This thesis deals with the relationship between environmental protection and ownership rights. The thesis describes the concept of the environment in the Czech constitutional law. Furthermore, it concerns with international legal and constitutional enshrining of property rights and the right to a favorable environment in terms of constitutional case law. Then in the third part followed by the regulation of restriction of ownership rights, the legal conditions under which is expropriation possible and editing voluntary contractual ownership restrictions in order to protect the environment. The focus of the work, in the fourth part, is dealing with the legal regulation in current legislation, an effort to capture the most significant limitation of property rights from the perspective of the owner of the individual parts of the environment, as well as the analysis of selected provisions of environmental law. Finally, this thesis is the formulation of the specific locations of the main conflicts between the protection of the ownership rights and the general interest in environmental protection. A general effect of environmental awareness throughout the company is to decide which of these interests, whether environmental protection or the protection of property rights, in the particular case outweighs...

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:21:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Rubens Carmo Elias Filho.pdf: 1460021 bytes, checksum: c431217bfb26a5874020c5d628143f7f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-10-23 / The study of condominium bylaws and its ensuing restraints to building occupants rights aims to assess the legal grounds for such restrictions, which impose affirmative and negative covenants capable of significantly altering the traditional exercise of ownership rights, particularly the voluntary co-ownership and multi-ownership condominium systems. The validity of such restraints on condominium, brought about by different enjoyment and fruition parameters and limitations on ownership rights, is often disputed in light of the Federal Constitution, on the grounds that ownership constitutes fundamental civil rights. Many quite polemical, however commonplace, restraints addressed in this paper arise from either daily issues in multi-ownership condominia or the different uses of the new shared building facilities. We deem it timely to consider if such restraints indeed impose limitations on ownership rights or rather reveal an incipient understanding on the theme, justifying the research on legal writings and case law intended herein. This paper attempts to present the limitations to the exercise of ownership rights in property held pro indiviso, such as restraints imposed on the owner in either voluntary co-ownership or multi-ownership condominium, two of the most recurring expressions in modern ownership laws. It also assesses what such limitations are, how they are imposed, and what their effectiveness before occupants, third parties and prospective owners can be. To achieve this, we assess the restraints in light of propter rem covenants and speculate whether such type should require the restraints and how they could be routinely imposed both on occupants of multi-ownership condominium, by means of its due inclusion on condominium bylaws, and on holders of voluntary jointly-owned property, about which the law states no registration procedures for condominium bylaws. The study is presented in three modules. The first concerns structural questions on ownership rights, its restrictions and social purpose; the second, the definitions and effects of voluntary co-ownership and multi-ownership condominia; the third, an in-depth look at the restraints imposed on occupants and owners, in a range of daily situations of sheer indignation despite its compliance with applicable laws and resonance with the social and economic context in condominia, grounded in social purpose, ethics, and good faith / O estudo da Convenção de Condomínio e das restrições aos direitos dos condôminos, que dela decorrem, teve como objetivo avaliar qual a fundamentação jurídica para as restrições que impõem obrigações de fazer e não fazer capazes de alterar significativamente o exercício tradicional do direito de propriedade, especificamente no regime do condomínio voluntário e edilício. Tais restrições, no condomínio, decorrentes de diferentes parâmetros de uso e fruição, e regras de conduta delimitadoras do direito de propriedade, muitas vezes, são questionadas quanto ao critério de validade à luz da Constituição Federal, sob o fundamento de que o direito de propriedade constitui direito fundamental. Acontece que muitas das restrições desenvolvidas ao longo do trabalho, bastante polêmicas, mas corriqueiras, decorrem de necessidades condominiais ou de diferentes modos de utilização de novas estruturas edilícias, sendo oportuno avaliar se realmente tais delimitações são violadoras do direito de propriedade ou simplesmente ainda não se consolidou um entendimento a respeito do tema, a justificar a pesquisa doutrinária e jurisprudencial que se pretendeu realizar. O trabalho buscou apresentar as delimitações ao direito de propriedade, no regime condominial, como restrições impostas aos proprietários, sejam eles sujeitos ao regime do condomínio voluntário ou do condomínio edilício, duas expressões do direito de propriedade das mais