The Experts below are selected from a list of 88242 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Martin Husovec - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the fundamental Right to Property and the protection of investment how difficult is it to repeal new intellectual Property Rights
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: Martin HusovecAbstract:In the 2010s, we are witnessing a number of policy debates concerning proposals for new intellectual Property Rights. The high-profile examples include publishers’ Rights, data producers’ Rights, and sport events organizers’ Rights. The arguments behind these Rights are purely utilitarian, unlike in the case of some traditional intellectual Property Rights, such as authors’ or inventors’ Rights. These Rights are clearly presented as tools of the European Union (EU) innovation policy, incentivizing quality journalism, data creation and trading or investments in sports. However, how sticky are these tools? A lot of attention in the literature Rightly focuses on the first-order issue of their social costs and benefits. Little attention is paid to the problem of institutional inertia which keeps some of these solutions in circulation despite their proven ineffectiveness. While economic progress is unthinkable without stable Property Rights, it is equally unthinkable without their never-ending adjustment and continuous reflection of their effects. In this article, I pose the following question: how difficult is it to legislate away a new set of intellectual Property Rights once they are found to be incapable of delivering on their promises?
-
the fundamental Right to Property and the protection of investment how difficult is it to repeal new intellectual Property Rights
Research handbook on intellectual property and investment law, 2019Co-Authors: Martin HusovecAbstract:At present, there is a proliferation of policy debates concerning proposals for new intellectual Property (IP) Rights. High-profile examples include publishers’ Rights, data producers’ Rights, and sport events organizers’ Rights. These Rights are presented as tools of the European Union’s (EU) innovation policy. However, how sticky are these tools? Much of the existing literature focuses on the first-order issue of their social costs and benefits. Little attention is paid to the problem of institutional inertia which keeps some of these solutions in circulation despite their proven ineffectiveness. While economic progress is unthinkable without stable Property Rights, it is equally unthinkable without their never-ending adjustment and continuous reflection of their effects. This chapter examines the question as to how difficult it would be to legislate away a new set of intellectual Property Rights once they are found to be incapable of delivering on their promises.
Okan Yildiz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
zoning plan based legal confiscation without expropriation in turkey in light of echr decisions
Land Use Policy, 2020Co-Authors: Yakup Emre Coruhlu, Bayram Uzun, Okan YildizAbstract:Abstract The Right to Property is a fundamental human Right guaranteed by international conventions. In countries like Turkey, where the principles of private ownership apply, this Right is guaranteed by laws. The Right to Property may be restricted by law only in the case of public interest. Nevertheless, the Right of ownership of immovable Property can be transferred to the public authority only with payment. However, in some cases, a person's immovable Property may be de facto converted into a public facility without expropriation. This process is called “confiscation without expropriation”. This concept was introduced into the Turkish Legal System in 1956 by the unauthorized conversion of immovable Property for a road. today, especially in planned areas, a different type of confiscation without expropriation is often seen. Zoning plans are known to be public tools that reorganize properties in public interest. However, the uncertainty in the implementation process of these plans negatively affects the owners of parcels reserved for public use in the zoning plan. This situation is defined in terminology as “legal confiscation without expropriation”. In this study, the subject has been discussed in the light of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions and Turkish judicial decisions, and which institutions are responsible for what kind of zoning functions within zoning plans have been investigated. Official (ex officio) applications and voluntary applications have been compared. Conceptual illustrations on the subject have been prepared. According to the results obtained from the study, it has been stated that all public spaces in the zoning plan are not subject to legal confiscation. Due to their location or characteristics, protected areas, unsuitable geological areas and parcels remaining in agricultural areas can be allocated as public spaces in the zoning plan. In such a case, it is not possible to say that there is legal confiscation. In terms of plan classification, there may be legal confiscation in areas if only a 1/1000-scale implementary zoning plan is in practice. As a solution for legal confiscation, land and real estate arrangements should be made ex officio and without delay. In addition to this, alternative models are also needed. Otherwise, public institutions will be subject to severe financial burdens. Some of the proposals include: granting construction Right to zone cadastral parcels affecting public facility areas, or granting the Right to construct all cadastral parcels in the plan in specified amounts and also developing a zoning Right transfer system.
