No description available.

Forskning visar att genom utveckling inom digitalisering finns flera nyttor att vinna. Dessa nyttor är att verksamheter effektiviseras, kvalitet på data höjs och kostnader sjunker. Lantmäteriet strävar mot att effektivisera fastighetsbildningsprocessen genom att tillvarata digitaliseringens möjligheter och där ett önskat tillstånd är skapa obrutna digitala informationsflöden.  För att uppnå ett obrutet digitalt informationsflöde krävs det att information samlas, digitaliseras och görs tillgänglig. Idag finns inget lagkrav för att avtalsrättigheter ska skrivas in i fastighetsregistret, vilket resulterar i att denna informationsmängd inte tillgängliggörs och därmed uppstår en lucka i det digitala informationsflödet. Därför är det viktigt att undersöka hur fastighetsbildningsprocessen påverkas av oinskrivna avtalsrättigheter, tillsammans med önskeläget om ett obrutet digitalt informationsflöde.  Syftet med studien är att belysa de effekter som kan komma att uppstå vid en förändrad inskrivning av avtalsrättigheter, vad detta skulle medföra för effektivisering av fastighetsbildningsprocessen och hur en förändring skulle kunna genomföras. För att besvara frågeställningen har den empiriska delen utgjorts av en enkätundersökning riktad mot förrättningslantmätare samt intervjuer genomförda med sakkunniga inom området.  Utifrån studiens resultat framkommer det att det är viktigt att arbeta mot en mer digital fastighetsbildningsprocess, att tillgängliggöra information digitalt och därmed skapa transparens. Nyttorna med ett mer komplett fastighetsregister bidrar till snabbare beslut inom fastighetsbildningsprocessen. En förändring av inskrivningsförfarandet bör genomföras genom en lagändring där nya avtalsrättigheter måste skrivas in för att få rättsverkan. / Through science it has been shown that through development within digitalization there are several benefits to be found. These benefits are that operations could be more efficient, quality of data could rise and costs could be reduced. The Swedish mapping, cadastral and land registration authority, Lantmäteriet strives towards streamlining the property formation process by taking advantage of the possibilities that digitalization has to offer and a desired state is to create uninterrupted digital flows of information.  In order to create an uninterrupted digital flow of information it is required for information to be collected, digitized and made available. Today, there is no legal requirement to enrol contractual rights in the real property register. As a result, this amount of information is not made available and thus, there is a gap in the digital flow of information. Therefore, it is important to investigate how the property formation process is affected by unregistered contractual rights, together with the desired state of an uninterrupted digital flow of information.  The purpose of this study is to illustrate the effects that may arise in the event of a changed enrolment of contractual rights, what this would entail for streamlining the property development process and how a change could be implemented. To answer the question formulation the empirical part has consisted of a questionnaire aimed towards cadastral surveyors and interviews conducted with experts in the field.  Based on the results of the study, it emerges that it is important to work towards a more digital property development process, to make information available digitally and consequently create transparency. The benefits of a more complete real property register contribute to quicker decisions within the property formation process. A change of the enrolment procedure should be implemented by a law change where new contractual rights must be enrolled to achieve legal effect.

La législation sur les clauses abusives, issue de l’article L. 132-1 du Code de la consommation, est d’application quotidienne. La notion de clause abusive n’en demeure pas moins confuse. Il est vrai que trente-cinq années d’applications erratiques ont contribué à la rendre peu accessible et peu prévisible, ce qui nuit à la sécurité juridique. Pour restaurer cette notion, une double démarche s’impose. Il faut, d’abord, la délimiter afin de réserver son application uniquement aux personnes qui méritent d’être protégées contre les clauses abusives et aux seules stipulations qui créent véritablement un déséquilibre significatif entre les droits et obligations des parties au contrat. La notion de clause abusive apparaît alors comme un mécanisme destiné à sanctionner les abus de la liberté contractuelle dans les contrats de consommation. Il faut, ensuite, procéder à l’identification de la notion de clause abusive en cherchant à définir et à caractériser le standard du déséquilibre significatif, notamment à l’aune des critères dégagés de la pratique. Chemin faisant, la notion de clause abusive s’impose comme une notion incontournable du droit de la consommation et, plus largement du droit des contrats, notamment en ce qu’elle participe au renouveau de la théorie générale du contrat. / The legislation on unfair terms set out by Article L. 132-1 of the French Consumer Code is applied on a daily basis. The notion of unfair terms nevertheless remains unclear. Thirty-five years of inconsistent and erratic application have indeed contributed to making this legislation inaccessible and difficult to predict, thereby damaging legal security. The reinforcement of this notion necessitates a two-pronged approach. First of all, the concept must be delimited in order to restrict application solely to those individuals requiring protection against unfair terms and only to those terms that genuinely do generate a material imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. The notion of unfair terms then becomes a mechanism aimed at sanctioning abuses of contractual freedom in consumer agreements. The concept must then be identified, by seeking to define and characterize the standard of material imbalance, in particular against the yardstick of criteria generated by practical application. In doing so, the notion of unfair terms becomes a central notion of consumer law and, more widely, of contract law, in particular with regard to its participation in the renewal of general contract theory.

La notion d’opposabilité, dégagée par la doctrine française au début du siècle dernier, revêt aujourd’hui une importance cruciale relativement à la sécurité juridique. Ainsi, il est communément admis par la doctrine moderne qu’un tel concept explique les effets non obligatoires des contrats à l’égard du tiers, et notamment en matière de responsabilité. D’une part, le tiers est tenu d’un devoir d’abstention concernant tout acte qui pourrait porter atteinte aux contrats d’autrui. Le cas échéant, les contractants peuvent demander la réparation du dommage qu’ils subissent du fait de la convention conclue par le tiers au mépris de leurs droits. D’autre part, et parallèlement, le tiers victime est en droit d’engager la responsabilité délictuelle du cocontractant auteur de l’inexécution contractuelle lui ayant été préjudiciable. Pour autant, le nombre d’auteurs pour qui l’opposabilité ne peut pas réellement servir d’appui aux deux règles précitées ne cesse de s’accroître. La critique n’est pas cependant pleinement justifiée. En effet, l’étude approfondie de la signification exacte, du fondement et des caractéristiques déterminantes de l’opposabilité démontre que, moyennant une juste délimitation de son champ d’application, cette notion demeure utile, pour ne pas dire indispensable à la protection des contractants et des tiers. / The notion of opposability, which appeared in French doctrine at the beginning of the last century, is of crucial importance today in relation to legal certainty. Thus, it is generally accepted in contemporary doctrine that such a concept explains the non-obligatory effects of contracts towards third parties and particularly in regard to responsibility. On the one hand, third parties must abstain from any act which may harm others' contracts. If this should occur, parties to the contract could claim compensation for any damage suffered as the result of a convention under taken by a third party without regard to their rights. On the other hand, and in parallel, a third-party victim is entitled to make a tort claim against a cocontracting party failed to fulfill a contractual obligation when this would be prejudicial tohim. Having said that, there is an ever-increasing number of authors for whom opposability cannot be used to support the two preceding rules. However, this criticism is notcompletely justified. Indeed, an in-depth study of the exact meaning, of the basis and of the determining characteristics of opposability show that, given a fair definition of the boundaries, this notion remains useful, if not indispensable to protect parties to a contract and third parties.