V. Sagaert, A. Appelmans, Sander Baeyens, Ghijsbrecht Degeest, Marie-Laure Degroote, Bram Maeschaelck, Benjamin Verheye
{"title":"Act of 4 February 2020 containing Book 3 “Property” of the Civil Code Belgian Official Gazette 17 March 2020","authors":"V. Sagaert, A. Appelmans, Sander Baeyens, Ghijsbrecht Degeest, Marie-Laure Degroote, Bram Maeschaelck, Benjamin Verheye","doi":"10.1515/eplj-2021-0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2021-0009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":338086,"journal":{"name":"European Property Law Journal","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122031298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Ownership in the new Belgian property law","authors":"Sander Baeyens","doi":"10.1515/eplj-2021-0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2021-0005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":338086,"journal":{"name":"European Property Law Journal","volume":"80 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133242147","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The background and general principles of the new Belgian property law","authors":"V. Sagaert","doi":"10.1515/eplj-2021-0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2021-0002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":338086,"journal":{"name":"European Property Law Journal","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116908569","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Usufruct in the new Belgian property law","authors":"Ghijsbrecht Degeest","doi":"10.1515/eplj-2021-0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2021-0007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":338086,"journal":{"name":"European Property Law Journal","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127647234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Emhyteusis rights (long lease) and superficies rights (building rights) in the new Belgian Property Law","authors":"A. Appelmans","doi":"10.1515/eplj-2021-0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2021-0008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":338086,"journal":{"name":"European Property Law Journal","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131123956","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Beyond its exchange value, housing has a high use value, since it is essential to life. Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes that housing plays a central role in the right to an adequate standard of living. In Quebec, the protection of the right to housing is often advocated through various sections of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse recommends that the right to housing be explicitly included in the right to measures of financial assistance and to social measures susceptible of ensuring an acceptable standard of living, under section 45 of the Charter. For public authorities in Quebec and Canada, individual ownership is the favoured means to provide housing. Since the post-war period, and even more so since the early 1990 s, public policies have encouraged individual ownership
{"title":"Discussing the Values: Retrieving Use Value of Property in Housing Contexts","authors":"Yaëll Emerich, F. Rivard","doi":"10.1515/eplj-2020-0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2020-0007","url":null,"abstract":"Beyond its exchange value, housing has a high use value, since it is essential to life. Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes that housing plays a central role in the right to an adequate standard of living. In Quebec, the protection of the right to housing is often advocated through various sections of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse recommends that the right to housing be explicitly included in the right to measures of financial assistance and to social measures susceptible of ensuring an acceptable standard of living, under section 45 of the Charter. For public authorities in Quebec and Canada, individual ownership is the favoured means to provide housing. Since the post-war period, and even more so since the early 1990 s, public policies have encouraged individual ownership","PeriodicalId":338086,"journal":{"name":"European Property Law Journal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134099984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Scholars have argued that reasonable persons can disagree on what the most sensible good-faith purchase doctrine is. Indeed, using hand-coded data on this doctrine in 247 jurisdictions, this article finds that this doctrine has hardly converged-there are at least 23 different variants of this doctrine, from “no good faith required” to “good faith is all the purchaser needs.” The 23 variants can be grouped into three clusters: the categorical approach, under which stolen goods always revert back to original owners; the binary approach, under which the distinction between stolen and non-stolen goods matters, but stolen goods do not always revert; and the unitary approach, under which there is no distinction between stolen and non-stolen goods.
{"title":"The Good-Faith Purchase Doctrine in 247 Jurisdictions","authors":"Yun-chien Chang","doi":"10.1515/eplj-2020-0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2020-0005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Scholars have argued that reasonable persons can disagree on what the most sensible good-faith purchase doctrine is. Indeed, using hand-coded data on this doctrine in 247 jurisdictions, this article finds that this doctrine has hardly converged-there are at least 23 different variants of this doctrine, from “no good faith required” to “good faith is all the purchaser needs.” The 23 variants can be grouped into three clusters: the categorical approach, under which stolen goods always revert back to original owners; the binary approach, under which the distinction between stolen and non-stolen goods matters, but stolen goods do not always revert; and the unitary approach, under which there is no distinction between stolen and non-stolen goods.","PeriodicalId":338086,"journal":{"name":"European Property Law Journal","volume":"238 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122625583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract For a long time, the publicity regime over movable property has been associated with possession. Many modern legal systems still operate on Roman law principles concerning the validity of transactions: Whoever is in possession of a movable asset generates the legal presumption that he or she rightfully owns that asset. Immovable assets on the other hand are tied to a different concept due to the value and meaning ascribed to them. Whereas possession signals who has which rights to claim against whom, inscriptions made in a public registry (such as a land registry) determine the fate of immovable property. Over time, reforms in the law on secured transactions have resulted in a less strict approach adopted in executing transaction relating to movable property to enable the establishment of limited rights in rem and their implementation. Regardless, most civil law jurisdictions still deem the transfer of possession as compulsory for a valid right of pledge over movable property. This article elaborates on the most significant changes to the field of property law and why certain countries may reconsider their traditional approach, especially since yet another wave of change is coming in the form of Blockchain registries. Although certain countries’ legal systems are bound to the old-fashioned principle dating back to Germanic and Roman laws, many others like the Belgian, French and Turkish systems have modernized their publicity regime applied on movable assets and have a special registry, whether regional or nationwide, for transactions related to movables. While providing a few examples from common law countries, this article is an in-depth, comparative analysis into the current condition of Swiss law on this matter and the modifications implemented under French and Turkish law. In the last section, the article reviews the imminent interaction between the publicity regime of immovables and blockchain technology.
{"title":"Keeping up with the Times: The Transformation of the Publicity Regime with New Movable Property Security Rights and Developments in Blockchain Technology","authors":"Yaman Gürsel","doi":"10.1515/eplj-2020-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2020-0004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For a long time, the publicity regime over movable property has been associated with possession. Many modern legal systems still operate on Roman law principles concerning the validity of transactions: Whoever is in possession of a movable asset generates the legal presumption that he or she rightfully owns that asset. Immovable assets on the other hand are tied to a different concept due to the value and meaning ascribed to them. Whereas possession signals who has which rights to claim against whom, inscriptions made in a public registry (such as a land registry) determine the fate of immovable property. Over time, reforms in the law on secured transactions have resulted in a less strict approach adopted in executing transaction relating to movable property to enable the establishment of limited rights in rem and their implementation. Regardless, most civil law jurisdictions still deem the transfer of possession as compulsory for a valid right of pledge over movable property. This article elaborates on the most significant changes to the field of property law and why certain countries may reconsider their traditional approach, especially since yet another wave of change is coming in the form of Blockchain registries. Although certain countries’ legal systems are bound to the old-fashioned principle dating back to Germanic and Roman laws, many others like the Belgian, French and Turkish systems have modernized their publicity regime applied on movable assets and have a special registry, whether regional or nationwide, for transactions related to movables. While providing a few examples from common law countries, this article is an in-depth, comparative analysis into the current condition of Swiss law on this matter and the modifications implemented under French and Turkish law. In the last section, the article reviews the imminent interaction between the publicity regime of immovables and blockchain technology.","PeriodicalId":338086,"journal":{"name":"European Property Law Journal","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114843697","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：