Suchergebnisse

Abstract: The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has judged on 30 August 2007, in a ten to seven majority opinion, that the arrangements regarding adverse possession under the law of England and Wales is in conformity with Article 1 First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (Art. 1 FP). This decision reversed the chamber decision on Pye v. UK of 15 November 2005. The Grand Chamber decision is an important decision, for two reasons. The decision makes clear that national arrangements of private (property) law are fundamentally subject to a constitutional review by the ECHR. But the decision also makes clear that the Court – at least for the moment, and according to the majority opinion – will be reticent in exercising this power. While the result is positive for private property law, the court's reasoning may be subject to critique.
Résumé: La Grande Chambre de la Cour européenne des Droits de l?Homme a jugé le 30 août 2007, par dix voix contre sept, que le droit britannique de la prescription acquisitive est en conformité avec l?article 1 du Protocole no 1 à la Convention. Cette décision infi rme la décision Pye c. R-U du 15 novembre 2005. La décision de la Grande Chambre est importante pour deux raisons. Elle précise, tout d?abord, que les modalités nationales du droit privé (de la propriété) peuvent être sujettes à un contrôle de constitutionalité par laCEDH. Mais cette décision précise également que la Cour, du moins pour le moment, et en accord avec l?opinion majoritaire, sera réticente à exercer son pouvoir. Si le résultat est positifpour le droit privé de la propriété, le raisonnement de la Cour peut être sujet à critiques.
Zusammenfassung: Die Große Kammer des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte hat am 30. August 2007 in einer 10 zu 7 ergangenen Mehrheitsentscheidung entschieden, dass Vereinbarungen über die Ersitzung nach dem Recht in England und Wales vereinbar sein mit Artikel 1 Erstes Protokoll der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention(Art. 1 EP). Diese Entscheidung hat die Entscheinung der Kammer in der Rechtssache Pye v. UK vom 15. November 2005 widerrufen. Die Entscheidung der Großen Kammer ist aufgrund zweier Aspekte von großer Bedeutung. Diese Entscheidung macht deutlich, dass nationale Vereinbarungen im Rahmen des Privat (Sachen-) rechts grundsätzlich Gegenstand einer grundrechtlichen Überprüfung durch den EGMR sein können. Diese Entscheidung macht dagegen auch deutlich, dass der Gerichtshof ? zumindest derzeit und nach Ansicht der mehrheitlichen Meinung ? zurückhaltend in der Ausübung seiner Befugnis sein wird. Während das Ergebnis durchaus positiv für das privatrechtliche Sachenrecht ist, muss die Begründung des Gerichtshofs kritisch beurteilt werden.

This book deals with comparative land law, and is a reflection of the annual colloquium of the International Association of Legal Science, which was held in 2001 at the La Laguna University of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands. Land law is property law?s national refuge par excellence.

This book deals with the clash between the claims of western settlers for land and those of the indigenous inhabitants of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA. It is about property law, particularly property rights in land, and in the diversity of its analyses, it skilfully shows that property rights are subject to ideological conceptions as to how society should be organized. It is at the same time also an historic research into the developments about the thinking on property rights in land. Law, political science and historic research form an excellent amalgam. This book is indeed very interesting.

In 1999 Iwan Davies published a book on retention of title clauses. I warmly welcomed the book since books in English on property law in a comparative context are needed, by academia and practice, yet these are scarce. This scarcity is slowly disappearing; Davies and his Centre for Installment Credit Law at the University of Wales, Swansea, is partially responsible for this positive tendency, since he has once more published a volume on an enormously important subject, the law of proprietary security in personal property in cross-border transactions, entitled: Security Interests in Mobile Equipment. And once again, retention of title reappears. A book is necessarily divided in three parts. The first part deals with domestic law, the second with private international law, and the third with uniform law. I have read the contributions with great pleasure, yet I do have an overall reservation. The last part deals with the most challenging subject: how on earth is it possible to create a uniform law on the basis of the immensely diverging bodies of national mandatory law of proprietary security? The unification has taken shape in a fairly specific area. The economic need for unification or harmonization in the case of security interests in expensive equipment which by its nature continually crosses borders of national jurisdictions is evident. It has led to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment concluded in Cape Town, in December 2001. This convention and the protocol on Aircraft equipment have been ratified by three and acceded to by one jurisdiction, and have in the meantime (1 April 2004) entered into force. There are unmistakable signs that the United States, Canada, Singapore, Vietnam and Kenya will soon follow.

Abstract: The European Union issued the directive on late payment in business transactions on August 8, 2000, which contains a provision on retention of title clauses. This provision provides for the recognition of simple foreign retention of title clauses in business contracts. In this paper the author discusses this directive with regard to the harmonization of property law within the European Union on the one hand, and to the national retention of title arrangements on the other. The inclusion of an aspect of property law in this directive can be considered a revolutionary development, while at the same time more could have been accomplished in harmonizing the laws regarding retention of title.