Suchergebnisse

The key purpose and mission of mass media is to be the channel of information serving the society, and it presupposes the most important principles and values of media. The law of mass media, ethic code of journalists and publishers, theorists and critics of journalism claim that the primary values of media are freedom of speech, creativity, and conscience, pluralism, independence, objectivity, accuracy, information comprehensiveness and correctness, honesty, respect for an individual and society, personal responsibility, self-regulation, tolerance, and variety of opinions. Such an idealistic view to mass media should be given credit and become the reason of the very existence of media. Media market is a business field needed of particular regulation because mass media not only exists in the economic level but performs a certain mission within the society as well. General legal acts regulating the competition do not cover all the aspects of media. Some legal acts being only of recommendatory base cannot ensure neither the independence and pluralism of media nor successful existence of public media. In a democratic country mass media providing public information must reveal to the public certain data about the owners of public information providers and spreaders, their commercial interests, political orientation, and etc. These provisions requiring publicity and transparency are necessary in order to ensure pluralism of opinions and prevent monopolism and manipulations in the field of public information. Information about the owners of mass media has to be known as it guarantees transparency of the market while the lack of such documents brings into one and the same the mission of media and interests of the owners, misleads the society, and decreases confidence in media. However, provisions of media transparency in legal acts are not effective and inefficient control mechanism is partly to be blamed. The theorists of journalism, critics, and public figures constantly emphasize the significance and necessity of media's mission and the role of public media in the existence of a democratic society. Legal acts are used to ensure the pluralism of media, its fair and competitive market. Unfortunately, despite the mission of media and regulation of the market media gives priority to business over publicity and realization of the mission in the society. Media of entertainment, "infotainment," and "new news" media which springs up in such context gains the highest ratings and editions at the same time superseding public media from the means of mass media. The spread of information which has been the main reason of media existence since the very first newspapers is losing to the interests of media ownership in uneven battle.

The key purpose and mission of mass media is to be the channel of information serving the society, and it presupposes the most important principles and values of media. The law of mass media, ethic code of journalists and publishers, theorists and critics of journalism claim that the primary values of media are freedom of speech, creativity, and conscience, pluralism, independence, objectivity, accuracy, information comprehensiveness and correctness, honesty, respect for an individual and society, personal responsibility, self-regulation, tolerance, and variety of opinions. Such an idealistic view to mass media should be given credit and become the reason of the very existence of media. Media market is a business field needed of particular regulation because mass media not only exists in the economic level but performs a certain mission within the society as well. General legal acts regulating the competition do not cover all the aspects of media. Some legal acts being only of recommendatory base cannot ensure neither the independence and pluralism of media nor successful existence of public media. In a democratic country mass media providing public information must reveal to the public certain data about the owners of public information providers and spreaders, their commercial interests, political orientation, and etc. These provisions requiring publicity and transparency are necessary in order to ensure pluralism of opinions and prevent monopolism and manipulations in the field of public information. Information about the owners of mass media has to be known as it guarantees transparency of the market while the lack of such documents brings into one and the same the mission of media and interests of the owners, misleads the society, and decreases confidence in media. However, provisions of media transparency in legal acts are not effective and inefficient control mechanism is partly to be blamed. The theorists of journalism, critics, and public figures constantly emphasize the significance and necessity of media's mission and the role of public media in the existence of a democratic society. Legal acts are used to ensure the pluralism of media, its fair and competitive market. Unfortunately, despite the mission of media and regulation of the market media gives priority to business over publicity and realization of the mission in the society. Media of entertainment, "infotainment," and "new news" media which springs up in such context gains the highest ratings and editions at the same time superseding public media from the means of mass media. The spread of information which has been the main reason of media existence since the very first newspapers is losing to the interests of media ownership in uneven battle.

