Transformation of the Slovak civil law after 1989
Focused on selected shortcomings of the Slovak civil law, which the amendment either failed to remove or itself created. Analysis of the consequences of double regulation of contract law in the civil code of Slovakia and the commercial code of Slovakia.
| Рубрика | Государство и право |
| Вид | статья |
| Язык | английский |
| Дата добавления | 10.03.2021 |
| Размер файла | 28,3 K |
Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже
Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/
Comenius University in Bratislava
Transformation of the Slovak civil law after 1989
JUDr. Zuzana Mlkva Illyova, PhD., Department of Legal History & Comparative Law of the Faculty of Law
Mgr. Lenka Dufalova, PhD., Department of Civil Law of the Faculty of Law
This paper deals with the transformation of selected civil law institutes after 1989 in the Slovak legal order. After the Velvet Revolution in the Czechoslovak republic and the removal of the socialist state establishment, it was necessary to adapt the legal order to the new social reality. An amendment to the Slovak Civil Code in brought 1991 significant changes in the Slovak civil law. The amendment addressed the most pressing problems, but it was never meant to be a comprehensive solution for decades to come. It also caused the persistent unsystematic and illogical structure of the Slovak Civil Code to this day. Therefore, even at the time of its adoption, the amendment was subject to legitimate criticism, but at the same time it was accepted within application practice in the understanding that it represented a temporary solution. The makeshift that this amendment created though persists to this day. This paper focuses on selected shortcomings of the Slovak civil law, which the amendment either failed to remove or itself created. The first issue pointed out in this paper is the absence of the link to other private-law codes, since the Slovak Civil Code as a general code of private law should also serve the needs of other private-law sectors. Another unfortunate consequence of the pace of amendments to private law after 1989 is the dualism of the regulation of contract law in the Slovak legal system. The dual regulation of the contract law in the Civil Code and the Commercial Code in the Slovak legal system brings with it a considerable lack of transparency in this legislation. Lastly the article deals with the absence of the superficies solo cedit principle in the Slovak Civil Code. The superficies solo cedit principle has its origin in Roman law and used to be a stable part of the legal tradition in Slovakia. During the communist era, the socialist lawmaker chose to abandon the superficies solo cedit principle in 1950. The absence if this principle still causes many significant practical issues and this paper illustrates some of these problems.
Key words: Slovak civil law, transformation, Velvet revolution, superficies solo cedit principle.
ТРАНСФОРМАЦІЯ СЛОВАЦЬКОГО ЦИВІЛЬНОГО ПРАВА ПІСЛЯ 1989 РОКУ
У статті йдеться про трансформацію обраних інститутів цивільного права після 1989 року у словацькому правовому порядку. Після Оксамитової революції в Чехословацькій Соціалістичній Республіці та припинення соціалістичної держави необхідно було пристосувати правовий порядок до нової соціальної реальності. Поправка до Цивільного кодексу Словаччини в 1991 році внесла суттєві зміни до словацького цивільного законодавства. Поправка стосувалася найактуальніших проблем, проте вона ніколи не мала бути комплексним рішенням упродовж наступних десятиліть. Це також спричинило стійку несистематичну й нелогічну структуру Цивільного кодексу Словаччини й донині. Тому навіть на момент прийняття поправка підлягала законній критиці, однак вона була прийнята з розумінням того, що це тимчасове рішення. Натомість імпровізація, яку ця поправка створила, зберігається дотепер. Стаття присвячена окремим недолікам словацького цивільного законодавства, які прийнята поправка або не усунула, або сама створила. Перше питання, яке розглянуто в роботі, - відсутність посилання на інші приватноправові кодекси, оскільки Цивільний кодекс Словаччини як загальний кодекс приватного права повинен задовольняти також потреби інших секторів приватного права. Ще одним прикрим наслідком темпів змін до приватного права після 1989 року став дуалізм регулювання договірного права у словацькій правовій системі. Подвійне регулювання контрактного права в Цивільному кодексі Словаччини та Господарському кодексі Словаччини зумовлює відсутність прозорості цього законодавства. Зрештою, у статті йдеться про відсутність принципу superficies solo cedit в Цивільному кодексі Словаччини. Принцип superficies solo cedit бере свій початок у римському праві та раніше був стабільною частиною юридичної традиції Словаччини. В епоху комунізму законодавець соціалізму вирішив відмовитися від принципу superficies solo cedit в 1950 році. Відсутність згаданого принципу в сучасному цивільному праві країни зумовлює багато важливих практичних питань, і стаття ілюструє деякі із цих проблем.
