La mise à disposition est un système juridique permettant à l’Etat d’autoriser certains de ses opérateurs à employer des immeubles dont il est propriétaire pour leurs missions d’intérêt général. Elle aménage un partage des droits et obligations du propriétaire portant sur ces biens. S’appliquant indifféremment au domaine public et au domaine privé étatiques – par le biais des procédures d’affectation, de remise en dotation ou des conventions d’utilisation – elle constitue un mode de gestion immobilière dérogatoire, empreint des spécificités du droit de la propriété et de la domanialité publiques. Accessoire de la décentralisation fonctionnelle, la mise à disposition est étroitement liée à la forme d’organisation administrative de l’Etat. Elle retranscrit, en matière immobilière, la logique décentralisatrice et recherche un équilibre entre dépendance et autonomie patrimoniale des établissements publics nationaux vis-à-vis de leur tutelle. C’est dans le cadre de la décentralisation du service public de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche que ce système révèle son originalité. De même que la décentralisation fonctionnelle est venue rationaliser une relation institutionnelle séculairement complexe entre les universités et l’Etat, la mise à disposition tente d’équilibrer des rapports patrimoniaux historiquement alambiqués. Elle attribue aux universités une fraction des droits et obligations du propriétaire portant sur des immeubles étatiques et leur garantit une certaine autonomie dans leur gestion immobilière. Elle les maintient concomitamment en situation de dépendance vis-à-vis de l’Etat, qui, face aux maigres ressources des établissements, est propriétaire de la majorité des biens dédiés au service public universitaire. L’analyse critique du système de la mise à disposition, de ses modalités d’application et de ses évolutions fournit un angle d’approche novateur à l’étude des relations entretenues entre les universités et l’Etat, sous le prisme du rapport de dépendance/autonomie qui les caractérise. Sur le plan institutionnel, il est aujourd’hui communément admis qu’une autonomie des universités vis-à-vis de l’Etat est nécessaire à l’individualisation du service public de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, à sa modernisation et à sa dynamisation. Toutefois, la problématique immobilière suscite des hésitations. L’objectif d’une étude critique de la mise à disposition consiste donc à appréhender le degré d’équilibre entre les notions de dépendance et d’autonomie éventuellement atteint et envisageable ainsi que ses conséquences au sein de la relation patrimoniale étatico-universitaire. Or, dans ce contexte, l’efficacité du système est contestable. Fondé sur une théorie minimaliste, il laisse libre court, dans la pratique, à une multitude d’interprétations, de contournements voire de dévoiements, à la source d’une gestion immobilière fluctuante et d’une relation patrimoniale en mal d’équilibre. En dépit des réformes, les résultats de son application sont peu compatibles avec la récente évolution des logiques de gestion immobilière publique qui, en période de crise budgétaire, rejoignent les questionnements que l’immobilier public et le régime de la domanialité publique suscitent depuis la fin du XIXème siècle. La mise à disposition se révèle alors être un outil juridique complexe, à la fois marqué par les enjeux modernes de la gestion de l’immobilier public, par les spécificités du droit dérogatoire auquel celui-ci est soumis ainsi que par les débats contemporains relatifs au statut des universités, aux modalités d’organisation du service public et aux nouveaux moyens d’action publique dans le paysage administratif français. / The putting at disposal is a legal system enabling French State to authorize some of his institutions to use his immovable properties for general interest. This system permits to share rights and obligations of the proprietor concerning his possessions. It can be applied indifferently to public or private estate of the State by using procedures of allocation, transfers of endowments or covenants for use and it represents a dispensatory way of administration of public propriety and domain. The putting at disposal is an accessory of functional decentralizing and tightly linked to the administration by the State. In estate matter it transcribes decentralizing logic and aims to balance between patrimonial dependence and autonomy of national public institutions face to their administrative supervision. This system reveals its originality in the decentralizing of the public service of university education and research. As well as functional decentralizing did rationalize the institutional relationship, very complex for centuries, between State and universities the putting at disposal tries to balance patrimonial links which have always been convoluted. It confers to universities a part of rights and obligations incumbent to proprietor concerning national estate but grants them some autonomy in administrating this property. But the universities are still dependant on the State who, regarding the low resources of these institutions, remains proprietor of the major part of estates dedicated to university public service. Our critical analysis of the system of putting at disposal, its mode of enforcement and its evolutions aims to deliver an innovating approach of the relationship between universities and State which is characterized by the link of dependence/autonomy. For institutional concern today everybody agrees that universities’ autonomy towards the State is necessary in order to individualize, modernize and energize the public service of university education and research. But there is uncertainty regarding the estate problem. The purpose of a critical study of putting at disposal so consists in evaluating the degree of balance between the notions of dependence and autonomy attempted or eventually feasible and its consequences on the patrimonial relationship between State and universities. Now, in this context, the efficiency of the system can be contested. Founded on a minimalist theory it gives free rein in practice to a vast number of interpretations, circumventions and even misappropriations which lead to a fluctuant estate administration and a misbalanced patrimonial relationship. Despite reforms its implementation does not fit with the recent logic evolutions of the administration of public estate. In fact the budgetary crisis implies questioning about public administration and ownership of public domain dating from the end of the 19th century. The putting at disposal reveals to be a complex legal implement. It is marked at once by the stakes of modern administration of public estate, by the specificity of the dispensatory law which reigns in this matter as well as by contemporary debates about university statutes, the way of organizing the public service and new means of public organization in the context of French administration.