The key purpose and mission of mass media is to be the channel of information serving the society, and it presupposes the most important principles and values of media. The law of mass media, ethic code of journalists and publishers, theorists and critics of journalism claim that the primary values of media are freedom of speech, creativity, and conscience, pluralism, independence, objectivity, accuracy, information comprehensiveness and correctness, honesty, respect for an individual and society, personal responsibility, self-regulation, tolerance, and variety of opinions. Such an idealistic view to mass media should be given credit and become the reason of the very existence of media. Media market is a business field needed of particular regulation because mass media not only exists in the economic level but performs a certain mission within the society as well. General legal acts regulating the competition do not cover all the aspects of media. Some legal acts being only of recommendatory base cannot ensure neither the independence and pluralism of media nor successful existence of public media. In a democratic country mass media providing public information must reveal to the public certain data about the owners of public information providers and spreaders, their commercial interests, political orientation, and etc. These provisions requiring publicity and transparency are necessary in order to ensure pluralism of opinions and prevent monopolism and manipulations in the field of public information. Information about the owners of mass media has to be known as it guarantees transparency of the market while the lack of such documents brings into one and the same the mission of media and interests of the owners, misleads the society, and decreases confidence in media. However, provisions of media transparency in legal acts are not effective and inefficient control mechanism is partly to be blamed. The theorists of journalism, critics, and public figures constantly emphasize the significance and necessity of media's mission and the role of public media in the existence of a democratic society. Legal acts are used to ensure the pluralism of media, its fair and competitive market. Unfortunately, despite the mission of media and regulation of the market media gives priority to business over publicity and realization of the mission in the society. Media of entertainment, "infotainment," and "new news" media which springs up in such context gains the highest ratings and editions at the same time superseding public media from the means of mass media. The spread of information which has been the main reason of media existence since the very first newspapers is losing to the interests of media ownership in uneven battle.

The key purpose and mission of mass media is to be the channel of information serving the society, and it presupposes the most important principles and values of media. The law of mass media, ethic code of journalists and publishers, theorists and critics of journalism claim that the primary values of media are freedom of speech, creativity, and conscience, pluralism, independence, objectivity, accuracy, information comprehensiveness and correctness, honesty, respect for an individual and society, personal responsibility, self-regulation, tolerance, and variety of opinions. Such an idealistic view to mass media should be given credit and become the reason of the very existence of media. Media market is a business field needed of particular regulation because mass media not only exists in the economic level but performs a certain mission within the society as well. General legal acts regulating the competition do not cover all the aspects of media. Some legal acts being only of recommendatory base cannot ensure neither the independence and pluralism of media nor successful existence of public media. In a democratic country mass media providing public information must reveal to the public certain data about the owners of public information providers and spreaders, their commercial interests, political orientation, and etc. These provisions requiring publicity and transparency are necessary in order to ensure pluralism of opinions and prevent monopolism and manipulations in the field of public information. Information about the owners of mass media has to be known as it guarantees transparency of the market while the lack of such documents brings into one and the same the mission of media and interests of the owners, misleads the society, and decreases confidence in media. However, provisions of media transparency in legal acts are not effective and inefficient control mechanism is partly to be blamed. The theorists of journalism, critics, and public figures constantly emphasize the significance and necessity of media's mission and the role of public media in the existence of a democratic society. Legal acts are used to ensure the pluralism of media, its fair and competitive market. Unfortunately, despite the mission of media and regulation of the market media gives priority to business over publicity and realization of the mission in the society. Media of entertainment, "infotainment," and "new news" media which springs up in such context gains the highest ratings and editions at the same time superseding public media from the means of mass media. The spread of information which has been the main reason of media existence since the very first newspapers is losing to the interests of media ownership in uneven battle.

The institute of legal relations considering restoration of ownership rights is a specific constituent part of Lithuanian legal system, formation of which in Lithuanian law was determined by historical circumstances: the aggression that was inflicted on the independent Lithuanian Republic by occupant authorities in 1940, whereas the outcome of these actions was nationalization of all privately owned real estate. In 1990 when the independence of Lithuania was restored and the fact that property ownership rights of citizens, which were gained before occupation, are indefeasible and continuous was officially acknowledged, appropriate standard legal regulations were passed which would regulate these legal relations. Upon the order and conditions of these new regulations the restoration of ownership rights commenced. In Lithuania this process already continues since 1991 and, unfortunately, by the end of 2007 it is not yet fully completed. In this master's thesis the institute of restoration of ownership rights is analyzed through one of its constituent parts, i.e. by analyzing restoration of land ownership rights in the cities. This specific field has been chosen as an object of analysis because current situation in Lithuania allows coming to a valid conclusion that in the cities restoration of ownership rights is pursued at the slowest rates (e.g., in the city of Vilnius ownership rights were restored to only 11.37% of overall land, which is claimed in citizens' applications). When investigating this specific legal relations group of restitution, firstly the order of realization of the right to restore ownership rights to the land in the cities was thoroughly analyzed. In this particular part of the thesis the following issues were described and analyzed: which citizens are granted the right by the law to restore ownership rights; under what terms, what order and what documents the citizens are required to submit seeking to materialize this right; which government institutions and under what terms must they consider applications and make decisions about restoration of ownership rights to city land; what are the measures to restore ownership rights to previously owned land in the city; what kind of city land is classified as redeemable by the state and what are the ways for the state to compensate for this land. Having analyzed the order of implementation of the right to restore ownership rights to previously owned land in the city and its legal regulations, it was further gone into the causes which raise difficulties for this process to be carried out properly and timely, so that citizens can realize their right granted to them by the law to retrieve the land which is in the city territory or receive a proper compensation for it. The order and peculiarities of compensation for the land with securities, as one of the ways to pursue restoration of ownership to city land, is provided in the last part of the thesis.