Ключові слова: словацьке цивільне право, трансформація, Оксамитова революція, принцип superficies solo cedit.
Introduction
The 1992 Constitution of the Slovak Republic took over the legal code of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. In this manner, Act № 40/1964 Coll. the Civil Code became part of Slovak law. Understandably, this Civil Code was greatly influenced by the conditions of its conception and suffered fundamental specifics against the classical civilian codes of the western world. In its original wording, the Civil Code was characterised by the “consumer concept” and regulated only relations between citizens themselves and the relations between citizens and socialist organisations. The second large part of civil-law relations, i. e. relations between socialist organisations themselves were regulated on the basis of the state-planned economy in a separate Economic Code. Furthermore, the International Trade Code was adopted for the purposes of legal relations with foreign countries.
After the Velvet Revolution in Slovakia and the related changes in society, it was clear that the division of civil law matters into these two, or more precisely three codes, would not stand up over time. Understandably, the regulation of civil law marked by state dirigisme and the preference of socialist ownership did not suit the new market-economy conditions. Following the Constitutional Act № 100/1990 Coll., introducing equality of ownership, it was clear that a new regulation of ownership relations based on private ownership was necessary, as well as a new regulation of real rights to third-party things. For these reasons, in 1990 and 1991, a major amendment to the Civil Code was drafted, amending roughly 80% of the text of the original Civil Code. Even at the time of its adoption, this amendment was considered a temporary solution, intended to bridge over the brief period until a comprehensive recodification of civil law. It is quite common that it is makeshift solutions that are of the longest duration. This was also the case of this amendment, which still remains the largest and most comprehensive intervention in civil law since 1989. Recodification work performed in recent years has not resulted in the adoption of a new Civil Code, not to mention that it has now been thirty years since the Velvet Revolution. At present, the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic is sponsoring the first stage of the recodification of the Civil Code, which, however, brings us only an amendment to the current Civil Code. This amendment contains a new regulation of the Obligations Part of the Civil Code and the Commercial Code, as well as the related provisions of the General Part of the Civil Code [9].
It may perhaps be added that the regulation of Czechoslovak civil law stood for a unique solution, as it was, after 1964, shattered into three codes and the associated creation of economic law as a separate sector. As a result, the socialist lawmakers overcame their role models and went further than the Soviet Union in the distortion of civil law. Thereby, following 1989 it was all the more difficult to revert to the original pillars of civil law, unlike other post-socialist countries that at all times retained their broad concept of civil law regulation (e. g. the Hungarian Civil Code of 1959, the Polish Civil Code of 1964 and other) and did not require any such extensive changes of recodification nature [2, p. 18].
1. A hastily patched up amendment
The biggest change in the Slovak Civil Code came in the form of amendment № 509/1991 Coll. of 5 November 1991, adopted by the Federal Assembly of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. The amendment addressed the most pressing problems, but it was never meant to be a comprehensive solution for decades to come. The explanatory memorandum to this amendment clarifies the need for its urgent adoption, which reflects the change in the social and economic situation in the state: “The draft amendment to the Civil Code is part of a comprehensive process of transformation in the private law sector. The constitutional codification of civil rights and freedoms, the development of private entrepreneurship and the gradual emergence of a market economy place new demands on civil law, to which the existing wording of the Civil Code no longer corresponds” [10].