Este trabalho é uma abordagem institucional jurídica da prática social de ocupações de bens públicos valendo-se dos parâmetros da legislação pertinente e do conteúdo doutrinário correlato, em exercício de levantamento de características jurídicas comuns às práticas socialmente reconhecidas para uma generalização conceitual. Trata-se, então, da compilação de características recorrentes para a identificação e conceituação do que aparenta ser um instituto jurídico próprio de direito administrativo. Primeiramente, para retratar o fato social, propõe-se trazer ao debate breves retratos jornalísticos, os quais serão o ponto de partida para leitura do fenômeno sob o imperativo da função social da propriedade pública e o regime republicano-democrático do Estado brasileiro. Seguindo-se da análise do conteúdo legislativo correlato, analisado conforme a especialidade do regime jurídico administrativo. Finalmente, a partir das características identificadas indutivamente da doutrina e da legislação, pretendeu-se conceituar o fenômeno enquanto um instituto jurídico autônomo. / This work consists in a legal institutional approach to the social practice of occupying public properties, by using both the parameters of the relevant legislation and the content of the specific literature, in a exercise of collecting juridical features common to the socially recognized occupations forms, aiming for conceptual generalization. It is, then, the compilation of the recurring elements for identification and conceptualization of the occupying social phenomenon, understood as a autonomous legal institute of administrative law. Firstly, in order to identidy the social practice, it was proposed to bring to the debate brief journalistic reports, which will be the starting point for reading the phenomenon under the imperative parameter of the social function of public property and the brazilian republican democratic regime. Following the analysis of the related legal content, analyzed according to the specialty of the administrative law regime. Finally, from the identified characteristics, inductively from the doctrine and the legislation, it was intended to conceptualize the phenomenon as an autonomous legal institute.

Saisir la relation de l’État aux utilités qu’un logement social est à même d’offrir, tel est le fondement de cette étude. La relation entre propriété publique et logement social, aisément perceptible en cas de mobilisation des propriétés publiques en vue de la réalisation d’une opération de logement social ou de propriété publique d’un logement social, exige pour être pleinement appréhendée de reconsidérer l’approche de la propriété en droit public, comme elle l’est au demeurant en droit privé. Retenant une approche dite « structurale », la propriété publique est alors entendue, matériellement, comme une chose publique, en raison de la nature publique de la personne qui exerce une maîtrise sur cette chose, elle-même considérée comme une somme d’utilités, et formellement, comme le droit de propriété public, en raison de la nature publique du titulaire de ce droit, lui-même défini comme le pouvoir de jouir et de disposer, sauf sources d’obligations contraires, de toutes les utilités qu’une chose est à même d’offrir. En matière de logement social, l’État est non seulement titulaire d’un droit personnel sur le bailleur de logement social, mais également d’un droit réel passif sur l’habitation locative affectée au service public. Autrement dit, en encadrant le pouvoir de jouir et de disposer du bailleur, l’État se réserve la valeur de l’habitation locative affectée à due proportion du financement public de l’activité de logement social, et cela sans en être formellement propriétaire. Finalement, à l’instar de la large confusion de l’histoire du logement avec l’évolution de la conception de la propriété, l’histoire du logement social se confond largement avec l’évolution proposée de la conception de la propriété publique. / Understand the relationship of the State to utilities that social housing is able to offer, specifically the distribution of rights and obligations in connection or on a rental housing assigned to the public service of social housing, is the foundation of our study. The relationship between public ownership and social housing, easily perceptible in case of mobilization of public properties for the realization of a housing project or public ownership of social housing, requires to be fully understood to reconsider the approach to ownership in public law, as it is in any private law. Neither the « classic » approach nor the « renovated » one of the property can grip the right owned by the State on social housing, only a « structural » approach allows. Based on this approach, public ownership is then heard, materially, as a public thing, because of the public nature of the person who exercises control over this thing, itself considered as a sum of utilities, and formally, as the right to public property, because of the public nature of the copyright owner, itself defined as the power to enjoy and dispose unless otherwise sources obligations of all the utilities that a thing is even to offer. In social housing, the State is not only holds a personal right on the provider of social housing, as it is traditionally on any manager of a public service, but also a real right on liability rental housing assigned to the public service of social housing. In other words, framing the power to enjoy and dispose of social housing landlord, the State reserves the value of rental housing affected in due proportion of the public funding of social housing activity, and this without being formal owner. Thus, the State controls the use value and exchange value of social housing yet belonging to others. Finally, like the wide confusion in the history of housing with the evolution of the design of the property, the history of social housing is largely coincides with the evolution of the design of public property.

