| Abstract [eng] |
The master's thesis analyzes trends in court case-law of seizure of property for public needs, examining the latest court case-law and court case-law on the basis of which the current interpretation of law has been formed. This topic is mostly revealed by examining the separate conditions of application of the institute of expropriation for public needs and the tendencies of interpretation of these conditions in court case-law. The right to property is recognized as one of the most important individual rights that the state must protect, so it is natural that the courts have a duty to interpret how this right must be protected. In fulfilling the duty to protect property rights, the courts also examine one of the ways of expiration of property rights – seizure of property for public needs, and distinguish the application of this institute from other measures intended to fulfill the public needs. The court case-law states that the seizure of property for public needs in compliance with all the conditions provided by law does not violate the principle of inviolability of property. In view of this, the seizure of property for public needs is examined by analyzing the necessary conditions for the implementation of this institute: property may be seized only under the conditions provided for by law; in the public interest; fair compensation. This master's thesis analyzes each of the above conditions separately, identifying the trends in court case-law in terms of the application of each condition. In addition, in order to disclose the application of the institute for the seizure of property for public needs, it is stated that in comparison with other institutes for public needs, seizure of property should be limited to cases where other means would unduly restrict the owner's property rights. |
