1 / 17

Sigdal – hva kan regelen være?

Sigdal – hva kan regelen være?. Rt 1992 352 Sigdal Rt 2000 604 Kjelsberg Rt 1986 1210 Norske Fjellhus. Pye v UK – faktum. Pye eide et jordstykke på 23 ha utenfor Oxford Utbyggingsverdi: GBP 10 mill? Grahams leier beiterett etc til de ble oppsagt i 1983-4

macey-ramsey
Download Presentation

Sigdal – hva kan regelen være?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sigdal – hva kan regelen være? • Rt 1992 352 Sigdal • Rt 2000 604 Kjelsberg • Rt 1986 1210 Norske Fjellhus

  2. Pye v UK – faktum • Pye eide et jordstykke på 23 ha utenfor Oxford • Utbyggingsverdi: GBP 10 mill? • Grahams leier beiterett etc til de ble oppsagt i 1983-4 • Grahams fortsetter å bruke jordstykket; Pye er passiv • Grahams registrerer hevdserverv (”adverse possession”) i 1997

  3. Limitation Act, 1980 15 Time limit for actions to recover land (1) No action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him ... • Foreldelse eller hevd?

  4. Land Registration Act, 1925 75. Acquisition of title by possession. (1) The Limitation Acts shall apply to registered land in the same manner and to the same extent as those Acts apply to land not registered, except that where, if the land were not registered, the estate of the person registered as proprietor would be extinguished, such estate shall not be extinguished but shall be deemed to be held by the proprietor for the time being in trust for the person who, by virtue of the said Acts, has acquired title against any proprietor…

  5. Prosedyre • HL-sak 2002 Pye-Grahams – Pye tapte • Land Registration Act 2002 • Human Rights Act 1998 • ECHR-sak Pye-UK • Avdeling 2005 – UK tapte 4-3 • Storkammer 2007 – UK vant 10-7

  6. EMK prot 1 art 1 - hovedreglene • Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

  7. EMK prot 1 art 1 – lovlige unntak • The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

  8. Eiendomsrett • Negativt avgreseet rett • Substansielt og funksjonelt • ”Reell eier” • Konvensjonen Fedorenko v. Ukraina

  9. Rettighetsgrunnlaget • Basis i nasjonal rett Bruncrona v. Finland • Klarhetskravet Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom • Betydning for Sigdal

  10. Praksis • Uproblematisk at selskaper har menneskerettigheter • ”Peaceful enjoyment” er hovedregelen Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal • Unntak må bygge på ”fair balance” Beyeler v. Italy • Ekspropriasjon: En viss erstatning Papachelas v. Greece • Rådighetsinnskrenkninger: ”Proportionality” AGOSI v. the United Kingdom • Lov og effekt relevant • Sosial utjevning OK James and others v. the United Kingdom • Vide skjønsmarginer … Jahn and Others v. Germany • … spesielt i kommersielle saker VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland

  11. Denne saken • Reglene om rådighetsinnskrenkninger anvendt(av de fleste) • Vide skjønnsmarginer:”This is particularly true in cases such as the present one where what is at stake is a longstanding and complex area of law which regulates private law matters between individuals.” • Enighet om at motivet var ”legitimate aim in the general interest” • Ikke problem med hjemmel eller nasjonal rettsanvendelse

  12. Flertallets argumentasjon • ”Even where title to real property is registered, it must be open to the legislature to attach more weight to lengthy, unchallenged possession than to the formal fact of registration.” • Bra med en klar grense • Tapets størrelse irrelevant • Gikk ikke inn på • God tro • Innretningshensyn • Regelen som atferdsregulator

  13. Mindretallets argumentasjon • Konkret interessavveining • Registrert eiendom • Fremme bruk etc ikke tilstrekkelige hensyn • Ingen kompensasjon • Ingen innretningshensyn • Intet varsel

  14. Loucaides (og Kovler) • Registrert eiendom • Bruk kan fremmes ved skatt etc • Ikke vekt på hevd i andre land • Kort tid • ”I do not see how illegal possession can prevail over legitimate ownership” • ”shows disrespect for the legitimate rights” • ”encourages illegal possession” • ”no legitimate objective of public interest behind the provisions in question” • “illogical and disproportionate” • ”Rule of Law”

  15. Norsk rett • Relevansen av god tro og innretning • Sigdal • Kunne hytteeierne påberopt seg EMK? • ”subject to the conditions provided for by law” • Marte i lia • Flertallet gir ingen hjelp • Mindretallet opptatt av registrering • Samers bruksrett • Eiendomsrett i konflikt med andre rettigheter

  16. Rettens funksjon • Styring • Konfliktløsning

  17. Til ettertanke • Til ettertanke: Kan menneske- rettighetene være universelle samtidig som tolkningsmetoden er evolutiv/dynamisk? • Fremtidsutsikter: Bør menneske-rettighetene konstitusjonaliseres fullt ut?

More Related