Davorin Pichler, Marija Pavošević

CIVIL LAW ASPECTS OF THE CONFLICT OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INTERESTS AND REALIZATION OF GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP IN THE BOUNDARY REGULATION PROCEDURE

Introduction

Civil law aspects of the conflict of private and public interests and realization of guarantee of the right of ownership in the boundary regulation procedure. Analyzes civil law conflicts between private and public interests, focusing on ownership guarantees in Croatian boundary regulation. Examines court practice & provides guidelines.

Abstract

The right of ownership has become the paradigm of modern life. On the one hand categorically guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and even the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia as one of the highest values that the state can offer an individual, the right of ownership is at the same time subject to public restrictions. In that sense, the question arises as to whether any interference with the right of ownership under the pretext of public interest is really justified. This paper will focus on the issue of the realization of guarantee of the right of ownership, especially by analysing the boundary regulation procedure based on the Act on the State Survey and Cadastre of Real Estates. The main emphasis in on the realization on private, proprietary interests versus the public interest. Through the presentation of court practice and the procedures of administrative bodies, the authors will analyse the protection reach of the institute of the right of ownership and provide guidelines for the regulation of certain open questions de lege ferenda.

Review

This paper addresses a fundamental and perpetually relevant issue in civil law: the inherent tension between the robust protection afforded to the right of ownership and the legitimate demands of public interest. By framing ownership as a "paradigm of modern life" and noting its categorical guarantee in international human rights instruments and the Croatian Constitution, the authors immediately establish the high stakes involved. The central question posed, concerning the justification of interference with ownership under the pretext of public interest, is both timely and critical, setting a strong foundation for an in-depth legal analysis. The research proposes to tackle this complex conflict through a focused examination of the boundary regulation procedure, specifically under Croatia's Act on the State Survey and Cadastre of Real Estates. This specific contextualization provides a concrete framework for exploring the abstract principles of ownership guarantee against practical administrative and judicial realities. The methodology, which promises an analysis of court practice and procedures of administrative bodies, is well-suited to illuminate the practical "protection reach" of proprietary rights. Furthermore, the stated aim of offering "guidelines for the regulation of certain open questions de lege ferenda" signals a valuable contribution not only to academic understanding but also to potential legislative reform. Overall, this paper appears to offer a significant contribution to the discourse on property rights and administrative law, particularly within the Croatian legal system. Its ambition to reconcile guaranteed private interests with necessary public interventions, through the lens of a specific procedural mechanism, is commendable. The insights derived from analyzing existing court practice and administrative processes are likely to be highly relevant for legal practitioners, policymakers, and scholars grappling with similar challenges in other jurisdictions. This work promises to enrich our understanding of how fundamental rights are realized and safeguarded in the face of competing societal demands.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.