Hide
Show all
Email this article Problematic Case Law of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic on the Legal Nature of the Pavement – Is It a Separate Immovable Thing or Part of the Land? Commentary on the Decision of the Constitutional Court of 25 June 2019 (no. III. ÚS 2280/18)
Abstract
The legal nature of construction is a popular topic in Czech case law practice and legal literature. The basic problem of the whole concept of determining what is and is not a building is the prevalence of private law thinking and the disregard of building as a public concept, especially in the light of construction law. The legal nature of pavements has been highly debated. The legal nature of the pavement has already been the subject of some debate in the past, and it is not possible to decide whether it can be regarded as an immovable property under Czech law without knowing specific facts. According to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic of 24 January 2018 (no. 6 As 333/2017), the character of a pavement is determined by the factual situation on the ground. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic also raised the question of the legal nature of the pavement in the context of the dispute over ownership. The commentary rejects the legal opinion adopted in the commented judgment, according to which the pavement constitutes a separate thing, not a part of another thing, in this case, the land.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
LITERATURE
Adamová H., Brim L., Coufalík P., Dobrovolná E., Hanák J., Pekařová A., Pozemkové vlastnictví, Praha 2019.
Černínová M., Černín K., Tichý M., Zákon o pozemních komunikacích. Komentář, Praha 2015.
Eliáš K., K justifikaci pravidla o nezávislosti uplatňování soukromého práva na uplatňování práva veřejného, “Právník” 2014, vol. 153(11).
Kočí R., Účelové pozemní komunikace a jejich právní ochrana, Praha 2011.
Košinárová B., Zákon o pozemních komunikacích. Komentář, Praha 2021.
Králík M., § 1083 (Užití cizí věci pro stavbu na vlastním pozemku a nároky s tím spojené), [in:] J. Spáčil a kol., Občanský zákoník III. Věcná práva (§ 976–1474). Komentář, Praha 2021.
Kühn Z., Bobek M., Polčák R. (eds.), Judikatura a právní argumentace, Praha 2006.
Lavický P. a kol., Občanský zákoník I. Obecná část (§ 1–654). Komentář, Praha 2014.
Melzer F., Tégl P., Občanský zákoník – velký komentář. Svazek III. § 419 – § 654, Praha 2014.
Motejl O., Černínová M., Černín K., Gabrišová V., Veřejné cesty: místní a účelové pozemní komunikace, Brno 2007.
Pelikánová I., Návrh občanskoprávní kodifikace, “Právní fórum” 2006, vol. 10.
Slováček D., Místní komunikace, “Právní rozhledy” 2014, vol. 20.
Spáčil J., Cesty a pozemní komunikace v praxi civilních soudů, “Právní fórum” 2006, vol. 3(7).
Švestka J., Dvořák J., Fiala J. a kol., Občanský zákoník. Komentář. Svazek I (§ 1–654), Praha 2014.
Tégl P., Melzer F., Problematické rozhodnutí Ústavního soudu k právní povaze chodníku, “Bulletin advokacie” 2020, vol. 27(11).
Tégl P., Melzer F., Superedifikáty a nový občanský zákoník, “Právní rozhledy” 2014, vol. 4.
ONLINE SOURCES
Růžička P., Obrana rozhodnutí ÚS k právní povaze chodníku, zvláště sjednocení výkladu pojmu stavby, 30.3.2021, https://advokatnidenik.cz/2021/03/30/obrana-rozhodnuti-us-k-pravni-povaze-chodniku-zvlaste-sjednoceni-vykladu-pojmu-stavby (access: 14.1.2024).
LEGAL ACTS
Act No. 40/1964 Coll. – Civil Code, as amended until 31 December 2013.
Act No. 182/1993 Coll. – On the Constitutional Court, as amended.
Act No. 13/1997 Coll. – On the Road Network, as amended.
Act No. 183/2006 Coll. – On Spatial Planning and the Building Act, as amended until 1 July 2023.
Act No. 89/2012 Coll. – Civil Code, as amended.
Constitutional Act No. 1/1993 Coll. – Constitution of the Czech Republic, as amended.
Constitutional Act No. 2/1993 Coll. – Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms as components of the Czech Republic’s constitutional order.
Decree of the Ministry of Transport and Communications No. 104/1997 Coll. implementing the law on road traffic.
CASE LAW
Decision of the Constitutional Court of 24 May 1994, no. Pl. ÚS 16/93.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of 27 November 1996, no. I. ÚS 167/94.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of 17 April 2002, no. IV ÚS 42/01.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of 6 May 2003, no. I. ÚS 483/01.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of 25 January 2005, no. III. ÚS 252/04.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of 19 June 2007, no. II ÚS 529/05.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of 13 November 2007, no. IV ÚS 301/05.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of 13 March 2013, on. IV. ÚS 512/12.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of 23 March 2015, no. I. ÚS 3143/13.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of 25 June 2019, no. III. ÚS 2280/18.
Judgment of the Regional Court in Ostrava of 9 May 2017, no. 56 Co 65/2017-238.
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 31 July 2008, no. 2 As 48/2008-58.
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 29 May 2009, no. 4 Ao 1/2009-58.
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 11 September 2009, no. 5 As 62/2008-59.
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 11 September 2013, no. 1 As 76/2013-27.
Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 24 January 2018, no. 6 As 333/2017.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of 28 January 1998, no. 3 Cdon 1305/96.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of 31 January 2002, no. 22 Cdo 52/2002.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of 11 October 2006, no. 31 Cdo 691/2005.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of 3 May 2011, no. 22 Cdo 2106/2009.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of 16 May 2013, no. 22 Cdo 3851/2012.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of 10 June 2014, no. 28 Cdo 3895/2013.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of 27 October 2020, no. 22 Cdo 1238/2020.
Resolution of the Constitutional Court of 15 November 2011, no. II ÚS 1351/10.
Resolution of the Constitutional Court of 27 September 2012, no. III ÚS 1947/12.
Resolution of the Constitutional Court of 20 May 2014, no. III. ÚS 2128/2013.
Resolution of the Supreme Court of 25 September 2012, no. 22 Cdo 4378/2010.
Resolution of the Supreme Court of 26 November 2013, no. 22 Cdo 835/2012.
Resolution of the Supreme Court of 27 March 2018, no. 22 Cdo 4330/2017.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2024.33.1.361-379
Date of publication: 2024-03-28 13:58:21
Date of submission: 2023-06-11 14:24:03
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Roman Široký
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.