The institute of legal relations considering restoration of ownership rights is a specific constituent part of Lithuanian legal system, formation of which in Lithuanian law was determined by historical circumstances: the aggression that was inflicted on the independent Lithuanian Republic by occupant authorities in 1940, whereas the outcome of these actions was nationalization of all privately owned real estate. In 1990 when the independence of Lithuania was restored and the fact that property ownership rights of citizens, which were gained before occupation, are indefeasible and continuous was officially acknowledged, appropriate standard legal regulations were passed which would regulate these legal relations. Upon the order and conditions of these new regulations the restoration of ownership rights commenced. In Lithuania this process already continues since 1991 and, unfortunately, by the end of 2007 it is not yet fully completed. In this master's thesis the institute of restoration of ownership rights is analyzed through one of its constituent parts, i.e. by analyzing restoration of land ownership rights in the cities. This specific field has been chosen as an object of analysis because current situation in Lithuania allows coming to a valid conclusion that in the cities restoration of ownership rights is pursued at the slowest rates (e.g., in the city of Vilnius ownership rights were restored to only 11.37% of overall land, which is claimed in citizens' applications). When investigating this specific legal relations group of restitution, firstly the order of realization of the right to restore ownership rights to the land in the cities was thoroughly analyzed. In this particular part of the thesis the following issues were described and analyzed: which citizens are granted the right by the law to restore ownership rights; under what terms, what order and what documents the citizens are required to submit seeking to materialize this right; which government institutions and under what terms must they consider applications and make decisions about restoration of ownership rights to city land; what are the measures to restore ownership rights to previously owned land in the city; what kind of city land is classified as redeemable by the state and what are the ways for the state to compensate for this land. Having analyzed the order of implementation of the right to restore ownership rights to previously owned land in the city and its legal regulations, it was further gone into the causes which raise difficulties for this process to be carried out properly and timely, so that citizens can realize their right granted to them by the law to retrieve the land which is in the city territory or receive a proper compensation for it. The order and peculiarities of compensation for the land with securities, as one of the ways to pursue restoration of ownership to city land, is provided in the last part of the thesis.

The institute of legal relations considering restoration of ownership rights is a specific constituent part of Lithuanian legal system, formation of which in Lithuanian law was determined by historical circumstances: the aggression that was inflicted on the independent Lithuanian Republic by occupant authorities in 1940, whereas the outcome of these actions was nationalization of all privately owned real estate. In 1990 when the independence of Lithuania was restored and the fact that property ownership rights of citizens, which were gained before occupation, are indefeasible and continuous was officially acknowledged, appropriate standard legal regulations were passed which would regulate these legal relations. Upon the order and conditions of these new regulations the restoration of ownership rights commenced. In Lithuania this process already continues since 1991 and, unfortunately, by the end of 2007 it is not yet fully completed. In this master's thesis the institute of restoration of ownership rights is analyzed through one of its constituent parts, i.e. by analyzing restoration of land ownership rights in the cities. This specific field has been chosen as an object of analysis because current situation in Lithuania allows coming to a valid conclusion that in the cities restoration of ownership rights is pursued at the slowest rates (e.g., in the city of Vilnius ownership rights were restored to only 11.37% of overall land, which is claimed in citizens' applications). When investigating this specific legal relations group of restitution, firstly the order of realization of the right to restore ownership rights to the land in the cities was thoroughly analyzed. In this particular part of the thesis the following issues were described and analyzed: which citizens are granted the right by the law to restore ownership rights; under what terms, what order and what documents the citizens are required to submit seeking to materialize this right; which government institutions and under what terms must they consider applications and make decisions about restoration of ownership rights to city land; what are the measures to restore ownership rights to previously owned land in the city; what kind of city land is classified as redeemable by the state and what are the ways for the state to compensate for this land. Having analyzed the order of implementation of the right to restore ownership rights to previously owned land in the city and its legal regulations, it was further gone into the causes which raise difficulties for this process to be carried out properly and timely, so that citizens can realize their right granted to them by the law to retrieve the land which is in the city territory or receive a proper compensation for it. The order and peculiarities of compensation for the land with securities, as one of the ways to pursue restoration of ownership to city land, is provided in the last part of the thesis.

