Thème souvent oublié des réformes récentes de notre organisation territoriale, le droit patrimonial intercommunal n’est pourtant pas un non-sujet tant les enjeux l’entourant sont essentiels. Essentiels, d’une part, pour l’établissement public de coopération intercommunale et ses membres : exercice optimal des compétences et valorisation des biens sont les principaux défis que permet de relever le droit patrimonial intercommunal. Essentiels, d’autre part, pour l’État et le législateur : parvenir à un exercice cohérent des compétences tout en achevant et rationnalisant la carte intercommunale sans se préoccuper des impacts patrimoniaux paraît difficilement réalisable. Nous sommes donc convaincus que le droit patrimonial intercommunal doit devenir un véritable outil stratégique pour l’ensemble des acteurs de la coopération intercommunale. Si nous ajoutons à ces premières observations la circonstance que les règles composant ce que nous dénommons le droit patrimonial intercommunal ont peu changé depuis 1999 alors même que la coopération intercommunale et le contexte législatif dans lequel ses structures évoluent (l’entrée en vigueur du Code Général de la Propriété des Personnes Publiques en étant la parfaite illustration) ont connu de nombreux bouleversements, se pencher sur ce droit quelque peu particulier devient une nécessité. / Albeit oftentimes overlooked in French territorial organization reforms, inter-municipal property law is an essential topic with much at stake for various actors. Firstly, it is essential for inter-municipal cooperation syndicates and their members, for that it allows for the optimal exercise of competences and better use of goods. Secondly, it is essential for the state and the legislator: a coherent exercise of competences along with their rational distribution amongst local authorities can hardly go without considering impacts on property. Consequently, we are convinced that inter-municipal property law is a true strategical instrument for all the actors partaking in cooperation between towns. Additionally, if one considers that the rules that constitute what we call inter-municipal property law have not changed much since 1999, whilst the legal framework in which inter-municipal syndicates are placed has considerably evolved (the entry into force of the General Code for Public Legal Persons’ property being a perfect example), studying this somewhat peculiar field of law appears necessary.

Les biens publics mobiliers s’entendent comme l’ensemble des biens mobiliers placés dans une relation juridique patrimoniale avec les personnes publiques. Certes, ils se caractérisent par leur mobilité (comme les biens privés mobiliers), c’est-à-dire une aptitude à la circulation, physique et juridique, vectrice de souplesse et de fragilité, favorable à la dissociation de leurs utilités ; mais la question ici centrale est celle de savoir si la propriété publique est toujours un instrument pertinent pour appréhender cette mobilité. Il s’avère que la propriété publique, lorsqu’elle est sollicitée, exerce potentiellement une force d’attraction efficace sur tous les biens publics mobiliers ; elle permet ainsi de freiner leur circulation. En revanche, une fois le bien capté, la propriété publique ne suffit plus à maîtriser l’intégrité des biens publics mobiliers. Elle n’endigue pas leur délitement et leur évaporation naturels. Elle est même concurrencée par d’autres rapports de droit qui, par des dissociations des utilités des biens, par la déliaison entre propriété et utilisation, conduisent à interroger sa pertinence. / Movable public property shall be understood as the set of personal property placed in a patrimonial legal relationship with public entities. These goods are characterized by their mobility (such as movable private property), that is to say an ability to circulate, physically and legally, a flexibility and fragility medium, favouring the dissociation of their utilities. But the central question remains whether public ownership is still a relevant instrument for understanding this mobility. It turns out that public ownership, when called upon, potentially exerts an effective force of attraction on all movable public property; thus it allows slowing down their circulation. However, once the good’s ownership has been claimed, public property law is not sufficient to monitor the integrity of movable public property. It doesn’t stem their natural crumbling and evaporation. It is even challenged by other legal relationships which, by dissociation of goods’ utilities, and by unbinding ownership and use, lead to question its relevance.