The explanatory memorandum also clearly stated that the amendment should be only a temporary solution for the time of the inevitable recodification of the Civil Code and it also clarifies the sources that inspired its form: “Therefore, in connection with the Commercial Code, prepared in parallel, which with regard to the Civil Code should have the relation of a special regulation to the basic regulation, comprehensive changes have been drafted in the form of an amendment to the Civil Code that should bridge over the necessary time until recodification. The proposed amendment is not just a mere return to some proven institutes of classical civil law. It draws both on the knowledge and experience in applying civil law in the territory of the present Czech and Slovak Federative Republic in the period between the two World Wars, but also takes into account a number of legal regulations in the legal states of our neighbours, which have a similar legal culture and tradition. The amendment also reflects in the Civil Code principles that, particularly in relation to the needs of international trade, the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic adopted in international treaties and undertook to implement in the national legal code” [10].
The 1991 amendment to the Civil Code bears marks of haste in its drafting, namely by repealing certain provisions in the middle of the Civil Code (namely, Sections Three, Four, and Five, i. e. § 152 to § 414) which were not replaced with new provisions of contract law, as they would not fit in there, and thus obligations were inserted only at the end of the Civil Code [6, p. 3]. This caused the persistent unsystematic and illogical structure of the Slovak Civil Code to this day.
Despite many shortcomings, the amendment was an expedient solution, which, nonetheless, was intended only to bridge over the transitional period until the adoption of the new Civil Code. This was also confirmed by the words of K. Plank, who back in 1996 said with hope in his article the following: “The fulfilment of this purpose is also evidenced by judicial and other practice, which adopted the new regulation with certain understanding that it was meant as temporary and in the hope that this temporary status quo would soon be remedied by the drafting of a new comprehensive Civil Code” [6, p. 3].
2. Shortcomings of changes to civil law after 1989
The mentioned speed of creating the 1991 amendment to the Slovak Civil Code gave rise to (or failed to remove) certain shortcomings that continue to exist to this day. We will try to briefly highlight a number of selected issues in this paper.
2.1 Link to other private-law codes
The Slovak Civil Code traditionally constitutes a basic, general code of private law, which should also serve the needs of other private-law sectors. As it contains comprehensive legal regulation of legal acts, natural persons, legal entities, representations, time-counting rules, and others, it is also applicable to other private-law sectors, for which it is a subsidiary regulation and its standards apply in the absence of a specific legal regulation.
Despite the above, the use of the Slovak Civil Code for other sectors of private law is limited. In particular, its relation to the Commercial Code is unbalanced and suffers from several shortcomings. The general provisions of the Slovak Civil Code cannot be applied in their entirety to commercial-law relations, even though the Commercial Code lacks a general part in its own sense. For instance, statute of limitations as a typical institute, which is subject to the general part of civil law, is specifically regulated in the Commercial Code, thereby excluding the application of civil-law regulation.
Regarding the link to labour law, it is yet again impossible to speak of an appropriate arrangement. After the major amendment to the Slovak Civil Code, these private-law regulations were fully separated, a deficiency pointed out by Lazar: “There is a lack of the minimum interconnection required between general private law and special labour-law regulation for individual labour relations. Thus, civil law remains completely severed from labour law, which is almost inconceivable in the developed countries of continental Europe” [2, p. 20].
In its text after 1989, Act N° 65/1965 Coll. the Labour Code did not contain any reference to the Civil Code. Currently, Act № 311/2o01 Coll. The Labour Code contains in § 1(4) a provision on the subsidiary's of the Civil Code: “Unless provided otherwise in the first part of this law, legal relations under point 1 are subject to general provisions of the Civil Code”. Having thus defined subsidiarity, i. e. the possibility of applying only the general part of the Civil Code to the first part of the Labour Code, the lawmaker caused a problem with the possible application of certain provisions concerning the obligations part of the Civil Code for cases where the Labour Code lacks its own regulation (for example the regulation for the lapse of obligations). Concurrently, there are also cases where it is necessary to use the provisions of the general part of the Civil Code in relation to a specific part of the Labour Code, especially as regards the assessment of unilateral and bilateral legal acts laid down in a separate part of the Labour Code. Even under the current state of subsidiary scope of the Civil Code toward the Labour Code, there still remain some shortcomings in practice.