The institute of legal relations considering restoration of ownership rights is a specific constituent part of Lithuanian legal system, formation of which in Lithuanian law was determined by historical circumstances: the aggression that was inflicted on the independent Lithuanian Republic by occupant authorities in 1940, whereas the outcome of these actions was nationalization of all privately owned real estate. In 1990 when the independence of Lithuania was restored and the fact that property ownership rights of citizens, which were gained before occupation, are indefeasible and continuous was officially acknowledged, appropriate standard legal regulations were passed which would regulate these legal relations. Upon the order and conditions of these new regulations the restoration of ownership rights commenced. In Lithuania this process already continues since 1991 and, unfortunately, by the end of 2007 it is not yet fully completed. In this master's thesis the institute of restoration of ownership rights is analyzed through one of its constituent parts, i.e. by analyzing restoration of land ownership rights in the cities. This specific field has been chosen as an object of analysis because current situation in Lithuania allows coming to a valid conclusion that in the cities restoration of ownership rights is pursued at the slowest rates (e.g., in the city of Vilnius ownership rights were restored to only 11.37% of overall land, which is claimed in citizens' applications). When investigating this specific legal relations group of restitution, firstly the order of realization of the right to restore ownership rights to the land in the cities was thoroughly analyzed. In this particular part of the thesis the following issues were described and analyzed: which citizens are granted the right by the law to restore ownership rights; under what terms, what order and what documents the citizens are required to submit seeking to materialize this right; which government institutions and under what terms must they consider applications and make decisions about restoration of ownership rights to city land; what are the measures to restore ownership rights to previously owned land in the city; what kind of city land is classified as redeemable by the state and what are the ways for the state to compensate for this land. Having analyzed the order of implementation of the right to restore ownership rights to previously owned land in the city and its legal regulations, it was further gone into the causes which raise difficulties for this process to be carried out properly and timely, so that citizens can realize their right granted to them by the law to retrieve the land which is in the city territory or receive a proper compensation for it. The order and peculiarities of compensation for the land with securities, as one of the ways to pursue restoration of ownership to city land, is provided in the last part of the thesis.

The moment of the acquisition of the ownership right is of great importance in determining subject of the ownership - the owner, his rights and duties, emergence of protection of the ownership right, option of defense of the ownership right. This paperwork discusses concepts of ownership and its object, acquisition of ownership rights of the item on individual basis. Work is based on analysis and examination of the moment of acquisition of the ownership of the item on individual basis - transactions (sales and purchase, donation, exchange), inheritance of object, acquisitive prescription, production of a new object, misappropriating the derelict thing. Under the most common sales and purchase, donation, exchange transactions a person, according to the common rule established in Lithuanian Civil Code article 4.49 part 1, acquires the ownership right of the item from the moment of transfer. However, the principles of dispositive and freedom of contract implies that the contract parties are almost always allowed to agree on a different moment of transition of the ownership right. Lithuania established Austrian model of acquisition of the ownership right of inheritance. Heir acquires ownership right of inheritance from the moment of emersion of inheritance, after he has accepted it. According to the case law of Lithuanian courts, ownership right of the item, on the ground of acquisitive prescription, is acquired from the moment of the end of the date of acquisitive prescription which is indicated in a court's ruling. Ownership of the newly constructed movable property is acquired from the moment of its manufacture. Particularly challenging is the identification of the moment of the acquisition of ownership right of newly constructed immovable structures and immovable structures under construction. The right of ownership is acquired from the moment of construction of both the legal immovable structures, and immovable structures under construction. The same applies to arbitrary immovable structures, provided that such structures were generally legal to build in that exact place. However, according to the general principle of law of ex injuria jus non oritur, ownership right of arbitrary immovable structure, which couldn't be built in that exact place, does not emerge. Clear regulations on the acquisition of the ownership right of immovable structures are desperately needed, in order to avoid practical and legislation problems which cause serious damage for the legitimate owners of immovable structures. Ownership of the derelict object can be acquired only by the state or municipality, but by the law, some derelict moveable objects can also be adopted by other persons.

