la­tion: http://amzn.to/1Z7d5oc
 — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — —
Lec­ture 2

The Con­cept of the Right of Own­er­ship Art­icles 320 – 327
The tra­di­tion­al notion of own­er­ship has been that the own­er has the abso­lute and uncon­trolled right over the object owned provided that no use of the thing owned is done which is con­trary to the law. There­fore the char­ac­ter of own­er­ship wheth­er it was of mov­able or immov­able prop­er­ty was the right to enjoy and the right to dis­pose of the thing.
Such right was tra­di­tion­ally exer­cised in the most abso­lute man­ner. It also meant that the own­er was entitled to aban­don the thing and there exists in civil law, what is known as acquis­ited pre­scrip­tion which means that if a per­son pos­sesses an object for a peri­od of time as required by law, the own­er­ship of such thing will be acquired there­fore if an own­er aban­dons a thing he owns and the pos­ses­sion of such thing is taken over by someone else, then such third party may after the lapse of a peri­od of time acquire own­er­ship instead of the ori­gin­al own­er.
The tra­di­tion­al know­ledge of own­er­ship tra­di­tion­ally had the char­ac­ter of per­petu­ity
(not lim­ited by time). How­ever of recent years, there have been very sig­ni­fic­ant
lim­it­a­tions on this abso­lute con­cept of own­er­ship.
Today it is acknow­ledged that own­er­ship has also it’s social dimen­sion.







Social con­cept rel­ev­ant in the right of own­er­ship
Today there is what is known as the con­cept of prop­er use and abuse of one’s rights. There is also the con­cept of good neigh­bour­li­ness. The dif­fi­culty in prac­tice arises on how to determ­ine the extent of incon­veni­ence that is to be suffered by the neigh­bours due to the devel­op­ment or exer­cise of the right of own­er­ship. It is clear today that the own­er has to show that he is deriv­ing a tan­gible bene­fit from the use of the prop­er­ty there­fore a devel­op­ment that is capri­cious (it is done simply for sake of it without bene­fit being derived from it) or simply to spy the neigh­bours is not accep­ted. The own­er must also use sim­il­ar pre­cau­tions to min­im­ize the incon­veni­ence caused to the neigh­bours.
Plan­ning and Envir­on­ment legis­la­tion
Areas are today’s zones and also there is an import­ant and valu­able lim­it­a­tion that use is reg­u­lated by the author­it­ies. E.g. you can­not make a gar­age a shop without approval.
Finally today we accept that dif­fer­ent forms of own­er­ship exist from the time point of view refer­ring to time-shared legis­la­tion which allows you own­er­ship for E.g. 2 weeks a year for 30 years of a yacht.
Expro­pri­ation
This means that land or immov­able prop­er­ty or build­ings may be acquired by the gov­ern­ment for a pub­lic pur­pose and again­st pay­ment for com­pens­a­tion. The prob­lem with the extent of com­pens­a­tion is that the cri­ter­ia do not always match mar­ket value of prop­er­ty. There is always con­tro­ver­sy and lit­ig­a­tion on the amount of com­pens­a­tion awar­ded. Inher­ent in the right or own­er­ship is the right of the own­er to recov­er the object from any pos­sessor. Of course in sim­il­ar situ­ations, the own­er will have to prove abso­lute title and the civil law reg­u­lates in detail how title to prop­er­ty is acquired.
The own­er­ship of an immov­able car­ries with it, own­er­ship of the space above and below includ­ing the space under the land. How­ever this does not apply in situ­ations where an immov­able prop­er­ty neither assumes the air­space or space below such as an apart­ment form­ing part of a block.
Also the own­er­ship of land from civil point of view entitles the own­er to build, plant, excav­ate with plan­ning require­ments and also excav­a­tion car­ries with it cer­tain oblig­a­tions.
There exists a pre­sump­tion that all con­struc­tion or work which is car­ried out on a land or prop­er­ty has been car­ried out by the own­er and belongs to the own­er. The own­er has the right to com­pel the neigh­bour to fix the bound­ar­ies of the prop­er­ties by means of marks which are vis­ible and per­man­ent. Also there is the right of the own­er to enclose his prop­er­ty.
Usu­fruct Art­icles 328 – 399
This term is derived from the old Roman law where they have the usus (use) and the fructus (enjoy­ment), hence we get the term usu­fruct. Usu­fruct means right to make use of and enjoy a thing owned by a third party. E.g. situ­ations of inher­it­ance. Sur­viv­ing spouse is not called to the inher­it­ance since the heirs are the chil­dren but the usu­fruct i.e. the use and enjoy­ment of the estate of the deceased vests in the sur­viv­ing spouse.
Usu­fruct can hap­pen either by oper­a­tion of law, or through deed or will. If how­ever it refers to immov­able prop­er­ty it requires regis­tra­tion in the vari­ous regis­tries related to land.