A problematic issue, for example, is also the regulation of the relative nullity of legal acts, which by its regulation in § 40a of the Civil Code directly establishes the civil-law limits of this institute, as it exhaustively provides for the listing of the provisions of relative nullity. slovakia civil law
2.2 Outdated dualism of contract law
The dualism of the regulation of contract law in the Slovak legal system is also an unfortunate consequence of the pace of amendments to private law after 1989. The new Commercial Code of 1991 was being prepared in parallel with the amendment to Civil Law, something that could have raised hope for a meaningful bond of both private-law regulations, nonetheless, the coordination of preparation both codes was unsatisfactory [6, p. 4]. This is particularly evident in the area of the regulation of contract-law relations, where individual provisions of the Commercial Code are not sufficiently aligned with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code. Contract law also continues to overcome the dualism of contract types, which, however, is to be removed by the planned amendment to the Civil Code [11].
The dual regulation of the contract law in the Civil Code and the Commercial Code in the Slovak legal system brings with it a considerable lack of transparency in this legislation. In addition to the contract types themselves, duplicity also results in the legal regulation of institutes such as statute of limitations, preclusion, contract withdrawal, damage liability, arrears, defects, all of these causing in many cases problems in application practice. For instance, the issue of the statute of limitations of the right to return performance made under a void contract subject to the Commercial Code resolved by the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic in its finding ref. № IV. US 214/04: “The statute of limitations for the right to return performance carried out under a void contract is though governed differently in § 394(2) of the Commercial Code. It is set out therein that the limitation period begins to run as of the day when the performance was carried out. This provision is a special provision in relation to the provision of § 107 of the Civil Code, governing the statute of limitations of only one type of unjust enrichment - unjust enrichment again through the performance ensuing from a void business contract. Based on the above, in order to set at the beginning of the limitation period during which the exercised right became barred, it is necessary to use § 394(2) of the Commercial Code. Since the Commercial Code governs the statute of limitations in the case of the right to surrender unjust enrichment pertained in the form of performance from a void contract, due to § 1(2) of the Commercial Code it is not possible to use the provision of § 107 of the Civil Code for the statute of limitations of this right. This applies to the determination of the beginning of limitation period as well as for determining induration” [13].
2.3 Provision of § 47 of the Civil Code
The provisions of § 47 In the original text of the Civil Code, the provision of § 47 had the following wording: “ “Where the parties have agreed in the prescribed form on the content of the contract and where a decision of the relevant authority is still required for its creation, the parties shall be bound by their statements until that decision. In the event that the decision is negative, the contract shall cease to exist”.
A decision of a state authority was a condition for contract's validity. The 1983 amendment changed this provision as follows: “(1) Where a law stipulates that a contract requires a decision of a competent authority, the contract is effective upon that decision. In the event that the decision is negative, the contract is annulled. (2) Where a law stipulates that an contract requires registration by a state notary, the contract is effective upon that registration. In the event that the decision is negative, the contract is annulled. (3) In the event that a decision of the relevant authority, or registration regarding the contract proposal filed has not taken place within three years of signing the contract, it shall apply that the parties have withdrawn from the contract”.
This made the decision of a state authority a condition for the contract to become effective. The major amendment deleted second sentences in the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) and shortly afterwards the original text of the provision (2), containing a reference to the registration with a state notary, was fully deleted. of the Civil Code were retained through a major 1991 amendment, with some modifications, and are worded in the current legislation as follows: 1) where a law stipulates that a contract requires a decision of a competent authority, the contract is effective through that decision; 2) provided that no proposal for a decision under paragraph 1 has been filed within three years of the conclusion of the contract, the parties shall withdraw from the contract.
There are a number of legal opinions regarding the issue whether this provision is obsolete or not. It is certain, though, that this provision arose under completely different conditions in which the state authorities used to decide on the law-of-obligation effects of transfer contracts. Before 1983, pursuant to § 47, a decision of the competent authority was conditional upon contract's validity, and in the period from 1983 to 1991 upon the effect of certain contracts following the amendment. It is therefore believed that § 47 will not find application in a “democratic society”. The case law has also rebutted the point of view that the decision of the competent authority could be interpreted as a decision to authorise an entry in the land register, since the contractual effects occur with the valid acceptance of the contract proposal, and from that moment the contract becomes effective (For instance, decision of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic 2 Cdo 124/2003).
