www.ciela.net
Author
Annotation
The article examines the relationships arising in connection with the co-ownership, concerning the use of the common property. In this connection the author seeks answers to the questions about the ratio between personal use of the common property within the meaning of Art. 31, para. 2 of the OA and the possession as exercising of de facto power in the hypotheses of co-ownership; on whether ownership, respectively co-ownership should distinguish betweenuse and possession, provided that both powers are within the composition of the ownership right.
Also addressed are the questions: Is the presumption of Art. 69 of the OA applicable to relationships between co-owners, and hence – in case of a property dispute does a co-owner who claims acquisitive prescription have to prove that he has performed acts by which he has objectified to his co-owners his intent to possess their common parts for himself, or is this intent assumed pursuant to Art. 69 of the OA, respectively is it enough for him to prove that he has exercised de facto power over the entire property for the period pursuant to Art. 79, para. 1 of the OA. These and other matters concerning the ownership and use of common property, as well as the compensation in the case of co-ownership under Art. 31, para. 2 of the OA, which are not completelyclarifiedin the doctrine or consistently settled in the court practice, are subject of this paper.
Keywords
Ownership Act, co-owner, common property, compensation, possession, use, common parts, de facto power
PDF