presentes na sociedade moderna, sendo necessário avaliar como tais restrições são e podem ser impostas, e qual a sua eficácia frente aos condôminos, terceiros e futuros adquirentes. Para tanto, foram avaliadas as restrições, à luz do conceito de obrigação propter rem e se tal qualificação contribuiria para a exigibilidade das restrições impostas, assim como a forma pela qual as restrições poderiam ser regularmente impostas aos condôminos, na seara do condomínio edilício, mediante sua inclusão na Convenção de Condomínio, ou ainda, na seara do condomínio voluntário, para o qual não existe previsão legal de registro da Convenção Condominial. O estudo foi desenvolvido em três módulos, sendo o primeiro voltado às questões estruturais do direito de propriedade, suas restrições, e à função social; no segundo, foram desenvolvidos os conceitos e efeitos do condomínio voluntário e edilício; e, no terceiro, adentrou-se na análise das restrições impostas aos condôminos, em diversas situações comuns da vida condominial, de alta indagação, mas que se mostraram legais, quando observadas as normas aplicáveis e em consonância com o contexto social e econômico do condomínio, pautando-se sempre pela função social, pela ética e boa-fé

This thesis deals with the relationship between property rights and the protection of environmental compartments. The thesis is divided into chapters corresponding to individual compartments, namely soil, minerals, energy, water, air, organisms and ecosystems. Each chapter defines given compartment and then describes its current Czech regulation. This thesis doesn't deal with all legislation in the area of environmental protection, but only with provisions related to ownership, namely whether given compartment can be an object of property rights and if possible whether its owner's treatment of this compartment can be restricted in the interest of its protection. Some chapters are further divided into sub-chapters due to quantity of laws concerning corresponding environmental compartment, e.g. the chapter about ownership of organisms differentiates animals from other organisms and further divides them into animals in captivity and free-living ones. Chapters about soil, minerals, water and organisms are ended with partial conclusions summarising my knowledge and thoughts about their respective topics, while the conclusion of the thesis as whole represents combination of synthesis of those partial conclusions and my opinions on overall legal regulation of property rights to environmetal compartments.

The objective of my thesis was to provide a comprehensive survey on ownership as a legal institute and one of man's important values. It should be presented in the historical context and its development should be drawn up both over the course of several centuries and through various communities of people, whether under a totalitarian regime or free. My thesis consists of 4 major parts. Part 1 is dedicated to Roman law and includes chapters on the subject of ownership, acquisition of property, protection of ownership and limitations of ownership. Part 2 describes the development of ownership in our country. Specifically it analyses the General Civic Code - ABGB, Civic Code - 141/1950 Coll. and Civic Code - 40/1964 Coll. My objective was also to give at least a partial insight into the legal regulations regarding ownership in other states. Given the fact that this is an extensive matter, it appeared to be most effective to do a survey of ownership at the constitutional level in EU countries, namely Spain, Germany, Luxembourg, France, Greece, Portugal, Lithuania and Hungary, see Part 3 hereof. I assumed a more detailed treatment of ownership at the constitutional level would be applied in western countries. However, this hypothesis turned out to be wrong at least in the cases of Spain and Luxembourg....

Over the past decade, the regulation of mining in South Africa has undergone a fundamental transformation in order to promote equitable access to the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, drastically changed the regulation of mining by placing the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources under the custodianship of the state. The transformative objectives of resource reform, as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, could however not be achieved without a measure of sacrifice -- most notably, that which had to be shouldered by the owners of the land in which the minerals are contained. Under common law, minerals vested in the owners of land and no one could compel them to extract or consent to the extraction of these minerals. Landowners were able to safeguard their land from mining activities by refusing to consent to mining. