Search

Published After
Published Before

Search Results

  • Thoughts for emptying real estate – litigation or non-litigation procedure –
    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).

  • Civil law dogmatic deficiencies and legislative hiatuses in a private law legislation: Short case study
    49-66
    Views:
    81

    Based on the Government Decree 383/2023 (VIII.14.) on the ministerial approval of lease contracts of companies directly or indirectly majority-owned by the state, the article presents a case study showing that the legislation suffers from numerous "legal errors" that violate the provisions of the Legislation Act and is not in line with the fundamental doctrinal principles of civil law. The case study describes in detail the provisions of Act CXXX of 2010 on Legislation that the Government Decree does not comply with and shows how imprecise wording leads to problems of interpretation. The paper points out the private law terminus technicus which the legislator did not apply correctly (the party of the lease contract, consideration, invalidity - ineffectiveness) and the author proposes to correct the errors and to clarify certain normative provisions.

  • The proprietary rights as the objects of contribution in kind and the occurring problems caused by the lack of unified rules
    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.