Professor J. Svetska expressed his conviction that this provision is obsolete and in a commentary on the 2008 Civil Code he stated that “In this context, the continued existence of § 47 as a remnant of the 1964 Civil Code and its original incorrect contractual concept is merely a matter of time. For the same reason, there are no practical grounds to comment further on the standing and the role of § 47” [8, p. 385]. I. Fekete is of a different opinion and in his commentary also mentions current examples where the application of this provision is still under consideration, which is understandably contrary to the statement of obsolescence (for instance, a transfer of state-owned real estate where the purchase contract to be effective requires consent of the Ministry of Finance of the Slovak Republic) [1, p. 507].
2.4 Superficies solo (non) cedit
The superficies solo cedit principle has its origin in Roman law and was a stable part of the legal tradition in Slovakia. According to S. Luby, this principle was applicable in Slovakia as well as in the interwar Czechoslovak Republic, as real estate property included all the vegetation planted in the land and everything that was built or set up at that real estate property for the purpose of being permanently connected to the land [3, p. 284]. However, there is also an opinion out there contesting as to whether the superficies solo cedit principle was indeed part of the legal system in Slovakia (with the exception of the unquestionable period at the time of Bach's absolutism) [5, p. 749], and if so, whether this perhaps concerned the latter period of the interwar Czechoslovak Republic. The incentive leading the 1950's socialist lawmaker to abandon the superficies solo cedit principle, or, where applicable, when the buildings were excluded from this principle, was obvious (in § 25 of the Civil Code № 141/1950 Coll. it was stated that land included everything that came out of it and that buildings are not part of the land). It resulted in the disruption of the naturally connected ownership of the land with the ownership of the building standing on the land: “The building no longer forms a single unit with the land, but is a separate thing from it, owned by the person authorised in respect of the building. And since these are two different things - land and structure - this does not concern some sort of shared ownership, but dual ownership: the ownership of the land as one separate thing and the ownership of the structure as another separate thing. The land will remain the sole property of the present owner and the structure will be the sole property of the builder” [4, p. 348].
It is quite paradoxical that the 1964 Slovak Civil Code, in its original text, did not have any provision that would explicitly stipulate that structures were not part of the land, though it applied as an unwritten rule. It was not until the major amendment to the Civil Code dating from 1991 that structures were once more explicitly established as not part of the land. The amendment to the Civil Code of 2002 even extended this provision to include watercourses and groundwaters, which in accordance with § 120 of the Civil Code likewise are not included as part of the land.
The superficies principle is common in most European countries and also in Anglo-American law [5, p. 748]. The current Civil Code in § 120(2) explicitly sets out that structures are not part of the land. I. Fekete points to a specific feature of this regulation: “The provision of § 120(2) of the Civil Code lays down, in relation to the land and the structure built on it, the opposite principle to that known to and recognised by the whole civilised world” [1, p. 776].
In this section, we will point out some of the problems caused by the absence of the superficies solo cedit principle [7].
3. Example of an apartment building
In practice, there are repeated cases of actions in Slovakia in which a landowner seeks the surrender of unjust enrichment from apartment owners within an apartment building. The claimant's arguments are that the apartment owners use the land without any legal justification and as a rule the claim is the normal amount of rent at the given location. These actions are rightly dismissed by the courts and the claim is not granted to the owner. The reason is that on the basis of the special regulation, § 23(5) of Act № 182/1993 Coll. on ownership of apartments and non-residential premises effective as of 1 September 1993, an easement was established by law The provision of § 23(5) of Act № 182/1993 Coll. has the following wording: “If the owner of the building is not the landowner, there arises a right to the land corresponding to an easement to be entered in the real estate cadastre”.. This is the case of the “legal easement”, the regime of which is identical to that of contractual easements. Regarding this case, the courts had to handle the question of whether such an easement can be made against payment or not, as the regulation in the act concerning the ownership of apartments and non-residential premises omits this issue. Constant case law has come to the conclusion that this is an easement against payment, but the consideration for the creation of an easement is of a one-off and non-recurring nature. The claim arose to the person who owned the real estate property (land) at the time when the act on the ownership of apartments and non-residential premises entered into effect, i.e. on 1 September 1993, and naturally this claim was time- barred within the general three-year limitation period For instance, judgment of the Presov District Court file ref. № 8C/383/2007 dated 1 February 2011 argues as follows: “Financial compensation for the establishment of easement is an undisputed property right of a person who is the obliged entity of such easement. The easement in question arises “in rem” and relates to every owner of the burdened land regardless of the method of changing the ownership. Thereby, its creation cannot be assessed separately for each new owner of the burdened land. The financial compensation for the establishment of easement unquestionably has a form of performance that is of one-off and non-recurring nature. This claim is thus the only one and pertains solely to that owner of the burdened land to all that the real estate property at the time of establishing the easement, in the given case at the time of Act № 182/1993 Coll. acquiring effect, i. e. on 1 September 1993”..
