Gloss on the Supreme Court Judgment of 3 February 2021, III KK 561/19

M. Gałązka
{"title":"Gloss on the Supreme Court Judgment of 3 February 2021, III KK 561/19","authors":"M. Gałązka","doi":"10.26399/iusnovum.v16.4.2022.45-m.galazka","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary The paper presents the critical commentary on the judgment, in which the Supreme Court classified unlawfull disposals of a co-owned item commited by a co-owner as misappropriation of someone else’s movable item. The legal assessment carried out by the Supreme Court can hardly be approved, as it is based on a widespread and yet incorrect interpretation of the concept of someone else’s item, considering it to be someone else’s property in relation to its co-owner. The behaviour in question fulfils rather the features of misappropriation of property right in the form of another co-owner’s participation in co-ownership. The Supreme Court partially based its assessment on the reasons justifying the latter legal qualification, however did not draw proper conclusions therefrom and did not decide to depart from the dominant case-law opinion.","PeriodicalId":33501,"journal":{"name":"Ius Novum","volume":"16 1","pages":"189 - 202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ius Novum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26399/iusnovum.v16.4.2022.45-m.galazka","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Summary The paper presents the critical commentary on the judgment, in which the Supreme Court classified unlawfull disposals of a co-owned item commited by a co-owner as misappropriation of someone else’s movable item. The legal assessment carried out by the Supreme Court can hardly be approved, as it is based on a widespread and yet incorrect interpretation of the concept of someone else’s item, considering it to be someone else’s property in relation to its co-owner. The behaviour in question fulfils rather the features of misappropriation of property right in the form of another co-owner’s participation in co-ownership. The Supreme Court partially based its assessment on the reasons justifying the latter legal qualification, however did not draw proper conclusions therefrom and did not decide to depart from the dominant case-law opinion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
最高法院2021年2月3日判决注释III KK 561/19
摘要本文对最高法院将共有人非法处置共有物归为侵占他人动产的判决书进行了批判性评注。最高法院进行的法律评估很难获得批准,因为它是基于对别人的物品概念的一种普遍而错误的解释,认为它是与其共同所有人有关的别人的财产。该行为以其他共有人参与共有的形式体现了侵占财产权的特征。最高法院的评估部分基于证明后一种法律资格的理由,但没有从中得出适当的结论,也没有决定偏离占主导地位的判例法意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Paradox of Democratic Strengthening: Criminalisation of Political Terrorism as a Legal Discrediting Mechanism The Attack on the Protected Legal Interest: A Criminalisation Principle and an Element of the Criminal Offence? Amendment to the Rights and Obligations of a Journalist in Act: Press Law from the Perspective of Conscience Clause Key Elements of the Criminal Law Conflict System, with Special Reference to Spanish Criminal Law On the Concept of an Appellate Measure in a Criminal Proceeding
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1