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002, changed this by providing that landowners could no longer prevent the state from granting qualifying applicants authorisation to mine. The transformative objectives of resource reform, have inevitably made great inroads into a landowner’s rights to use and enjoy his property optimally. The main focus of this study revolves around the limiting impact of South Africa’s current mineral-law dispensation on township development, and conversely, how township development impairs or limits the mining of coal. For a better understanding of the limitations which the current legislative provisions create in respect of the rights of landowners and holders of mining rights, a brief evaluation of the historical development of the right to mine coal is provided. The entitlements and reciprocal obligations of holders of mining rights and owners of the affected land are considered, and the parties’ legal remedies to resist interference in their respective rights are explored. In the process of considering possible remedies to resolve the conflict which inevitably arises, I explain why English-law principles governing lateral support (support owed by two adjacent properties [neighbour law]), and subjacent support (where the landowner may not be deprived of the vertical support his property derives from the sub-surface minerals) were incorrectly transplanted into our law. In Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal rejected the previously-held view that the right to subjacent support -- like the right to lateral support -- is a natural property right incidental to the ownership of the land. It was further held that conflict between holders of rights to minerals and owners of land should be resolved, not in accordance with English-law principles of neighbour law, but in terms of the law developed for rights relating to the use of servitudes. In summary, the court found that where the parties have not specifically contracted against the specific action (such as opencast or planned-subsidence mining), and provided that it was reasonably necessary for the mining right holder to use this invasive method, he may do so, so long as he does so in the manner least injurious to the entitlements of the surface owner. This decision, however, did not take into account the changes brought about by the comprehensive statutory framework of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 which I argue has replaced the earlier servitude construction. In this dissertation I consider whether possible solutions to resolve the conflict can be found in the principles relating to neighbour law, and whether the principles governing the use of servitudes remain relevant in resolving conflicts between landowners and holders of mining rights. I evaluate possible legal remedies and place special emphasis on the constitutionality of the curtailment of a landowner’s use and enjoyment of his property resulting from mining activities on or under his land. I further consider whether the exercise of a mining right, granted by the state, which results in a serious infringement of a landowner’s ownership, could in certain circumstances amount to a deprivation or possibly an expropriation in terms of section 25 of the Constitution. I discuss the position where the state’s regulatory interference is so severe that it deprives a landowner of the ability to exercise any, or a substantial portion of his ownership entitlements. I evaluate the possibility that such interference may constitute de facto expropriation for which compensation may be claimed. In the penultimate chapter I briefly mention how the relationship between landowners and holders of mining rights is managed and conflict is defused in other jurisdictions such as China, Australia, the United States of America, India, Germany and Swaziland. I conclude this dissertation with suggestions on possible ways in which the conflict may be resolved or at least minimised in future. / Die regulering van mynbou in Suid-Afrika het die afgelope dekade ‘n fundamentele verandering ondergaan ten einde breër toegang tot die nasie se minerale en petroleum hulpbronne te bevorder. Die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act,6 Wet 28 van 2002, het ‘n radikale ommekeer in die mynbou industrie meegebring deurdat die regulering van mynbou aktiwiteite onder die toesig en beheer van die nasionale regering geplaas is. Die transformatiewe oogmerk van hulpbron hervorming ingevolge die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika kon egter nie geskied sonder ‘n mate van opoffering nie. Die grootste aanslag van die nuwe mineraalreg bedeling word sonder twyfel gevoel deur die eienaars van grond ten opsigte waarvan mynregte deur die regering aan ‘n ander party toegeken word. Ingevolge die gemenereg was die eienaar van grond voorheen ook die eienaar van die minerale wat in die grond voorgekom het. Gevolglik was dit onder die uitsluitlike beheer van die eienaar om te bepaal of enigiemand anders die reg kon verkry om minerale op of in die betrokke grond te ontgin. Na aanvang van die inwerkingtreding van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act is hierdie posisie egter omvêrgewerp aangesien die regering voortaan die bevoegdheid het om te bepaal wie en op watter voorwaardes iemand die reg verkry om minerale te ontgin. Die toekenning van die reg om minerale te ontgin op ‘n ander se eiendom sonder die eienaar se toestemming, maak dus ernstige inbreuk op sy regte. Grondeienaars se bevoegdhede wat uit hul eiendomsreg voortvloei word in talle gevalle ernstig ingeperk ten einde die oogmerke van hulpbron transformasie te bereik. Die ondersoek wat hierna volg, is daarop toegespits om die beperkende aanslag van die regulering van steenkoolmynbou-aktiwiteite op die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiede asook dié van die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiedie op steenkoolmynbou beter te verstaan. Ten einde hierdie invloed beter te verstaan, word die geskiedkundige ontwikkeling van die reg om