As a result of this legal context, the current owners of the lands “stuck” under an apartment building are in a situation where they may have a title to the land but cannot use their land because a building sits on it; they have no financial claim against the apartment owners and any disposal of such land is hard to imagine. On the other hand, the ownership of such real estate property is, of course, linked to the obligation to pay the relevant tax. It is a paradox that in some cases the value of the land may exceed the value of the apartment building.
The provision of § 23(5) of Act № 182/1993 Coll. on the ownership of apartments and non-residential premises was challenged before the Constitutional Court by the Pezinok District Court, which in its constitutional complaint stated that: “The application of the provision of § 23(5) of the Act on Ownership of Apartments grossly thwarts the purpose of the landowner's right of ownership, which is the landowner's right to use the land, enjoy any fruits therefrom, as well as to dispose of the land. Such gross interference in the right of ownership firstly prevents, even disables the landowner from continuing to use and enjoy the fruits therefrom and, secondly, makes it impossible to dispose of the land in any way that is not under manifestly disadvantageous financial conditions. From the point of view of the landowner, such gross interference in the ownership right is even worse than expropriation, as the landowner must continue to pay land tax on such land, despite having no or very limited enjoyment of the land” [16]. Nevertheless, this constitutional complaint was rejected by the Constitutional Court, as it was presented by an entity unauthorised to do so [12].
4. Example of a family house
A different situation arises if a family house stands on third-party land. Naturally, the provisions on legal easement as referred to in the previous case cannot be applied here. In the case of a structure standing on a third-party land without the landowner's consent, then we are talking about an “unauthorised structure”. Yet again in this case, the landowner will lose an action for the surrender of unjust enrichment. The courts dismiss such actions on the grounds that the legal solution of such situation is governed by the provisions of § 135c of the Civil Code. The landowner may request the removal of the building at the builder's expense, but if such removal would not be expedient, the court may grant ownership of the structure to the landowner, provided the landowner agrees. The court may also arrange the matter by establishing an easement against compensation. In one such case, the court [15] also pointed out that the action for surrendering unjust enrichment would not resolve the unlawful situation in this case. In the event of granting the action, such court decision would not be final, but with the passage of time it would create a need for new and further actions. Such exercise of the claimant's right was considered by the court to be contrary to good morals.
Conclusions
It is clear that the transformation of civil law in Slovakia after 1989 remains to the present day an unfinished process. The 1991 amendment introduced the necessary changes that enabled the use of the Civil Code in the new social context of the market economy. However, some shortcomings, which are an outcome of the pace at which the amendment was drafted and also due to the general expectation of recodification of civil law, persist to this day. Therefore, the fundamental transformation of the Civil Code remains a current topic. At present, an amendment to the Civil Code is being prepared in the form of a legislative proposal, which is to once and for all remove the dualism of contract law. However, this amendment will apply exclusively to the Obligations Part of the Civil Code and the Commercial Code and the related provisions of the General Part of the Civil Code.
The mentioned amendment under preparation will therefore preserve the regulation of real rights. The introduction of superficies solo cedit into law is therefore still a challenge for the future. In our opinion though, the question remains as to whether the reintroduction of the superficies solo cedit principle into Slovak law would really contribute to resolving the issues outlined above in this paper. If our lawmakers were to adopt a model identical to that used in the Czech law under Act № 89/2012 Coll. the Civil Code (new), the law would only prevent the emergence of new cases where the landowner would differ from the building owner, as is the case of the Czech Republic. The already existing separate ownership of a structure and a land cannot be “soldered together” by the Czech approach. The act though created a statutory pre-emption right for the landowner to the structure and an equally statutory pre-emptive right to the building owner to the land.