La propriété intellectuelle est suffisamment polymorphe pour s’appliquer tant aux personnes privées qu’aux personnes publiques. Il n’est pas question de nier la spécificité de la personne publique, qui en raison de son identité et de la nature des missions qui lui sont confiées dispose de prérogatives particulières, et est soumise à des règles spécifiques. L’objet de notre étude est de démontrer que la propriété intellectuelle soumet les personnes publiques et privées à un régime juridique commun, qui est aménagé pour répondre aux exigences propres aux personnes publiques. Ainsi, ces dernières disposent de prérogatives élargies par rapport aux personnes privées, notamment dans le cadre de l’acquisition et de l’exploitation de leurs créations intellectuelles. Cependant, les personnes publiques sont également soumises à des obligations renforcées, qui résultent des obligations plus générales qui pèsent sur elles, telles que, notamment, la protection du domaine public. En outre, l’apparition de nouvelles politiques publiques telles que l’open data doit être appréhendée par les personnes publiques pour s’adapter aux nouveaux enjeux de la propriété intellectuelle publique. / Intellectual Property (IP) is enough polymorphic to be applied to both private individuals and publicentities (understood as the State, administrative districts having legal personality, and public institutions). This is not about denying the specificity of public entities, who are entrusted with particular prerogatives, and subjected to specific rules because of their identity and the nature of their missions. The purpose of our study is to demonstrate that IP submits both public entities and private individuals to a common legal system, which is set to meet the requirements inherent to public entities. Thus, public entities have expanded powers over private individuals, through acquisition and exploitation of their intellectual assets. This is the expression, in IP, of the specific prerogatives thatpublic entities enjoy as part of their missions. However, public entities are also subjected to strengthened bonds, which are the result of general obligations placed upon them, such as the protection of public assets. Finally, the emergence of new dynamics related to IP such as open data represents a major evolution of this science that public entities must understand to adapt to new challenges of public IP.

La présente thèse s'attache à définir la consistance du domaine public mobilier et la portée du principe d'inaliénabilité associé à cette catégorie juridique consacrée par le Code général de la propriété des personnes publiques en 2006.Elle montre que le Code général de la propriété des personnes publiques a consacré le domaine public mobilier en renforçant la prééminence des biens culturels en son sein. Les biens qui présentent « un intérêt public du point de vue de l'histoire, de l'art, de l'archéologie, de la science ou de la technique » sont protégés par un standard juridique. Néanmoins, le domaine public mobilier est réceptif à des meubles dépourvus d'intérêt culturel. Il existe en outre un domaine public mobilier praeter legem.Le domaine public est protégé par le principe d'inaliénabilité. Cependant, le principe d'inaliénabilité du domaine public mobilier est avant tout une interdiction de déclassement administratif de meubles publics qui présentent un intérêt public du point de vue de l'histoire, de l'art, de l'archéologie, de la science ou de la technique. Loin d'être sanctuarisé, il s'accommode en droit et en fait d'une importante aliénabilité des meubles domaniaux. / French public entities (the State, local entities) can be owners of real property or movables. When these movables have a cultural value, they can be a matter of what the French law calls ‟domaine public mobilier”. These properties are subjected to legal rules which grant them a particular protection: they are inalienable; they are subjected to special rules regarding their preservation, their safety and their security. And these properties are subjected to particular legal rules allowing people to discover them in public museums, in public exhibitions, etc. How does the law identify these properties? Is the inalienability of these properties as “authoritarian” as the law wants it? These questions are in the heart of the present work.

Les champs du droit d'auteur et de la culture semblent a priori guidés par des logiques diamétralement opposées : logique personnaliste pour l'un, logique publique culturelle, pour l'autre. Notre étude se donne cependant pour objectif de dépasser ce postulat en démontrant la manière dont les logiques personnaliste et publique culturelle s'entrecroisent. L'immatériel constitue aujourd'hui un levier incontournable de l'action publique. Réciproquement, en droit d'auteur, le législateur instaure un véritable dialogue entre logique réservataire et intérêt général. Si la dimension sociale de la propriété littéraire et artistique est présente dès les origines du dispositif de protection, l'environnement numérique a néanmoins contribué à questionner de manière inédite la légitimité et les vertus du droit d'auteur. Sous l'effet de l'incursion réciproque d'une logique d'intérêt général en droit d'auteur et d'une logique personnaliste dans l'action publique culturelle, l'œuvre de l'esprit se trouve à la croisée des champs normatifs. Or, les impératifs publics qui s'expriment au sein de la sphère publique culturelle sont porteurs de changements pour le droit d'auteur. Plutôt que d'aborder la question de l'affirmation d'une logique publique culturelle en droit d'auteur sous le seul angle des tensions susceptibles de naître de la rencontre de ces champs normatifs, nos travaux s'attacheront à démontrer la construction d'une nouvelle figure du droit d'auteur. Au contact de ces impératifs publics, un espace singulier se construit au sein même du droit d'auteur tenant pour partie du droit privé, et pour partie du droit public. / The fields of copyright and culture seem to be guided by different logics. French copyright law is known to be author-oriented whereas the cultural field is guided by public interest. The aim of our study however is to prove this assumption wrong by demonstrating that both of these logics tend to intertwine. The intangible resources are nowadays a major lever of public action. Reciprocally, in the copyright law system, there is an important dialogue between public interest and author-centered philosophy. The common interest dimension goes way back to the very creation of copyright law. The digital environment contributes, nevertheless, to the raising of new questions about the virtues of copyright law. Those structural movements have a major impact on copyright law. Rather than address the matter of the assertion of a cultural public logic in copyright through the conflicts that can be raised by the meeting of these normative fields, we want to demonstrate the appearance of a new copyright figure. The encounter between the public imperatives and the copyright law creates a new space within the copyright system itself. This hybrid space is composed of both private and public law.