minerale in Suid-Afrika te ontgin kortliks oorweeg. Die regte en verpligtinge van die houers van mynregte en die eienaars van die grond wat deur die uitoefening daarvan geraak word, asook die remedies waaroor die onderskye partye beskik ten einde hul regte teen inbreukmaking deur die ander party te beskerm, word daarna oorweeg. In genoemde ondersoek toon ek aan waarom die Engelsregtelike burereg- beginsels van laterale steun en onderstut nie toepassing in ons reg behoort te vind nie en waarom die botsing wat ontstaan vanweë die uitoefening van die grondeienaar en die houer van ‘n mynreg se regte liefs versoen moet word deur die Suid-Afrikaanse serwituutreg beginsels toe te pas soos aangetoon in die beslissing van Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates. Hiedie beslissing het egter nie die veranderinge wat meegebring is deur die nuwe bedeling van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act in ag geneem nie en daar word gevolglik aangevoer dat die serwituut beginsels vervang is deur ‘n breedvoerige wetgewende stelsel. Die grondwetlikheid van die beperking op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendom te gebruik en te geniet, word ondersoek, asook of daar enige gronde vir ‘n eis om skadevergoeding mag wees. In besonder word daar oorweeg of die leerstuk van konstruktiewe onteiening moontlik toepassing kan vind in gevalle waar die staat se regulering ‘n uitermatige beperkende effek het op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendomsreg uit te oefen. In die voorlaaste hoofstuk ontleed ek baie kortliks hoe die verhouding tussen eienaars van grond in mynbougebiede en houers van regte om minerale te ontgin in Sjina, Australië, die Verenigde State van Amerika, Indië, Duitsland en Swaziland gereguleer word. Ter afsluiting word aandag gegee aan moontlike maniere om die belangebotsing tussen die betrokke partye uit die weg te ruim of te beperk. / Private Law / LL.M.

Over the past decade, the regulation of mining in South Africa has undergone a fundamental transformation in order to promote equitable access to the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, drastically changed the regulation of mining by placing the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources under the custodianship of the state. The transformative objectives of resource reform, as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, could however not be achieved without a measure of sacrifice -- most notably, that which had to be shouldered by the owners of the land in which the minerals are contained. Under common law, minerals vested in the owners of land and no one could compel them to extract or consent to the extraction of these minerals. Landowners were able to safeguard their land from mining activities by refusing to consent to mining. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002, changed this by providing that landowners could no longer prevent the state from granting qualifying applicants authorisation to mine. The transformative objectives of resource reform, have inevitably made great inroads into a landowner’s rights to use and enjoy his property optimally. The main focus of this study revolves around the limiting impact of South Africa’s current mineral-law dispensation on township development, and conversely, how township development impairs or limits the mining of coal. For a better understanding of the limitations which the current legislative provisions create in respect of the rights of landowners and holders of mining rights, a brief evaluation of the historical development of the right to mine coal is provided. The entitlements and reciprocal obligations of holders of mining rights and owners of the affected land are considered, and the parties’ legal remedies to resist interference in their respective rights are explored. In the process of considering possible remedies to resolve the conflict which inevitably arises, I explain why English-law principles governing lateral support (support owed by two adjacent properties [neighbour law]), and subjacent support (where the landowner may not be deprived of the vertical support his property derives from the sub-surface minerals) were incorrectly transplanted into our law. In Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal rejected the previously-held view that the right to subjacent support -- like the right to lateral support -- is a natural property right incidental to the ownership of the land. It was further held that conflict between holders of rights to minerals and owners of land should be resolved, not in accordance with English-law principles of neighbour law, but in terms of the law developed for rights relating to the use of servitudes. In summary, the court found that where the parties have not specifically contracted against the specific action (such as opencast or planned-subsidence mining), and provided that it was reasonably necessary for the mining right holder to use this invasive method, he may do so, so long as he does so in the manner least injurious to the entitlements of the surface owner. This decision, however, did not take into account the changes brought about by the comprehensive statutory framework of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 which I argue has replaced the earlier servitude construction. In this dissertation I consider whether possible solutions to resolve the conflict