The purpose of my thesis is to analyze the State Enterprise Act. The main aim is to describe the life of state enterprise from its foundation to its termination and to point out the major legal issues. My desire was to recommend some improvements to legal regulation of the state enterprise. My thesis is divided into several chapters, each of them dealing with different aspects of the state enterprise. The first theoretical chapter examines the question whether the state enterprise is a legal entity on the background of civil doctrine. The next chapter deals with the foundation process of the state enterprise. Who is authorized to create the state enterprise and what are the essential elements of the charter of foundation. It describes the process of signing into the Commercial Register and its legal impact. This thesis also provides a view to the relationship between the authorized representatives and the state enterprise. It shall answer the questions about the powers of governing bodies and their liability. The next part is devoted to the administration of state-owned property by the state enterprise. It examines the right of state to obtain the profit made by state enterprise. This chapter also deals with the public procurement related to the state enterprise. The last theoretical chapter...

Notion cardinale du droit liée à plusieurs aspects des rapports sociaux, à la liberté, à l'égalité, appréhendée de manière individualiste ou dans une finalité sociale, la propriété est éminemment contingente. Au même titre que l'individu particulier reconnu dans sa capacité sociale de possession et de maîtrise des biens, l'Etat, et la plupart des personnes publiques,sont propriétaires ou gestionnaires de biens qu'il leur convient de valoriser économiquement. Toutefois, malgré l'unicité de l'essence même du concept de propriété entre les personnes publiques et les personnes privées, son exercice reste largement exorbitant lorsqu'il est au contact de personnes publiques. La propriété publique reste en effet profondément déterminée par la qualité de ses titulaires,et son régime,nécessairement « finalisé » par l'affectation des biens publics à l'utilité publique. Par ailleurs,la scission du patrimoine des personnes publiques en deux masses de biens très distinctes en théorie constitue une autre particularité qui, elle, a perdu de sa pertinence et de son intelligibilité.Les fondements historiques et juridiques de la distinction domaniale ne reposent en réalité que sur un artifice. Dès lors, il convient de procéder à une redéfinition des relations entre les éléments de personnalité et d'affectation qui sont à la base du concept de propriété publique,et de proposer la suppression de cette summa divisio devenue anachronique et même illogique. Parce que les biens publics appartiennent tous par principe à des personnes publiques qui servent peu ou prou l'intérêt général, cette piste de réflexion semble particulièrement opportune pour une future réforme du droit des biens publics. / Cardinal notion of law related to several aspects of social relations, freedom, equality, understood in an individualistic way or in a social purpose, the property is highly contingent. As well as the private individual recognized in its social capacity of possession and control of property, the State, and most public entities are owners or property managers who can value their property. However, despite the uniqueness of the essence of the ownership concept between public and private individuals, its exercise remains largely different, when in contact with public entities. Public ownership remains deeply determined by the quality of its owners, and its regime necessarily "finalized" as determined by the allocation of public goods to the public interest. Moreover, the division of public property in two masses of goods theoretically very different is another feature which, in turn, has lost its relevance and its intelligibility. The historical and legal distinction, of which its rationality is highly questionable, is in fact based on a device. Therefore, it is advisable to proceed to a new definition of the relationship between personality traits and allocation to the public utility located at the base of the concept of public property, and to propose the abolition of this summa divisio which has become anachronistic and even illogical. Because the public goods belong in principle to public entities who serve more or less public interest, this line of thought seems to be particularly appropriate for a future reform of the law on public property.

