scholarly journals Glosa do wyroku Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 8 maja 2018 r., II OSK 1357/17 – aprobująca

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-132
Author(s):  
Marta Woźniak
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Space ◽  
Cultural Values ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
Subjective Rights

The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 8 May 2018 concerns the issue of relations of property rights to public interest, in connection with the resolution of the commune council, regarding the creation of a culture park. The resolution introduces a specific public-law regime in a given area, taking into account the general needs, which simultaneously causes interference in the sphere of subjective rights, in particular through a system of prohibitions and restrictions. The judgment is based on the conviction that there is a need in the public space to protect cultural values. In the aspect of the constitutional principle of proportionality, it is also important to consider the private interest in the area covered by protection in the form of a culture park.

Public Servitudes for the Certain Types of Facilities Placing: Towards a Discussion on Public Interest Presence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.P. Ushakova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Private Interest ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Arbitrary Decision ◽  
The Right

From the standpoint of the dominant interest criterion the article examines the justification of the legislator`s decision to apply public law methods in order to regulate relations concerning the use of land for infrastructural facilities placing. The author gives the arguments in favor of understanding the public interest as the interest of the whole society as a system, rather than the interest of an indefinite range of persons or the majority of the population. The author concludes that there is the simultaneous presence in the specified legal relations and private interests of the participants of legal relations, and public interests of society as a system. Both types of interests in these legal relations are important, but in terms of different aspects of the legal impact mechanism. Public interest is important because its realization is the purpose of legal regulation of this type of legal relations, from this point of view it acts as a dominant interest. The private interest of the holder of a public servitude is important as an incentive to attract the efforts of private individuals to achieve a publicly significant goal. The private interest of a land plot owner is important from the point of view of securing the right of ownership. It is substantiated that the public servitude is not an arbitrary decision of the legislator, but an example of application of the incentive method in the land law, which provides a favorable legal regime for a socially useful activity.

Zasada szybkości w postępowaniach w sprawach przygotowania i realizacji inwestycji infrastrukturalnych

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 174-188
Author(s):  
Przemysław Ostojski ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Infrastructure Investments ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
The Right

The article concerns the principle of speed in the proceedings regarding the implementation of infrastructure investments. The analysis of individual legal institutions is aimed at assessing statutory regulations of investment acts in the scope of the principle of speed. The aim of the analysis is to verify the assertion that the implementation of specific law-related rules in special investment documents connected with giving priority to the speed of administrative proceedings followed the constitutional principle of proportionality. As a result of the conducted analysis, it should be stated that the implementation of the principle of speed of proceedings to investment acts does not fundamentally violate the essence of constitutional rights of individuals – including the right to challenge decisions and the right to protect of rightly acquired rights. The legislator limits the principles of transparency, as well as the principle of active participation of the party in administrative proceedings, but does not eliminate these principles. Regardless of this, the legislator infringes in the analyzed Acts the essence of the party’s right to submit an application for temporary protection in administrative proceedings. The legislator violates in a qualified manner – due to the public interest – the rule of law and two-instance, preventing the appeals authority in the course of the instance of repealing the decision in its entirety, if the defect affects only its part concerning the property.

scholarly journals Zasada ważenia interesów w planowaniu i zagospodarowaniu przestrzennym a zasada proporcjonalności. Glosa do wyroku Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego w Warszawie z dnia 11 stycznia 2017 r., II OSK 932/15 – aprobująca

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 119-127
Author(s):  
Marta Woźniak
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Spatial Development ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Development Plan ◽  
The Public ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
The Future ◽  
Explanatory Memorandum ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality

Presented glossary to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw of 11 January 2017 (II OSK 932/15) is approved and polemic. The position of the Supreme Administrative Court has been divided that the municipal authorities may, in the local spatial development plan they formulate, restrict the rights of the owners in order to fully realize other values which they consider more important. When discussing polemics with the views expressed in the explanatory memorandum, three factors have been identified in this statement, which have determined the outcome of the findings of the local spatial development plan, the requirements of the public interest, and the future rights of third parties. As a consequence, it was recognized that the statutory principle of weighing interests – by referring to the constitutional principle of proportionality – was consistent with the system of application of the law of planning and spatial planning and shaping the correct relationship between the public interest and individual interests.

scholarly journals The right to peaceful enjoyment of property and the security measure of the forfeiture of cash in the jurisprudence of the Serbian Constitutional Court: Certain uncertainty

Pravni zapisi ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 620-644
Author(s):  
Tamás Korhecz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Cash Transfer ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Security Measure ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The right to peaceful enjoyment of property is a first-generation human right, protected by the international and domestic law of the highest rank. This is not an absolute right - the European standards of protecting property rights allow possible interferences prescribed by law. The interferences can be made in the public interest but only under the assumption that the proportionality between the public interest and property rights of individuals at stake is established. Forfeiture of undeclared cash the individuals are transferring across state borders, together with imposing fines for a misdemeanor, represent an interference with individuals' property rights. The EU Member States do not share an identical system of sanctions for this petty offense, but there is a tendency of unification related to the monitoring, registering, and sanctioning of undeclared, cross-border, individual cash transfer. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has established rather precise criteria for distinguishing permitted from unpermitted interferences in cases of undeclared cross-border cash transfers. The Serbian Constitutional Court has been faced with several constitutional complaints regarding alleged unconstitutionally of the imposed security measure amounting to the forfeiture of undeclared cash physically transferred across the state borders. The Constitutional Court has ruled inconsistently on the matter. Although it has regularly referred to the European Court of Human Rights' relevant decisions, it fails to be consistent in following the Strasbourg Court's rulings. In this article, the author has suggested that the legal certainty principle requires the Constitutional Court to consistently interpret the constitutional rights and be systematic in following Strasbourg. Only in this way, the Constitutional Court can help regular courts effectively to harmonize the interpretation and application of laws with the constitutional and international human rights standards regarding property rights.

International Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: Special Refrence with Intangible Properties and Copyright Laws.

LAW REVIEW ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit P Singh ◽  
Shiv Kumar Tripathi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
International Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Rapid Pace

In view of the rapid pace of technological, scientific and medical innovations in India and abroad, the intellectual property rights i.e., copyright, patent and other neighboring rights, have been recognized in Indian and foreign jurisdiction. Moreover, its scope and content have expanded pursuant to statutory amendments over the years. Growing recognisiont, expansion and protection of IPRs needs to harmonised with the public interest. Within this backdrop, copyright law, patent law etc. have made elaborate provisions and endeavours have also been made at international level to strike a balance between protection of individual’s IPRS and social interest. The present article tries to examine the contours of protection of IPRS at national and international levels with special reference to copyright law.

R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Public Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Public

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). This case concerned whether organizations could demonstrate a sufficient interest for the purposes of bringing a judicial review on the basis of their expert knowledge and the public interest in bringing an application for review forward. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Yelling ‘Fire’ in a Crowded Occupation: Cynical Fire Hazard Claims and the Technocratic Containment of Dissent

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 549-573
Author(s):  
Honor Brabazon
Keyword(s):  
Public Space ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Fire Hazard ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Uk

While the privatisation of public space has been the subject of considerable research, literature exploring the shifting boundaries between public and private law, and the role of those shifts in the expansion of neo-liberal social relations, has been slower to develop. This article explores the use of fire safety regulations to evict political occupations in the context of these shifts. Two examples from the UK student occupation movement and two from the US Occupy movement demonstrate how discourses and logics of both private and public law are mobilised through fire hazard claims to create the potent image of a neutral containment of dissent on technical grounds in the public interest – an image that proves difficult to contest. However, the recourse to the public interest and to expert opinion that underpins fire hazard claims is inconsistent with principles governing the limited neo-liberal political sphere, which underscores the pragmatic and continually negotiated implementation of neo-liberal ideas. The article sheds light on the complexity of the extending reach of private law, on the resilience of the public sphere and on the significance of occupations as a battleground on which struggles over neo-liberal social relations and subjectivities play out.

The Principle of Proportionality

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takis Tridimas
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication ◽  
Freedom Of Action

The principle of proportionality is the most oft-invoked and, in terms of its role in constitutional adjudication, the most influential principle of EU law. The principle was developed in continental legal systems, especially in Germany and France, in the twentieth century. Even at an early stage in the development of EEC law, proportionality had already been pronounced by the Court of Justice to be a fundamental principle deriving from the rule of law and requiring in particular that ‘the individual should not have his freedom of action limited beyond the degree necessary in the public interest’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document