“ —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — – — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — – — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –

Appoġġ traduzz­joni: http://amzn.to/1Z7d5oc
 — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — – — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — – — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –
lec­ture 2

Il-Kun­ċett tal-jedd ta pro­prjetà Artikoli 320 â € ““327
Il-kun­ċett tradizz­jon­ali ta sjieda kien­et li s-sid għan­du d-dritt assol­ut u bla kon­troll fuq l-oġġett huwa pro­prjetà privata sakemm l-ebda użu tal-ħaġa pro­prjetà isir li jmur kon­tra l-liġi. Għal­hekk il-kar­at­tru tal-pussess jekk kienx ta pro­prjetà mob­bli jew immob­bli kien id-dritt li jgaw­du u d-dritt li jid­disponi mill-ħaġa.
Tali dritt kien tradizz­jon­al­ment eżer­ċita bl-aktar mod assol­ut. Dan kien ifis­ser ukoll li s-sid kien intit­olat biex jab­bandunaw il-ħaġa u teżisti fil-liġi ċivili, dak li hu magħruf bħala preskrizz­joni acquis­ited li jfis­ser li jekk per­suna jkoll­ha oġġett għal per­jodu ta żmi­en kif meħtieġ bil-liġi, is-sjieda ta’ tali ħaġa se jiġu akkwistati għal­hekk jekk sid jab­banduna xi ħaġa li jip­pos­jedi u l-pussess ta dik il-ħaġa hija meħuda minn xi ħadd ieħor, allura dik il-parti terza tista’, wara l-iskaden­za ta per­i­jodu ta’ sjieda jakkwistaw żmi­en min­flok il-pro­prjetar­ju oriġin­ali.
L-għar­fi­en tradizz­jon­ali ta sjieda tradizz­jon­al­ment kel­lu l-kar­at­tru ta’ al dejjem
(Mhux lim­it­ata mill-ħin). Madankollu tas-snin reċenti, kien hemm sin­i­fik­anti ħafna
lim­itazz­jon­iji­et fuq dan il-kun­ċett assol­ut ta pro­prjetà.
Illum huwa rikonoxxut li s-sjieda għand­ha wkoll ita € ™ s dimens­joni soċ­jali.