Diploma thesis analyses the institute of expropriation as a significant intervention to the property right of private subjects. The first chapter attends to different forms of property and tries to find the reasons for existence of public domains. The next part deals with the conception of public interest and approaches to this conception. The chapter about the legislature resumes the most important items of the Law of Expropriation and other laws relating to this question. In the fourth chapter are described cases of expropriation for different reasons in the Czech Republic. The last part analyses described cases, criteria for the comparing are the legal conditions for expropriation: public interest, effort to agreement with the owner and compensation of expropriation. The analysis comes to the conclusion that the biggest problem is insufficient legislature of the institute of expropriation.

La présente recherche vise à cerner et définir le concept de valorisation appliqué aux biens publics en s’appuyant sur son double fondement, le droit de propriété et le bon usage des deniers publics. Ce concept repose sur deux composantes, l’exploitation et la cession, qui permettent de mettre en lumière les multiples formes de la valorisation : économique, sociale, environnementale. Ces manifestations de la valorisation renouvellent l’analyse afin de mieux comprendre l’enjeu de la réforme du droit des biens publics, la manière dont la valorisation a influencé ce droit et les évolutions à venir. Ainsi, le rapprochement des régimes domaniaux a permis d’assouplir et de moderniser les outils de valorisation et les principes juridiques régissant le domaine public. Ce rapprochement devrait aboutir à une unification de la compétence juridictionnelle au profit du juge administratif. Par ailleurs, sous l’impulsion de la valorisation, de nouvelles obligations s’imposent aux propriétaires publics : mise en concurrence des occupations domaniales, inventaire des biens, valorisation d’avenir. / This research aims to identify and define the concept of valorization applied to public properties based on its double foundation, the right to property and the proper use of public funds. This concept is based on two components, exploitation and disposal, which highlight the multiple forms of valorization : economic, social, environmental. These valorisation events renew the analysis in order to better understand the stake of the reform of the law of the public properties, the way in which the valorization has influenced this right and the evolutions to come. Thus, the approximation of state regimes has made it possible to soften and modernize valorization tools and the legal principles governing the public domain. This rapprochement should lead to a unification of jurisdiction for the benefit of the administrative judge. In addition, under the impetus of the valorization, new obligations are imposed on the public owners : competition of the public occupations, inventory of the properties, valorization of the future.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:30:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Ines Maria dos Santos Coimbra de Almeida Prado.pdf: 696408 bytes, checksum: 5255dc304076ffb66e48265966019b79 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-06-08 / In order to successfully perform its increasingly complex duties, not only does the Public Administration require the power, but also a series of other elements, such as property, that may provide material support to its activities. Thus, public property is turned into a tool to help the Public Administration perform its duties, and therefore represent an important public resource and support for the achievement of public policies. It is crucial that public property be distributed in view to its adequate use and the legal institution that might be apt to carry out such use, as well as the choice for the best time to perform it in accordance to public interest. This work intends to focus on the public means to grant the use of public property to private entities, since such means are deemed more appropriate for that purpose than the ones contained in private law. Moreover, its structure is based in administrative law regulations, which should be more adequate for managing the use of public property by the State. The present study represents the analysis of the institutions that authorize, permit and grant the use of public property as legal categories, identifying at the same time some consensus in the applicable legal system with regard to public real estate. This effort was made towards organizing the entities that grant conveyance of use, whereas labels were less stressed (although not ignored) than the content of such grants / Para efetivação das diversas e cada vez mais complexas atividades que desempenha, a Administração necessita não só de poderes, mas também de um conjunto variado de coisas, como bens que se prestem como suporte material para a atividade administrativa. Os bens públicos surgem, assim, como instrumentos para a consecução dos deveres da Administração, representando importante riqueza pública e assento para a realização de políticas públicas. É necessário, portanto, dar destinação aos bens públicos elegendo o seu uso adequado, o instituto jurídico apto a viabilizá-lo, bem