The moment of the acquisition of the ownership right is of great importance in determining subject of the ownership - the owner, his rights and duties, emergence of protection of the ownership right, option of defense of the ownership right. This paperwork discusses concepts of ownership and its object, acquisition of ownership rights of the item on individual basis. Work is based on analysis and examination of the moment of acquisition of the ownership of the item on individual basis - transactions (sales and purchase, donation, exchange), inheritance of object, acquisitive prescription, production of a new object, misappropriating the derelict thing. Under the most common sales and purchase, donation, exchange transactions a person, according to the common rule established in Lithuanian Civil Code article 4.49 part 1, acquires the ownership right of the item from the moment of transfer. However, the principles of dispositive and freedom of contract implies that the contract parties are almost always allowed to agree on a different moment of transition of the ownership right. Lithuania established Austrian model of acquisition of the ownership right of inheritance. Heir acquires ownership right of inheritance from the moment of emersion of inheritance, after he has accepted it. According to the case law of Lithuanian courts, ownership right of the item, on the ground of acquisitive prescription, is acquired from the moment of the end of the date of acquisitive prescription which is indicated in a court's ruling. Ownership of the newly constructed movable property is acquired from the moment of its manufacture. Particularly challenging is the identification of the moment of the acquisition of ownership right of newly constructed immovable structures and immovable structures under construction. The right of ownership is acquired from the moment of construction of both the legal immovable structures, and immovable structures under construction. The same applies to arbitrary immovable structures, provided that such structures were generally legal to build in that exact place. However, according to the general principle of law of ex injuria jus non oritur, ownership right of arbitrary immovable structure, which couldn't be built in that exact place, does not emerge. Clear regulations on the acquisition of the ownership right of immovable structures are desperately needed, in order to avoid practical and legislation problems which cause serious damage for the legitimate owners of immovable structures. Ownership of the derelict object can be acquired only by the state or municipality, but by the law, some derelict moveable objects can also be adopted by other persons.

Acquisitive prescription is one of the bases of property rights acquisition. The beginnings of this institute, regulated in the legal system of Lithuania, date back to ancient Rome. This work analyses of acquisitive prescription institute, names legal topic of its application. The institute of acquisitive prescription is revealed through the analysis of its origin, development in legal system and naming of its legal significance. Property right on the basis of acquisitive prescription is gained only after the implementation of all conditions, provided in law, therefore much attention is paid to the analysis of these conditions totality. The work presents thorough analysis of what objects may be acquired as property, regarding the prohibitions contained in legislation. Sustaining the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, a wide analysis of conditions content of an object tenure, on the basis of which property is acquired, is given, and the problems in the case of application of these conditions are listed. Emphasizing proper application of acquisitive prescription, a circumstance is analyzed, when a person, without documents, validating construction legitimacy, seeks to acquire property right for a building on the basis of this institute. The work also analyzes dissociation issue of acquisitive prescription and other property right acquisition elements, analyzing problematic aspects related to the application of acquisitive prescription.

Acquisitive prescription is one of the bases of property rights acquisition. The beginnings of this institute, regulated in the legal system of Lithuania, date back to ancient Rome. This work analyses of acquisitive prescription institute, names legal topic of its application. The institute of acquisitive prescription is revealed through the analysis of its origin, development in legal system and naming of its legal significance. Property right on the basis of acquisitive prescription is gained only after the implementation of all conditions, provided in law, therefore much attention is paid to the analysis of these conditions totality. The work presents thorough analysis of what objects may be acquired as property, regarding the prohibitions contained in legislation. Sustaining the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, a wide analysis of conditions content of an object tenure, on the basis of which property is acquired, is given, and the problems in the case of application of these conditions are listed. Emphasizing proper application of acquisitive prescription, a circumstance is analyzed, when a person, without documents, validating construction legitimacy, seeks to acquire property right for a building on the basis of this institute. The work also analyzes dissociation issue of acquisitive prescription and other property right acquisition elements, analyzing problematic aspects related to the application of acquisitive prescription.