kun­ċett Soċ­jali ril­evanti fid-dritt ta pro­prjetà
Illum hemm dak li hu magħruf bħala l-kun­ċett ta użu xier­aq u l-abbuż ta’ oneâ € ™ s drit­tiji­et. Hemm ukoll il-kun­ċett ta viċin­an­za tajba. Id-dif­fikultà fil-prat­tika tqum dwar kif jiġi stabbil­it il-lim­itu ta inkon­ven­jen­za li għand­ha mġar­rba mill-ġiri­en minħab­ba l-iżvi­lupp jew l-eżer­ċizzju tad-dritt ta’ pro­prjetà. Huwa ċar illum li l-pro­prjetar­ju għan­du juri li hu ma tib­be­ne­fikax tanġib­bli mill-użu tal għaldaqstant pro­prjetà ta żvi­lupp li huwa arbit­rar­ja (dan isir sem­pliċe­ment għall-fin­iji­et ta’ dan mingħajr ma bene­fiċċju li ġej minn dan) jew sem­pliċi­ment biex spy l ġiri­en mhix aċċettata. Is-sid għan­du juża wkoll prekawzjon­iji­et simili biex jim­min­imizzaw l-inkon­ven­jen­za kkawżata lill-ġiri­en.
Ippjanar u l-leġiżlazz­joni amb­jent­ali
Oqs­ma huma nte­jjbu € ™ s żoni u wkoll hemm lim­itazz­joni import­anti u ta valur li jużaw huwa rregolat mill-awtor­itaji­et. Eż inti ma tistax tagħmel garaxx ħanut mingħajr l-approvazz­joni.
Fl-aħħar­nett illum naċċettaw li forom dif­fer­enti ta sjieda jeżis­tu mill-punt mument di vista jir­referi għal-leġiżlazz­joni maqsuma time li tip­per­met­ti li inti s-sjieda għall E.ż. 2 ġimgħat fis-sena għal 30 sena ta yacht.
espro­prjazz­joni
Dan ifis­ser li l-art jew pro­prjetà immob­bli jew bini jist­għu jiġu akkwistati mill-gvern għal skop pubb­liku u bi ħlas għal kumpens. Il-prob­lema bil-port­ata tal-kumpens huwa li l-kriterji mhux dejjem jaqblu mal-valur tas-suq tal-pro­prjetà. Dejjem hemm kon­tro­ver­sja u lit­igazz­joni dwar l-ammont ta kumpens mogħti. Iner­enti fil-dritt jew pro­prjetà huwa d-dritt tas-sid li tirkupra l-oġġett minn kwalunk­we pusses­sur. Nat­ur­al­ment f’sitwazzjonijiet simili, is-sid trid tip­prova tit­olu assol­ut u l-liġi ċivili tir­regola fid-dettall kif tit­olu għall-pro­prjetà tkun akkwistata.
Il-pussess ta immob­bli iġorr miegħu, is-sjieda tal-ispazju fuq u taħt inkluż l-ispazju taħt l-art. Madankollu, dan ma jap­p­likax f’sitwazzjonijiet fejn il-pro­prjetà immob­bli la tas­sumi ispazju tal-ajru jew l-ispazju ta hawn taħt, bħal parti appar­ta­ment li jif­forma minn blokk.
Ukoll l-pro­prjetà ta art mill-punt ċivili di vista jintit­ola lill-pro­prjetar­ju biex jib­nu, pjanti, excav­ate mar-rek­wiżiti tal-ippjanar u wkoll tħaf­fir jġorr miegħu ċer­ti obbli­gi.
Teżisti preżun­z­joni li kollox kostruzz­joni jew xogħol li jsir fuq l-art jew pro­prjetà ikun sar mis-sid u tap­par­tjeni lis-sid. Is-sid għan­du d-dritt li ġġiegħel lill-proxxmu li tiff­is­sa l-lim­iti tal-pro­prjetaji­et per­mezz ta marki li huma viżib­bli u per­man­enti. Ukoll hemm id-dritt tas-sid li jehmżu pro­prjetà tiegħu.
Artikoli użu­frutt 328 â € ““399
Dan it-ter­minu huwa deriv­at mil-liġi Rumana antika fejn għand­hom l-usus (użu) u l-fructus (tgawdi­ja), għal­hekk irridu jiks­bu l-użu­frutt tul. Użu­frutt tfis­ser dritt li jagħmel użu minn u jgaw­du xi ħaġa pro­prjetà ta parti terza. Eż sit­wazz­jon­iji­et ta wirt. Kon­juġi super­stiti ma jis­se­j­jaħx biex il-wirt peress li l-eredi huma t-tfal iżda l-użu­frutt jiġi­fieri l-użu u t-tgawdi­ja tal-pat­ri­mon­ju ta l-vests mejt­in fil-kon­juġi super­stiti.
Użu­frutt jista jiġri jew b’operat ta’ liġi, jew per­mezz ta att jew se. Jekk madankollu hija tir­referi għall-pro­prjetà immob­bli li teħtieġ reġis­trazz­joni fir-reġis­tri varji relata­ti mal-art.

“ —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — – — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — – — —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –