magistrsko delo
Sara Knez (Author), Renato Vrenčur (Mentor)

Abstract

Tipična oz. 'prava' stvarna služnost je služnost, ki jo ureja 1. odstavek 213. člena Stvarnopravnega zakonika (SPZ). Zakonsko je definirana kot pravica lastnika nepremičnine (gospodujoča stvar), izvrševati za njene potrebe določena dejanja na tuji nepremičnini (pozitivna služnost) ali zahtevati od lastnika služeče stvari, da opušča določena dejanja, ki bi jih sicer imel pravico izvrševati na svoji nepremičnini (negativna služnost). Iz tega lahko sklepamo, da je atipična stvarna služnost služnost, ki je 'pravi' stvarni služnosti podobna, vendar se od nje v določenih elementih vseeno razlikuje. Tako SPZ v 226. členu ureja nepravo stvarno služnost. Opredeljena je kot služnost, ki je po svoji vsebini stvarna služnost, a se ustanovi v korist določene osebe. Iz opredelitve vidimo, da združuje elemente tako stvarnih kot osebnih služnosti. Po vsebini oz. upravičenjih je podobna pravi stvarni služnosti, s to razliko, da se ne ustanovi v korist vsakokratnega lastnika gospodujoče nepremičnine, temveč v korist točno določene fizične ali pravne osebe. V tej značilnosti pa je podobna osebni služnosti, zaradi česar 226. člen v 2. stavku določa, da se glede nastanka in prenehanja tovrstnih služnosti uporabljajo določila tega zakona, ki urejajo osebne služnosti. Določba 226. člena SPZ predstavlja pravno podlago za nastanek posebne vrste služnosti, ki jih krovno ureja Zakon o urejanju prostora (ZUreP-2), in sicer služnosti v javno korist. 211. člen v 2. odstavku dovoljuje omejitev lastninske pravice na nepremičnini, če je to nujno potrebno za gradnjo omrežij in objektov gospodarske javne infrastrukture ali njihovo nemoteno delovanje. Naslednji odstavek pa omogoča ustanovitev služnosti tudi za gradnjo ali nemoteno delovanje omrežij in objektov druge javne infrastrukture, v kolikor to predvideva poseben zakon. Zakon primarno zahteva pravnoposlovni nastanek služnosti v javno korist, če to ni mogoče, pa omogoča prisilni nastanek v posebnem upravnem razlastitvenem postopku. Kot služnostni upravičenec nastopajo država, občina ali investitor javne infrastrukture. Namen teh služnosti je zasledovanje javne koristi, ki mora biti podana na dveh ravneh. Da je omejitev lastninske pravice dopustna, mora biti najprej podana abstraktna javna korist. To pomeni, da mora biti služnost v javno korist predvidena za namen, določen z zakonom, poleg tega pa mora biti predvidena v ustreznem prostorskem aktu. Nato pa mora upravni organ, ki odloča v postopku, še v vsakem konkretnem primeru posebej presojati, ali je podana konkretna javna korist. Za to se zahtevata dva pogoja, in sicer: 1) služnost v javno korist je za dosego javne koristi nujno potrebna (nujnost) in 2) javna korist razlastitvenega namena je v sorazmerju s posegom v zasebno lastnino (sorazmernost). Potreben pa je še dodaten pogoj, da država ali občina ne razpolaga z drugo ustrezno nepremičnino, s katero bi lahko dosegla isti namen. Lastniku v primeru obremenitve nepremičnine s služnostjo v javno korist pripada ustrezna odškodnina oz. nadomestilo. Naše pravo pa pozna še en institut, ki je vsebinsko primerljiv s stvarno služnostjo, in sicer zakonito služnost (legalna servituta). Formalno gledano ne gre za stvarno služnost, temveč za sklop upravičenj uporabe tuje nepremičnine, ki imajo pravno podlago neposredno v zakonu. Služnosti v javno korist in zakonite služnosti imajo skupno to, da gre v obeh primerih za javnopravne omejitve lastninske pravice na nepremičnini. Izhodišče za oblastno omejevanje lastninske pravice najdemo v 69. členu Ustave Republike Slovenije (v nadaljevanju Ustava), ki določa, da se lastninska pravica na nepremičnini lahko v javno korist odvzame ali omeji proti nadomestilu v naravi ali proti odškodnini pod pogoji, ki jih določa zakon. Ta določba je konkretizacija načela iz 67. členu Ustave, ki predpisuje zakonsko določanje načina pridobivanja in uživanja lastnine tako, da je zagotovljena njena gospodarska, socialna in ekološka funkcija.

Keywords

stvarna služnost;neprava stvarna služnost;služnost v javno korist;abstraktna javna korist;konkretna javna korist;nujnost;sorazmernost;gospodarska javna infrastruktura;razlastitveni postopek;upravna odločba;odškodnina;zakonita služnost;gospodarska in socialna funkcija lastnine;prisilna omejitev lastninske pravice;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization: UM PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [S. Knez]
UDC: 347.238(043.3)
COBISS: 5828651 Link will open in a new window
Views: 948
Downloads: 190
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: Atypical easements in theory and case law
Secondary abstract: Typical or 'true' real easement is an easement governed by Article 213, paragraph 1 of the Law of Property Code (LPC). It is statutorily defined as the right of the real estate owner (dominant estate), for his needs to perform certain acts on a foreign real estate (positive easement) or to require the owner of a servient estate to abandon certain acts that he would otherwise be entitled to perform on his real estate (negative easement). From this, we can conclude that it is atypical real easement that is similar to 'true' real easement, but still differs from it in certain elements. Thus, in Article 226, the LPC regulates a false real easement. It is defined as an easement which, by its content, is a real easement, but is established for the benefit of a particular person. From the definition, we can see that it combines elements of both real and personal easement. By content or entitlements, it is similar to true real easement, except that it is not established for the benefit of the individual owner of the dominant real estate, but for the benefit of a very specific natural or legal person. In this characteristic, however, it is similar to personal easement, which is why Article 226, paragraph 2 stipulates that the provisions of this Act governing personal easements shall apply in respect of the creation and termination of such easements. The provision of Article 226 of the LPC constitutes the legal basis for the emergence of a special type of easement, which is governed by the Spatial Planning Act (ZUreP-2), namely easements for public benefit. Article 211, paragraph 2, permits the restriction of real estate ownership if it is strictly necessary for the construction of networks and facilities of public utility infrastructure or its smooth functioning. The following paragraph, however, allows the establishment of easements also for the construction or smooth operation of networks and facilities of another public infrastructure, insofar as envisaged by a separate law. The law primarily requires the legal operational establishment of an easement for the public benefit, but if this is not possible, it allows for the forcible emergence in a special administrative expropriation procedure. The easement beneficiary is the state, municipality or investor of public infrastructure. The purpose of these easements is to pursue a public benefit that should be given at two levels. For the restriction of property rights to be permissible, an abstract public benefit must first be given. This means that an easement for the public benefit must be provided for the purpose stipulated by law, and it must also be provided for in the relevant spatial planning document. Then, in each specific case, the governing body that decides the procedure must decide whether a specific public benefit is provided. This requires two conditions, namely: 1) easement for the public benefit is absolutely necessary (necessity) to achieve public benefit, and 2) public benefit of the expropriation purpose is in proportion to the encroachment on private property (proportionality). However, an additional condition is required that the state or municipality does not have another suitable real estate for the same purpose. In the event of the real estate being burdened with easement to public benefit, the owner is entitled to adequate compensation or allowance respectively. However, our law knows another institute, which is substantially comparable to real easement, namely lawful easement (lawful servitude). Formally speaking, it is not a matter of actual easement, but a set of entitlements to use foreign real estate, which has a legal basis directly in the law.
Secondary keywords: real easement;false real easement;public benefit easement;abstract public benefit;concrete public benefit;necessity;proportionality;economic public infrastructure;expropriation procedure;administrative decision;compensation;lawful easement;economic and social function of property;property right compulsory restriction;
Type (COBISS): Master's thesis/paper
Thesis comment: Univ. v Mariboru, Pravna fak.
Pages: 92 str.
ID: 11334797