The right of common partial property is characterized by the fact that the multiplicity of the ownership of one particular object causes a legal relationship between the co-owners of themselves in respect to the various rights and obligations of each other in relation to the third parties. In relation to an object that is considered as joint ownership, appropriate implementation of the rights and obligations of each co-owner allows maximal usage of the item and its beneficial properties. The main criteria for the implementation of joint ownership of a property are the mutual agreement between the co-owners. While using its right, the co-owner also has a right to dispose of his share within the specificity of the form of the common partial ownership and the interests of other co-owners, the legislator established a mandatory procedure for the right of disposal of the co-owner. Article 4.79 of the Civil Code defines the right of priority of the co-owner in opposition to third parties. This co-owners right gives him the opportunity to acquire the share that the other co-owner intends to sell before third parties. Despite the fact that the aforementioned rule clearly regulates the procedure how the co-owner is obliged to inform the other co-owners in order to sell their shares, in common practices occur the cases where the co-owners and third parties intentionally violate the imperative procedural requirements of the sale of the part. The co-owners pre-emptive right also raises different views on its scope during asset realization procedures, and in some situations even raises uncertainties whether the limitation of disposal of the co-owners share of the joint ownership in all cases is proportionally, and maybe there are the situations where the procedure under review disproportionately burdens the co-owners.

The right of common partial property is characterized by the fact that the multiplicity of the ownership of one particular object causes a legal relationship between the co-owners of themselves in respect to the various rights and obligations of each other in relation to the third parties. In relation to an object that is considered as joint ownership, appropriate implementation of the rights and obligations of each co-owner allows maximal usage of the item and its beneficial properties. The main criteria for the implementation of joint ownership of a property are the mutual agreement between the co-owners. While using its right, the co-owner also has a right to dispose of his share within the specificity of the form of the common partial ownership and the interests of other co-owners, the legislator established a mandatory procedure for the right of disposal of the co-owner. Article 4.79 of the Civil Code defines the right of priority of the co-owner in opposition to third parties. This co-owners right gives him the opportunity to acquire the share that the other co-owner intends to sell before third parties. Despite the fact that the aforementioned rule clearly regulates the procedure how the co-owner is obliged to inform the other co-owners in order to sell their shares, in common practices occur the cases where the co-owners and third parties intentionally violate the imperative procedural requirements of the sale of the part. The co-owners pre-emptive right also raises different views on its scope during asset realization procedures, and in some situations even raises uncertainties whether the limitation of disposal of the co-owners share of the joint ownership in all cases is proportionally, and maybe there are the situations where the procedure under review disproportionately burdens the co-owners.

The right of common partial property is characterized by the fact that the multiplicity of the ownership of one particular object causes a legal relationship between the co-owners of themselves in respect to the various rights and obligations of each other in relation to the third parties. In relation to an object that is considered as joint ownership, appropriate implementation of the rights and obligations of each co-owner allows maximal usage of the item and its beneficial properties. The main criteria for the implementation of joint ownership of a property are the mutual agreement between the co-owners. While using its right, the co-owner also has a right to dispose of his share within the specificity of the form of the common partial ownership and the interests of other co-owners, the legislator established a mandatory procedure for the right of disposal of the co-owner. Article 4.79 of the Civil Code defines the right of priority of the co-owner in opposition to third parties. This co-owners right gives him the opportunity to acquire the share that the other co-owner intends to sell before third parties. Despite the fact that the aforementioned rule clearly regulates the procedure how the co-owner is obliged to inform the other co-owners in order to sell their shares, in common practices occur the cases where the co-owners and third parties intentionally violate the imperative procedural requirements of the sale of the part. The co-owners pre-emptive right also raises different views on its scope during asset realization procedures, and in some situations even raises uncertainties whether the limitation of disposal of the co-owners share of the joint ownership in all cases is proportionally, and maybe there are the situations where the procedure under review disproportionately burdens the co-owners.