Show document

A+ | A- | | SLO | ENG

Title: Problematika sodnih sporov pri odločanju o zahtevkih iz naslova lastninjenja družbene lastnine : doktorska disertacija Authors: ID Likozar Rogelj, Mateja (Author) ID Puharič, Krešimir (Mentor) More about this mentor... Files: DR_Likozar_Rogelj_Mateja_i2020.pdf (1,56 MB) MD5: 71960911E440B3449605A405D0A08A92   Language: Slovenian Work type: Dissertation Typology: 2.08 - Doctoral Dissertation Organization: EVRO-PF - Nova Univerza - European Faculty of Law Abstract: Po Ustavi RS je zasebna lastnina temeljna človekova pravica, zato mora država ustvariti možnost, da osebe to pravico pridobijo in da jo tudi obdržijo, da jo imajo. Ob osamosvojitvi Republike Slovenije je država s sprejetjem več zakonov zagotovila ukinitev dotakratni družbeni lastnini in začetek poti tržnega gospodarstva. Obveznost države se je torej kazala v spremembi zakonodaje, za nas, državljane, pa je to pomenilo priložnost in odgovornost, da pridobimo (povrnemo) lastnino na premoženju in da zanjo skrbimo, tudi na področju stanovanj, saj stanovanje danes ni več pravica, za katero je bila dolžna skrbeti država, kot je bilo to v času družbene lastnine, ampak država to skrb prenaša na nas, državljane. Enako velja za kmetijska zemljišča in gozdove, za vsa stavbna zemljišča in tudi za vse drugo premoženje, ki ima znanega lastnika. Tako kot pri vsaki %revolucionarni% spremembi smo tudi pri preobrazbi družbene lastnine in pri sprejetju ZDen, ZZad, SZ, ZLNDL % naleteli na to, da obstajajo zagovorniki novega sistema in tudi njegovi nasprotniki. Zagovorniki so/smo bili namreč navdušeni nad preoblikovanjem družbene lastnine v lastnino z znanim titularjem. Lahko pa rečem, da smo bili malo manj navdušeni nad sprejetjem zakonodaje, zlasti omenjene. Res je, da je na primer ZLNDL dotakratno pravico uporabe na zemljišču v družbeni lastnini preprosto spremenil v lastninsko pravico z vsemi upravičenji, ki iz nje izhajajo. Nasprotniki oziroma skeptiki, med katere se tudi sama prištevam, pa so, to danes lahko upravičeno rečem, poudarili problem popolnega zajema vseh primerov, pri katerih lahko pride do spora glede dejanskega imetnika pravice uporabe in določanja obsega uporabe zemljišča. Spor se jasno ni pokazal takoj, ampak se razsežnost tranzicijskih zakonov kaže danes, ko se na stvarnem področju nepremičnin ureja dejansko in formalnopravno lastništvo tega, mogoče tudi v posledici pričakovanega sprejetja davka na nepremičnine, saj bo treba uskladiti zemljiškoknjižno in tudi dejansko stanje. Je pa tudi dejstvo, da bi po skoraj 30 letih od formalne ukinitve družbene lastnine mogoče lahko pričakovali, da se proces preoblikovanja družbene lastnine vendarle konča. Očitno ni tako, saj je mogoče ob prebiranju v tej nalogi analizirane sodne prakse ugotoviti, da se ne glede na težnjo po končanju privatizacije ustvarja nova sodna praksa, ki sicer še ni potrjena na Ustavnem sodišču RS, glede katere menimo, da nikakor ni usmerjena v končanje obdobja privatizacije, ampak v ustvarjanje novih sodnih sporov. To je nedvoumno mogoče poudariti na področju denacionalizacije in tudi procesa lastninjenja premoženja. Kljub sprejetju več zakonov, ki so usmerjeni v končanje obdobja tranzicije, je s preverjanjem v zemljiški knjigi in dejanskega stanja v naravi mogoče ugotoviti, da postopkom še ni videti konca. Proces preoblikovanja družbene lastnine se gotovo lahko konča glede na danes sprejeto zakonodajo in z upoštevanjem večinske enotne sodne prakse. Tako bo vi mogoče dokazati temelj pravne države in zdrave družbe, Slovenija je namreč pravna in socialna država, kar pomeni, da mora zagotavljati pravni red in socialno varnost. Keywords: sodni spor, privatizacija, zakonodaja Place of publishing: Ljubljana Place of performance: Ljubljana Publisher: [M. Likozar Rogelj] Year of publishing: 2020 Year of performance: 2020 Number of pages: 191 str. PID: 20.500.12556/ReVIS-7746  COBISS.SI-ID: 36481283  UDC: 330.52:338.246.025.88(043.3) Note: Doktorska disertacija 3. stopnje bolonjskega študija; Publication date in ReVIS: 15.06.2021 Views: 1522 Downloads: 122 Metadata:    Cite this work Plain text BibTeX EndNote XML EndNote/Refer RIS ABNT ACM Ref AMA APA Chicago 17th Author-Date Harvard IEEE ISO 690 MLA Vancouver : Copy citation

Share: Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:

English

Abstract:

Based on the Constitution of the RS private property is a basic human right, therefore the state is obliged to create an opportunity for people to gain that right and to also keep that right, to have it. While Republika Slovenia was gaining independence the state has passed a number of laws to ensure the termination of the previous social property and the beginning of the path of market economy. The obligation of the state was therefore shown in legislation change and for us citizens that meant an opportunity and responsibility to gain (recover) the ownership on the property and to look after it, also in respect of dwelling as today a dwelling is no longer a right for which the state is responsible for as that was in time of social property, the state is passing this concern on us citizens. The same goes for agricultural land and woods, as well as construction land and all other property with known owner. As with any %revolutionary% change also with the transformation of the social property and passing on the Denationalization Act, Cooperatives Act, Housing Act, Privatization of Real Estate in Social Ownership Act % we have come across the fact there are supporters of the new system as well as its opponents. The supporters (myself included) were enthusiastic about the transformation of the social property into the property with known titular. However I can say I was a little less enthusiastic about the adoption of legislation, particularly the before mentioned. It is true that Privatization of Real Estate in Social Ownership Act for example changed the previous right of use on land within social property into an ownership right with all entitlements resulting from it. Opponents or sceptics, among whom I count myself in, did (today I can say that legitimately) pointed out the problem of the complete capture of all cases which could evolve into dispute regarding the actual holder of the right of use and regarding the definition of extent of usage of land. Of course the dispute did not show itself immediately, however the dimension of transitional laws is shown today, when actual and legal ownership is being regulated in the material area of real estate, maybe also in consequence of expected Property tax, which will demand the harmonisation of land registry situation and actual situation. However it is also the fact that after 30 years since the formal termination of social property we could expect the process of transformation of social property to be finally completed. Apparently that is not the case as by reading the analysed case law in this assignment we can establish that irrespective of the trend to end the privatisation process, new case law is being created, though not yet confirmed by the Constitutional court of the Republic of Slovenia. This new case law is in my opinion not directed into the completion of the era of privatisation, but into the creation of new disputes. This can unambiguously be emphasized in the area of denationalisation and also in the process of privatisation of property. Despite viii many laws were passed within the purpose to conclude the transition period, by reading through the land registry and also the actual situation, we can establish that the process is not yet to be over. The process of transformation of the social property can certainly come to an end based on today's legislation and with the regard to majority uniform case law. This way the foundation of rule of law and healthy society can be proven, Slovenia is actually a state governed by the rule of law and also a social state, which means it has to guarantee a legal order and social security.

Back