Det finns idag en trend i viljan att investera i samhällsfastigheter, det vill säga fastigheter där olika typer av samhällsservice bedrivs. Fördelen med denna typ av investeringar är att ägarna kan teckna långa hyresavtal med kommuner, landsting och staten som hyresgäst, vilket ger säkra kassaflöden i och med låg vakansrisk. Investeringsmarknaden för samhällsfastigheter är relativt ny för privata aktörer då dessa fastigheter tidigare ägdes i princip uteslutande av kommun och landsting, men som idag av olika anledningar valt att sälja och istället hyra tillbaka fastigheten av specialiserade fastighetsägare.  Studien syftar till att identifiera de osäkerheter/risker som existerar vid investeringar i samt förvaltande av samhällsfastigheter och främst vårdfastigheter i Sverige. Genom att intervjua aktörer som deltagit i tre studerade transaktioner av vårdfastigheter från 2011 har en investeringskalkyl samt en känslighetsanalys utformats och legat till grund för de slutsatser som dragits. Att investera i samhällsfastigheter har visat sig vara en relativt stabil och säker investering, då de långa kontraktens driftnetton bidrar till att investeringen kan räknas hem redan under första kontraktstiden. Dock med antagande om att inga oväntade kostnader uppstår. De största riskerna som föreligger gällande dessa fastigheter är restvärdesrisk på grund av svår alternativanvändning för dessa hyresgästanpassade byggnader, teknisk risk då fastigheterna behöver upprätthålla standard och viktiga funktioner samt politisk/jurisdisk risk där förändring i demografi, miljölagar, regleringar och krav påverkar samhällsfastigheters utveckling. Företagen som investerar i samhällsfastigheter är vanligtvis inriktade på denna typ av investering, vilket genom ökad kompetens inom området bidrar till en bra och långsiktig relation med hyresgästerna. Vidare har de inblandade aktörer en tämligen homogen syn på ansvarsfördelningar, kontraktsuppbyggnad och så vidare. Dessutom visar den demografiska utvecklingen i landet på en stor efterfrågan på samhällsfastigheter i framtiden och framför allt på vård- och omsorgsboenden. / There is currently a trend in the willingness to invest in public property, i.e. properties where different types of community services are provided. The advantage of this type of investment is that owners can sign long leases with tenants such as municipalities, counties and the state, providing secure cash flows and low vacancy risk. The investment market for public properties is relatively new to private operators as these properties have previously been owned almost exclusively by the municipality and county. Today, for various reasons, the municipalities and counties have decided to sell their properties and rent them back from specialized property owners. The study aims to identify the uncertainties/risks that are associated with investment and management of public properties, with a special focus on care properties in Sweden. An investment calculation and a sensitivity analysis were made through studies of three care property transactions in 2011 and interviews with the participating actors. The calculation and analysis have been the basis for the conclusions drawn. Investing in public real estate has proven to be a relatively stable and safe investment. The net operating income of the long leases that contribute to the investment could be considered as being paid back during the first contract period, assuming that no unexpected costs arise. The main risks that exist in these properties is salvage value risk due to severe alternative use for these tenant adjusted buildings, technical risk as the properties need to maintain standard and essential functions and at last political/legal risk where changes in demography, environmental laws, regulations and requirements affect public property development. Companies that invest in public real estate are usually focused on this type of investment, which through enhanced capabilities in the area contributes to a good and long-term relationship with tenants. Furthermore, the players involved have a rather homogeneous view of delegation of responsibility, contract structure and so on. Moreover, the demographic development in the country shows a high demand for public buildings in the future and especially in nursing and care homes.