Pranskūnienė Rasa - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Problems of legal regulation of cultural heritage protection in Lithuania
2021Co-Authors: Perkumienė Dalia, Pranskūnienė RasaAbstract:Relevance of the topic. Legal regulation of cultural heritage protection in Lithuania faces various challenges. The protection of immovable cultural heritage concerns not only the safeguarding of the public interest but also the Right of a natural or legal person to Property. The state must ensure, through its legislative power, the maintenance of the constitutional Right to Property and, at the same time, the proportionality of the public interestBioekonomikos plėtros fakultetasKazimiero Simonavičiaus universitetasVytauto Didžiojo universiteta
-
Problems of legal regulation of cultural heritage protection in Lithuania
2021Co-Authors: Perkumienė Dalia, Pranskūnienė RasaAbstract:Relevance of the topic. Legal regulation of cultural heritage protection in Lithuania faces various challenges. The protection of immovable cultural heritage concerns not only the safeguarding of the public interest but also the Right of a natural or legal person to Property. The state must ensure, through its legislative power, the maintenance of the constitutional Right to Property and, at the same time, the proportionality of the public interestBioekonomikos plėtros fakultetasVytauto Didžiojo universiteta
Ciprian Raul Romițan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the legal regime of the Right to private Property in romania
Social Science Research Network, 2018Co-Authors: Ciprian Raul RomițanAbstract:In Romania, the Right of the titleholder to possess, use and dispose of an asset in an exclusive, absolute and perpetual manner is guaranteed and protected equally by the law, regardless of the titleholder. In this regard, both the Constitution of Romania and the Civil Code and numerous legislative acts adopted after the December 1989 Revolution regulate private Property. Also, given that the Right to Property is one of the fundamental human Rights, in addition to the internal legal regulations, one must also take into account the international treaties and conventions ratified by Romania, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its additional Protocol no. 1 which states that “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”. The study presents an analysis of how the Romanian law regulates one of the most important and ample real Rights, namely the Right to private Property which is also a full Right because the owner has full powers over his asset.
Yakup Emre Coruhlu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
zoning plan based legal confiscation without expropriation in turkey in light of echr decisions
Land Use Policy, 2020Co-Authors: Yakup Emre Coruhlu, Bayram Uzun, Okan YildizAbstract:Abstract The Right to Property is a fundamental human Right guaranteed by international conventions. In countries like Turkey, where the principles of private ownership apply, this Right is guaranteed by laws. The Right to Property may be restricted by law only in the case of public interest. Nevertheless, the Right of ownership of immovable Property can be transferred to the public authority only with payment. However, in some cases, a person's immovable Property may be de facto converted into a public facility without expropriation. This process is called “confiscation without expropriation”. This concept was introduced into the Turkish Legal System in 1956 by the unauthorized conversion of immovable Property for a road. today, especially in planned areas, a different type of confiscation without expropriation is often seen. Zoning plans are known to be public tools that reorganize properties in public interest. However, the uncertainty in the implementation process of these plans negatively affects the owners of parcels reserved for public use in the zoning plan. This situation is defined in terminology as “legal confiscation without expropriation”. In this study, the subject has been discussed in the light of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions and Turkish judicial decisions, and which institutions are responsible for what kind of zoning functions within zoning plans have been investigated. Official (ex officio) applications and voluntary applications have been compared. Conceptual illustrations on the subject have been prepared. According to the results obtained from the study, it has been stated that all public spaces in the zoning plan are not subject to legal confiscation. Due to their location or characteristics, protected areas, unsuitable geological areas and parcels remaining in agricultural areas can be allocated as public spaces in the zoning plan. In such a case, it is not possible to say that there is legal confiscation. In terms of plan classification, there may be legal confiscation in areas if only a 1/1000-scale implementary zoning plan is in practice. As a solution for legal confiscation, land and real estate arrangements should be made ex officio and without delay. In addition to this, alternative models are also needed. Otherwise, public institutions will be subject to severe financial burdens. Some of the proposals include: granting construction Right to zone cadastral parcels affecting public facility areas, or granting the Right to construct all cadastral parcels in the plan in specified amounts and also developing a zoning Right transfer system.
