Suchen

Ergebnis der Suche

• Gondolatok az ingatlan kiürítés végrehajtásához - polgári peres vagy nemperes eljárás -

  Views:

  150

  In many cases, owners have problems recovering their rented or arbitrarily occupied real estate. News often report difficult situations in connection with the evacuation of real estate. More instructive cases have also drawn attention to the severity of the problem. The study describes the rules for (litigation and non-litigation) court proceedings for the evacuation of real estate and does not deal with the enforcement procedures ordered by a notary.

  The possibility to initiate emptying real estate non-litigation procedure - according to Vht. 183rd-184th § - is not well known widely. According to most people, almost the only possible way to reclaim the real estate is to litigate, although the possibility of initiating the non-litigation procedure has been provided for years, provided the conditions of the law are met. Emptying of real estate in non-litigious procedure is possible in the case of real estates by arbitrarily occupied real estates, fixed-term tenancy agreemens of residential premises and other non-residential premises, as well as other types of properties specifically designated by law.

  The study presents the possible ways of carrying out the real estate evacuation, the enforcement procedure following the litigation procedure and the enforcement procedure initiated on the basis of a court non-litigation procedure, focusing primarily on proceedings commenced after 1. January 2018. The study deals with the legal background to the non-litigation and litigation procedure, the order for enforcement, the issuing, the service of an enforceable instrument, the possibilities provided by law in the event of non-execution, the short presentation of remedies. It also deals with some of the innovations introduced by law CXXX of 2016 on Civil Procedure Rules, suspension of enforcement, as well as the applicability of the eviction moratorium in each case. In the emptying of real estate, debtors often face criminal law. The most frequent criminal cases during the emptying of the real estate are presented in the study too (breach of seal, assault on a public official).

• Zivilrechtliche dogmatische Mängel und gesetzgeberische Lücken in einer privatrechtlichen Gesetzgebung: Eine kurze Fallstudie

  49-66

  Tibor Kiss

  Views:

  81

  Ausgehend von der Regierungsverordnung 383/2023 (VIII.14.) über die ministerielle Genehmigung von Mietverträgen von Unternehmen, die sich direkt oder indirekt mehrheitlich im Eigentum des Staates befinden, wird in dem Artikel eine Fallstudie vorgestellt, die zeigt, dass die Gesetzgebung an zahlreichen "Rechtsfehlern" leidet, die gegen die Bestimmungen des Gesetzgebungsgesetzes verstoßen und nicht mit den grundlegenden Lehrprinzipien des Zivilrechts übereinstimmen. Die Fallstudie beschreibt detailliert die Bestimmungen des Gesetzes CXXX von 2010 über die Gesetzgebung, denen das Regierungsverordnung nicht entspricht, und zeigt, wie ungenaue Formulierungen zu Auslegungsproblemen führen. Der Artikel zeigt den privatrechtlichen terminus technicus auf, den der Gesetzgeber nicht korrekt angewandt hat (Vertragspartei des Mietvertrags, Gegenleistung, Ungültigkeit-Unwirksamkeit), und der Autor schlägt vor, die Fehler zu korrigieren und einige normative Bestimmungen zu präzisieren.

• A vagyoni értékű jogok apportálhatósága és az egységes szabályozás hiányának problematikája

  114-120

  Views:

  339

  According to the new Hungarian Civil Code, the funders of the legal entities have to make contributions to the authorised capital and the two forms of these contributions are the contribution is cash and the contribution in kind. The regulation states that proprietary rights can also be transferred to the capital of businness accociations, by those funders, who are entitled to demise them.

  The judicial practice unanimously defined the rules in those cases, when the object of contribution in kind is a certain proprietary right, especially when the right is connected to the real estate. On the other hand, the Civil Code does not contain a list of those proprietary rights, which can be transferred to the authorised capital and unfortunately, different acts contain different lists of these rights.

  The three mentioned acts are the following: the personal income tax act, the act about the fees and the accounting act. All of them contain a list of proprietary rights and some of the items are regulated by all the three of them but most of the items are different, which means it is impossible to create an accurate list of these rights. For example, the list in the personal income tax act contains only five items, on the other hand, the accounting act contains two lists and both of them are unfinised.

  Because of the lack of unified rules, it is impossible to define which proprietary rights can become the objects of contribution in kind and this misfortunate situation causes a lot of unwanted indefinability and states a lot of questions.

  In my essay I introduce this problem and I use a chart to illustrate the differences between the mentioned lists. In my opinion, this problem could be solved with an unified list, which is normative for every regulation in connection with the proprietary rights or the Civil Code should contain a list of those proprietary rights, which can be the objects of contribution in kind.