como a escolha do melhor momento para concretizá-lo, atendendo ao interesse público. No presente trabalho, pretende-se dar enfoque aos instrumentos estatais de outorga de uso privativo de bens públicos por entendê-los mais adequados que os instrumentos típicos do direito privado, justamente por ter sua formatação dada por normas de direito administrativo, mais apropriadas ao manejo das utilizações de bens públicos pelo Estado. O que se busca, no presente estudo, é a análise dos institutos da autorização de uso, permissão de uso e concessão de uso como categorias jurídicas, identificando alguma unidade no regime jurídico aplicável, tendo como objeto o patrimônio público imobiliário. O esforço foi no sentido de sistematizar os institutos de trespasse de uso, dedicando menor valor aos rótulos (embora não prescindindo deles) e conferindo mais destaque ao conteúdo das outorgas

A posse dos bens públicos é tema que, embora de grande relevância, não tem sido analisado com o necessário cuidado pela doutrina e pelos tribunais do país. No presente estudo, parte-se de uma distinção essencial entre as diversas espécies de bens públicos, o que norteia a análise da posse e de suas consequências. A posse existirá sempre que houver poder fático sobre o bem e desde que não exista cláusula de pré-exclusão de jurisdicidade. Configurada a posse, avalia-se a eficácia da posse sobre aquele bem público, tendo em conta as características da posse e os sujeitos envolvidos. Existindo posse, suas consequências (efeitos jurídicos) variarão conforme a classe a que aquele bem público se enquadre, e essa circunstância afetará a tutela jurisdicional da posse. Não se pode conceber uma tutela possessória desgarrada do direito material que rege a situação a ser tutelada. No caso dos bens dominicas, é possível uma tutela completa da posse do particular, o que inexistirá no caso dos bens de uso especial.

Under senare år har antalet privata aktörer verksamma inom segmentet för samhällsfastigheter, en typ av fastighet där samhällsservice bedrivs, mångdubblats. Cirka 85 procent av dessa fastigheter bedöms finnas i kommunal, regional eller statlig ägo, men allt större andel förvärvas av privata aktörer. Med bakgrund av detta ämnade denna studie att identifiera de bakomliggande drivkrafterna för utvecklingen av marknadssegmentet för samhällsfastigheter och främst hur kommuner förhåller sig till det privata investeringsintresset. Studien baserades på såväl kvantitativa som kvalitativa datainsamlingar där representanter från offentlig och privat sektor intervjuades och data insamlades. Dessa analyserades och jämfördes mot varandra för att nå ett tillfredsställande resultat. Resultatet analyserades dels genom teorier som moral hazard och asymmetrisk information, men även genom tidigare forskning på området. Detta för att belysa de svårigheter som uppkommer mellan kontraktsparter i sådana transaktioner och vad som får kommuner att vara återhållsamma i sina beslut om avyttringar Resultatet visade att det primärt är demografiska utmaningar och investeringsbehov och sekundärt ekonomiska problem som får kommuner att avyttra samhällsfastigheter, och att politiken spelar en mindre roll. Fastighetsbolagen anser att kommuner är en säker hyresgäst och ser främst till demografin i sina investeringsstrategier. För att undvika moral hazard-problem fann studien att tydligare avtal krävs mellan parterna och ett ökat ansvarstagande av bolagen. Studien fann att ett ökat privat inflytande i segmentet för samhällsfastigheter är att vänta. / In recent years, the number of private companies active in the public property sector has increased manifold. Public properties are those in which some form of public service is practiced. Some 85 percent of these are estimated to be owned by municipalities, regional authorities and the central government, but the share owned by private real estate companies is increasing. Hence, the aim of this study was to identify driving forces behind the market development of the public property segment, and primarily how municipalities regard the private companies’ interest in buying their properties. The method chosen for this study was both quantitative as well as qualitative, where representatives from both public and private sectors was interviewed and historical data were collected. In analyzing our results, comparisons to previous research were made and theories such as moral hazard and asymmetric information applied. This method was used to accentuate problems that might arise in transactions between public and private interests and how these cause municipalities to be wary of selling real estate. The results showed that changes in demographics and the need for investments in public property are primary causes of selling real estate, whereas municipalities’ financial performances are secondary. Ideology appeared to be a less impacting factor than the aforementioned two. Private companies consider municipalities risk-free tenants and view demographics as the key factor in their investment strategy. To prevent moral hazard problems, the study found that transparent and flexible lease contracts are needed, as well as increased responsibility-taking by the companies. The study showed that an increase in private sector influence over the public property sector is to be expected.