References
1. Fekete I. Civil Code. Vol. 1 (General Part). Major comment. 2nd updated and extended edition. Bratislava: Eurokodex, 2014. 900 p.
2. Lazar J. Vychodiska a koncepcne otazky navrhu slovenskeho obcianskeho zakonmka. Justicna revue. 1997. Vol. 50. № 12. P 16-27.
3. Luby S. Slovenske vseobecne sьkromne pravo. Vol. 1 (Introductory Part, General Part, Moral rights). Bratislava: Library of Legal Unity in Bratislava, 1941. 340 p.
4. Novohradsky V. Opustenie zasady „superficies solo cedit“ a jeho dцsledky. Pravny obzor. 1951. Vol. 34. № 4. P 346-351.
5. Petr P Superficies solo (non) cedit aneb nad Tatrou se blyska. Pravrn rozhledy. 2016. Vol. 24. № 21. P 748-752.
6. Plank K. Koncepcia rekodifikacie obcianskeho prava hmotneho v Slovenskej republike. Justicna revue. 1996. Vol. 48. № 4. P. 1-13.
7. Surkala J. Zasada superficies solo cedit v rimskom prave a jej aplikacia de lege ferenda v slovenskom sьkromnom prave. Civilnopravne instituty a ich historicka reflexia vo svetle modernych kodifikacri. Banska Bystrica: Belianum, 2016. P 194-201.
8. Civil Code I - commentary / J. Svetska et al. Prague: C.H. Beck, 2008. 2296 p.
9. Explanatory memorandum to the proposed amendment to the Civil Code. URL: http://www.justice.gov.sk/Stranky/ Ministerstvo/Aktuality-obcianskeho-zakonnika.aspx?fbclid=IwAR0vHyja9Tf1jjg-pDJxBAbEnUb5UDzReJ16ZzdxbMEhaPAOa2v b2ynW0XE (access date: 31.03.2019).
10. Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill № 509/1991 Coll., the Government Bill amending Act № 40/1964 Coll. the Civil Code (ref. № 685).
11. Draft amendment to the Civil Code (Contract Law). URL: http://www.justice.gov.sk/Stranky/Ministerstvo/Aktuality- obcianskeho-zakonnika.aspx?fbclid=IwAR0vHvja9Tf1jjg-pDJxBAbEnUb5UDzReJ16zzdxbMEhaPAOa2vb2ynW0XE (access date: 31.03.2019).
12. Finding of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic of 7 December 2016, file ref. № PL. US 15/2016.
13. Finding of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic of 13 December 2005, file ref. № IV. ЬS 214/04.
14. Judgment of the Presov District Court, file ref. № 8C/383/2007 of 1 February 2011.
15. Decision of the Trnava District Court № 17C 156/2011 of 31 July 2014.
16. Constitutional Court by the Pezinok District Court. URL: https://www.ustavnysud.sk/documents/10182/8016873/022b89e8- 1562-4efe-9ff4-f2df7f60549e (access date: 31.03.2019).
Размещено на Allbest.ru
...Подобные документы
The concept and characteristics of the transaction. System of the rules operating social relations in the field of civil movement. Classification of transactions of various types. The validity of the transaction is recognized for it as a legal fact.
реферат [19,5 K], добавлен 24.03.2009The foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation. The civil society as the embodiment of balance of private and public interests. Legal and functional character of the civil society. Institutional structure of constitutional system.
реферат [19,5 K], добавлен 07.01.2015Аналіз інституційної системи European Civil Procedure, наднаціонального законодавства Європейського Союзу у сфері цивільного процесу. Аналіз положень, що регулюють питання передачі судових і позасудових документів, подання доказів, забезпечення вимог.