can be found in the principles relating to neighbour law, and whether the principles governing the use of servitudes remain relevant in resolving conflicts between landowners and holders of mining rights. I evaluate possible legal remedies and place special emphasis on the constitutionality of the curtailment of a landowner’s use and enjoyment of his property resulting from mining activities on or under his land. I further consider whether the exercise of a mining right, granted by the state, which results in a serious infringement of a landowner’s ownership, could in certain circumstances amount to a deprivation or possibly an expropriation in terms of section 25 of the Constitution. I discuss the position where the state’s regulatory interference is so severe that it deprives a landowner of the ability to exercise any, or a substantial portion of his ownership entitlements. I evaluate the possibility that such interference may constitute de facto expropriation for which compensation may be claimed. In the penultimate chapter I briefly mention how the relationship between landowners and holders of mining rights is managed and conflict is defused in other jurisdictions such as China, Australia, the United States of America, India, Germany and Swaziland. I conclude this dissertation with suggestions on possible ways in which the conflict may be resolved or at least minimised in future. / Die regulering van mynbou in Suid-Afrika het die afgelope dekade ‘n fundamentele verandering ondergaan ten einde breër toegang tot die nasie se minerale en petroleum hulpbronne te bevorder. Die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act,6 Wet 28 van 2002, het ‘n radikale ommekeer in die mynbou industrie meegebring deurdat die regulering van mynbou aktiwiteite onder die toesig en beheer van die nasionale regering geplaas is. Die transformatiewe oogmerk van hulpbron hervorming ingevolge die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika kon egter nie geskied sonder ‘n mate van opoffering nie. Die grootste aanslag van die nuwe mineraalreg bedeling word sonder twyfel gevoel deur die eienaars van grond ten opsigte waarvan mynregte deur die regering aan ‘n ander party toegeken word. Ingevolge die gemenereg was die eienaar van grond voorheen ook die eienaar van die minerale wat in die grond voorgekom het. Gevolglik was dit onder die uitsluitlike beheer van die eienaar om te bepaal of enigiemand anders die reg kon verkry om minerale op of in die betrokke grond te ontgin. Na aanvang van die inwerkingtreding van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act is hierdie posisie egter omvêrgewerp aangesien die regering voortaan die bevoegdheid het om te bepaal wie en op watter voorwaardes iemand die reg verkry om minerale te ontgin. Die toekenning van die reg om minerale te ontgin op ‘n ander se eiendom sonder die eienaar se toestemming, maak dus ernstige inbreuk op sy regte. Grondeienaars se bevoegdhede wat uit hul eiendomsreg voortvloei word in talle gevalle ernstig ingeperk ten einde die oogmerke van hulpbron transformasie te bereik. Die ondersoek wat hierna volg, is daarop toegespits om die beperkende aanslag van die regulering van steenkoolmynbou-aktiwiteite op die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiede asook dié van die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiedie op steenkoolmynbou beter te verstaan. Ten einde hierdie invloed beter te verstaan, word die geskiedkundige ontwikkeling van die reg om minerale in Suid-Afrika te ontgin kortliks oorweeg. Die regte en verpligtinge van die houers van mynregte en die eienaars van die grond wat deur die uitoefening daarvan geraak word, asook die remedies waaroor die onderskye partye beskik ten einde hul regte teen inbreukmaking deur die ander party te beskerm, word daarna oorweeg. In genoemde ondersoek toon ek aan waarom die Engelsregtelike burereg- beginsels van laterale steun en onderstut nie toepassing in ons reg behoort te vind nie en waarom die botsing wat ontstaan vanweë die uitoefening van die grondeienaar en die houer van ‘n mynreg se regte liefs versoen moet word deur die Suid-Afrikaanse serwituutreg beginsels toe te pas soos aangetoon in die beslissing van Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates. Hiedie beslissing het egter nie die veranderinge wat meegebring is deur die nuwe bedeling van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act in ag geneem nie en daar word gevolglik aangevoer dat die serwituut beginsels vervang is deur ‘n breedvoerige wetgewende stelsel. Die grondwetlikheid van die beperking op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendom te gebruik en te geniet, word ondersoek, asook of daar enige gronde vir ‘n eis om skadevergoeding mag wees. In besonder word daar oorweeg of die leerstuk van konstruktiewe onteiening moontlik toepassing kan vind in gevalle waar die staat se regulering ‘n uitermatige beperkende effek het op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendomsreg uit te oefen. In die voorlaaste hoofstuk ontleed ek baie kortliks hoe die verhouding tussen eienaars van grond in mynbougebiede en houers van regte om minerale te ontgin in Sjina, Australië, die Verenigde State van Amerika, Indië, Duitsland en Swaziland gereguleer word. Ter afsluiting word aandag gegee aan moontlike maniere om die belangebotsing tussen die betrokke partye uit die weg te ruim of te beperk. / Private Law / LL. M.