Les biens d'usage public sont la catégorie centrale de la construction du droit administratif des biens. L'absence d'une analyse d'ensemble de la catégorie, en droit colombien, pousse à revoir les bases sur lesquelles elle repose et ses conséquences. Plus que toute autre catégorie juridique, les biens d'usage public sont tributaires de leur histoire, c'est dans l'étude de cette dernière que se trouvent les clés d'interprétation de tout le système. Le modèle utilisé par le code civil colombien a été calqué sur la division des biens publics, opérée par le droit espagnol colonial – inspirée à son tour du droit romain. Une mise à jour s'avère nécessaire. À partir de la notion de propriété publique, et de son régime constitutionnel, il est possible de construire une définition matérielle des biens d'usage public, permettant de comprendre les caractéristiques de l'usage public. Cela implique, aussi, une révision complète du régime juridique à la lumière de l'exploitation sociale et économique – valorisation – de la propriété publique. À une triple protection, celle de la propriété publique, du bien d'usage public et de l'usager, s'ajoute une nouvelle approche des occupations privatives. Cette idée d'exploitation sociale et économique anime un nouveau régime des titres habilitant l'occupation privative, des redevances pour occupation des biens d'usage public et des droits réels administratifs. / Regulation of public property available for public use is at the core of administrative law. The Colombian Civil Code has copied colonial Spanish law in the matter, which in turn was inspired by Roman law. However, the absence of an exhaustive and coherent regulation in Colombia has forced the interpreter to study its foundation and further developments to interpret it. An update of this legal system is, therefore, imperative. Beginning with the concept of public property and its constitutional regulation, it is poss ible to analyze the elements of its public use, which will allow proposing a definition of those assets. It is necessary to analyze the regulation of these public properties under the light of their social and economic value. The protection granted by the law to the concepts of public property, public use and public user, has to be assessed under the new approach of the administrative authorizations pertaining to such public property. This notion of social and economic value will also allow scholars/people to have a new vision of the regulation of administrative authorizations, the exclusive rights (in rem) they confer and the income they produce.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:27:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Alexandre Levin.pdf: 2476819 bytes, checksum: 5e9fe12834d959608d97bad5447fc74a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-05-30 / The enactment of the Brazilian urban law referred to as Estatuto da Cidade, or Urban Act (Brazilian Law 10.257/2001), was a landmark in the affirmation and development of Brazilian Urban Law. Said statute established the guidelines for urban policy, and provided for the tools aimed at achieving the stated goals. The guideline highlighted in this paper is the fight against the speculative retention of urban real properties. Such speculation activity most of the time stems from the underutilization or non-utilization of the urban real property. One waits for the occasional increase in the value of the property, often as a result of investments made by the very Public Administration, to sell it afterwards at a price significantly higher than that at which it was bought, without having to worry about the social harm caused by such practice, and clearly infringing the constitutional principle that provides for the social function of the property. This form of retaining urban real property is deleterious to urban planning, the basis of which is the statute that introduces the municipal zoning ordinance. Such ordinance sets the criteria for the assessment of the lawful use of urban real estate. If the property is not used in accordance with the terms provided for by it, legal and constitutional remedies may be applied in order to compel the owner to fit his property to the terms stipulated by the zoning ordinance, which sets the parameters for the assessment of the regular use of urban real properties. If the property does not comply with the legal prescriptions, legal and constitutional measures may be applied in order to compel the owner to arrange for its property to follow the zoning ordinance legislation. Among such measures, one approached the mandatory parceling, building, and use of urban property, the graduated real estate tax, and the expropriation paid with government bonds, all of which are provided for in the Federal Constitution and in the Urban Act, and grounded on the social function of property. The main objective of this paper, however, was the analysis of the possible application of such measures to the public urban property that fails to comply with the rules provided for by the city zoning ordinance. For this purpose, one sought to prove, based on the Federal Constitution and the urban law, the possibility of application of the principle that stipulates the social function of property also to public urban real properties which fail to meet the prescriptions set by the city zoning ordinance. Finally, one demonstrated that there are no legal reasons for the non-application of said zoning-ordinance measures to public properties. Otherwise, one would cause the rules of urban planning to be violated and thus prejudice the fulfillment of the social functions of the city, which is the primary objective of urban policy, and guaranteed by the Federal Constitution / A edição do Estatuto