статья [21,4 K], добавлен 17.08.2017Prerequisites of formation and legalization of absolutism. The social structure: documents; classes and ranks; state apparatus. The military and judicial reforms of Peter I. Development of the law during of absolute monarchy: decrees; civil, family law.
контрольная работа [26,5 K], добавлен 14.08.2011History of infantilism. Formation of the civil society and development of the lawful state. About the new constitution of Serbia. Introduction of obligatory examination for all state and municipal officials of knowledge of Constitution of the Russia.
контрольная работа [20,1 K], добавлен 10.02.2015The Constitutional Court about political parties and religious organizations as institutes of the civil society. The party political component of the constitutional system as the subject of the constitutional control. Creation of regional parties.
реферат [24,9 K], добавлен 14.02.2015The official announcement of a state of emergency in the country. Legal measures that State Party may begin to reduce some of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Ensure public order in emergency situations.
реферат [19,2 K], добавлен 08.10.2012Constitutionalism as political and legal theory and practice of development of the constitutional democratic state and civil society. Principles of modern constitutional system of board. Role of society in the course of formation of municipal authority.
реферат [18,5 K], добавлен 07.01.2015The role of constitutional principles in the mechanism of constitutional and legal regulation. Features of transformation in the interpretation principles. Relativism in the system of law. Local fundamental justice in the mechanism of the state.
реферат [24,7 K], добавлен 10.02.2015Degradation of environment in cities has brought to destruction of ecosystems and its inconvertible nature. At characteristics of the occupied (housing) lands in the city as important condition of formation of favorable ambience of environment for people.
статья [20,4 K], добавлен 10.02.2015Legal regulation of rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen, according to article 71 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Regulation about the order of granting of gratuitous grants for residing in Republic Severnaya Ossetia - Alaniya.
реферат [19,8 K], добавлен 13.02.2015Изучение функций и полномочий государственной власти, суда и прокуратуры БССР в период времени с 1945 по 1989 годы, который является определяющим в плане значительных преобразований, касающихся органов государственной власти. Нормативно-правовые акты.
курсовая работа [48,0 K], добавлен 18.02.2011The differences between the legal norm and the state institutions. The necessity of overcoming of contradictions between the state and the law, analysis of the problems of state-legal phenomena. Protecting the interests and freedoms of social strata.
статья [18,7 K], добавлен 10.02.2015Сritical comparison of Infrared analysis and Mass Spectrometry. Summary of the uses in forensic, the molecular structural mass spectral. The method provides better sensitivity in comparison. To conclude, both techniques are helpful in the forensic study.
реферат [20,1 K], добавлен 21.12.2011The issue of freedom of the individual and their normative regulation in terms of constitutional democracy in post-Soviet republics. Stages of formation of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. Socio-economic, ideological and political conditions.
реферат [24,9 K], добавлен 14.02.2015Elements of a democratic system: citizenship, equality and respect for the decisions together. The notion of elections as a vote of free citizens to government regulation. Creating the Constitution to limit government and protect the rights and freedoms.
реферат [15,1 K], добавлен 09.05.2011General characteristics of the personal security of employees. Bases of fight against a corruption in the tax service of Ukraine. Personal safety of the tax police, concept, content, principles. Legislative regulation of non-state security activity.
реферат [24,7 K], добавлен 08.10.2012Прийняття Конституції Угорської Народної Республіки у 1949 році. Закріплення найважливіших положеннь, що характеризують правову систему. Рішення про внесення змін у Конституцію. Широка реформа Конституції у 1972 році та її демократизація у 1989-90 рр.
реферат [19,8 K], добавлен 05.06.2010Конституція Польші від 22 липня 1952 року заклала правові основи інституту прокуратури. Зміни до Конституції, прийняті 29 грудня 1989 року, скасували положення, що регулювали діяльність Генерального прокурора. Запровадження посади Національного прокурора.
реферат [24,5 K], добавлен 22.06.2010Государственное устройство Польши в 1945-1989 гг. Государственное устройство Польши на рубеже ХХ и ХXI веков. Общая характеристика правовой системы Польши. Гражданское и смежные с ним отрасли права. Уголовное право и процесс. Судебная система.
реферат [32,0 K], добавлен 13.04.2008