da Cidade (Lei 10.257/2001) significou um marco para a afirmação e o desenvolvimento do Direito Urbanístico brasileiro. Referido diploma legal estabeleceu as diretrizes da política urbana, e previu os instrumentos para o alcance das metas traçadas. Dentre tais diretrizes, destacou-se no presente trabalho a do combate à retenção especulativa do imóvel urbano. Tal processo de especulação imobiliária é, no mais das vezes, levado a cabo pela subutilização ou pela não utilização do imóvel urbano. Aguarda-se eventual valorização do bem imobiliário, muitas vezes decorrente de investimentos realizados pelo próprio Poder Público, para aliená-lo por um valor bem superior ao de aquisição, sem qualquer preocupação com o prejuízo social decorrente dessa atividade, e em evidente contrariedade ao princípio constitucional da função social da propriedade. Essa forma de retenção do imóvel urbano é prejudicial ao planejamento urbanístico, que é consubstanciado na lei que institui o plano diretor municipal. É o plano diretor que fixa os parâmetros para a aferição do regular aproveitamento do imóvel urbano. Caso o bem imobiliário não seja utilizado nos termos de suas prescrições, podem ser utilizados instrumentos previstos legal e constitucionalmente para compelir o proprietário a adequar o seu imóvel ao que prevê a legislação de ordenação urbana. Dentre tais instrumentos, foram abordados o parcelamento, edificação e utilização compulsórios do imóvel urbano, o imposto predial e territorial urbano progressivo no tempo e a desapropriação com pagamento em títulos, todos previstos na Constituição Federal e no Estatuto da Cidade, e fundamentados no princípio da função social da propriedade. O objeto principal do trabalho, no entanto, foi a análise da possibilidade de aplicação de tais instrumentos à propriedade pública urbana que desatenda aos preceitos do plano diretor municipal. Para tanto, buscou-se comprovar, com fundamento no Texto Constitucional e na legislação urbanística, a possibilidade de aplicação do princípio da função social também à propriedade urbana pública. Ao final, demonstrou-se que não há razões de ordem jurídica a impedir a aplicação de tais instrumentos de ordenação urbanística à propriedade pública. Atitude em sentido contrário significaria uma afronta ao planejamento urbano e prejudicaria a realização das funções sociais da cidade, objetivo primordial da política urbana, garantido constitucionalmente

Les rapports entretenus par le droit de l’Union européenne et le droit français de la propriété publique sont équivoques. Alors que l’article 345 TFUE témoigne, a priori, de la neutralité du droit de l’Union européenne quant aux régimes de propriété nationaux, le premier possède des incidences tangibles sur le second. La présente thèse s’applique d’abord à en démontrer les ressorts théoriques : compte tenu de l’emprise systémique et de la prééminence des règles concurrentielles, la portée de l’article 345 TFUE se révèle presque nulle. À cela s’ajoute une mutation conceptuelle des notions de propriété et de biens publics : redéfinissant et rompant le lien entre appropriation publique, intérêt général et satisfaction de l’utilité publique, le droit de l’Union européenne substitue une vision renouvelée de la propriété publique, englobant l’ensemble des biens contrôlés par les personnes publiques et ayant une valeur patrimoniale. À la neutralisation conceptuelle succède un infléchissement matériel de la propriété publique. Même si la réception en droit français est parfois incertaine ou insuffisante, l’application des règles de concurrence ou du droit des aides d’État altére les régimes d’acquistion, de gestion ou de cession des biens publics. Favorisant la fragmentation et la privatisation du droit de la propriété publique, le droit de l’Union européenne semble aussi en mesure de remettre en cause les privilèges d’insaisissabilité et d’incessibilité à vil prix. Accélérant la décomposition de la propriété publique, son influence n’en constitue pas moins une opportunité, celle-ci étant susceptible de permettre une refondation cohérente de l’édifice français. / Interactions between European Union law and French law can be confusing when it comes to public property. Although it a priori testifies of the neutrality with which the European Union law deals with public property regulations at national scale, article 345 TFUE actually has tangible impacts on them. This thesis first looks to demonstrate the theoretical aspects behind it: given the pre-eminence and systemic influence of competition rules, the reach of article 345 TFUE turns to be almost void. In addition to this arises a conceptual mutation in the notions of property right and public ownership: as it redefines and breaks the link between public appropriation, general interest and the satisfaction of public affectation, the European Union law brings a renewed vision of public property which encompasses all the assets controlled by a public-law person and having a heritage value. To the conceptual neutralization succeeds a substantive inflection of public property. Although its reception under French law is sometimes uncertain or insufficient, the application of competition or State aid rules alters the acquisition, operation and disposal schemes for publicly-owned assets. Since it fosters the fragmentation and privatization of the public property law, it appears that the European Union law is also able to question the privileges of unseizability and the principle according to which a publicly-owned asset cannot be sold at a price lower than its market value. Accelerating the decomposition of public property, its influence remains nonetheless an opportunity as it could lead to a comprehensive re-founding of the French edifice.