Vallasomandi üleandmine. Õigusdogmaatiline raamistik ja kujundusvõimalused
Kuupäev
2013-03-04
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Abstrakt
Vallasomandi üleandmisega puutub pea igapäevaselt kokku nii iga inimene endale igapäevaseid tarbeesemeid soetades kui ka paljud ettevõtjad oma majandustegevuses, seda alates tootmisprotsessi algetapist kuni kauba lõpptarbijani jõudmiseni. Siiski ei pöörata sageli ka väärtuslikumate vallasasjade soetamisel tähelepanu sellele, missugusest hetkest alates võime end lugeda asja täieõiguslikuks omanikuks.
Vallasomandi ülemineku õiguslike eelduste uurimise vajaduse tingibki asjaomaste normide suur tähtsus nii üksikisiku huvide kui ka majanduskäibe sujuva ent samas usaldusväärse toimimise tagamise seisukohalt. Keskseks eesmärgiks oli esitada terviklik analüüs vallasomandi tehingulise üleandmise asjaõiguslike eelduste ja teostamisvõimaluste kohta põhirõhuga sellel, missuguses ulatuses võimaldab õiguskord omandi ülemineku üksikasju asjaosaliste äranägemise kohaselt kujundada ning modifitseerida.
Seaduse kohaselt on nõutav esiteks võõrandaja ja omandaja vaheline kokkulepe omandi ülemineku kohta ja teiseks asja valduse üleandmine omandajale.
Ehkki vallasasjade käibe puhul ei teadvusta osalejad endale sageli eraldi omandi üleminekule suunatud asjaõiguskokkuleppe e käsutustehingu sõlmimise vajadust, ei ole siiski tegemist vallasasjade käivet takistava formaalse nõudega. Piisav on käitumine, millest mõistlik isik saab teha järelduse, et mõlemad pooled soovisid omandi üleminekut. Asjaõiguskokkuleppe sõlmimise võimalused on kõigiti paindlikud ja vabalt kujundatavad.
Valduse üleandmise all mõistetakse esmajoones küll asja vahetut füüsilist üleandmist omandajale, kuid sellele lisaks näeb seadus ette ka mitmeid alternatiive. Nii on valduse faktiline üleandmine võimalik asendada ka teatud sisuga kokkulepetega, mis loob võimaluse kujundada omandi üleandmist ka selles osas paindlikult, mh nt esindaja vahendusel.
Väitekirjas võrreldakse Eesti õiguse ja üle-Euroopalise võrdleva õigusteadusliku uurimuse tulemusena valminud Draft Common Frame of Reference põhilahendusi selgitamaks, kas eelnimetatud mudelsätted pakuvad uudseid ja paindlikumaid lahendusi. Analüüsist selgub, et mõlemad normistikud võimaldavad enamasti jõuda sarnastele tasakaalustatud tulemustele. Ajakohase tõlgendamise korral võimaldavad mõlemad reeglistikud omandit üle anda paindlikel viisidel, sh ilma, et üleandmises peaksid vahetult osalema võõrandaja ja/või omandaja isiklikult või et omandi üleminekuks tuleks teha faktilisi toiminguid valduse füüsilise üleandmise näol.
The transferring of ownership in movable property involves everyday transactions conducted by both private persons in seeking to meet their regular needs and entrepreneurs in the course of their business. Nevertheless, participants in trade are often unaware of at which exact moment the full right of ownership is lost or obtained, even where more valuable movables are involved. The necessity examine the legal prerequisites of transferring ownership in movables is underlined by the outstanding role of the relevant norms in both securing the interests of a private person and the smooth yet reliable functioning of the economic exchange. A central aim of the thesis was to provide a comprehensive analysis on the prerequisites and possible modes of implementation of transferring ownership in movable property. The focal point was laid on the question to what extent there are possibilities available to the parties to customise their transfer or to modify some of its aspects. To transfer ownership in movable property, the law firstly requires the conclusion of a ‘real agreement’ between the transferor and the transferee, and secondly, the delivery of possession to the transferee. Although in case of movables the participants in trade often do not realise the necessity to conclude a separate ‘real agreement’, this element cannot be seen as a formal requirement inhibiting the trade in movables. It is sufficient if the parties act in a way leading a reasonable person to the conclusion that both parties wished the right of ownership to pass from the transferor to the transferee. The possibilities of concluding a ‘real agreement’ are wholly flexible and freely customisable. Although the main definition of delivery denotes the physical handing over of the movable to the transferee, the law also sets forth a number of alternatives. It is possible to substitute the factual delivery of possession by concluding agreements with a certain content, thus allowing for a flexible arrangement of the details of transferring ownership also in that respect; e.g., by way of representation. The thesis also examines the model rules on acquisition and loss of ownership of movables contained in the recent Draft Common Frame of Refrence with a view to establishing whether they contain novel and more flexible solutions as compared to those existing in Estonian law. As a result the conclusion is drawn that in most cases both regulations will lead to similar balanced results. When interpreted with a view to the needs of the current socio-economic order, the existing rules are sufficiently flexible, allowing for fully adequate possibilities of customisation.
The transferring of ownership in movable property involves everyday transactions conducted by both private persons in seeking to meet their regular needs and entrepreneurs in the course of their business. Nevertheless, participants in trade are often unaware of at which exact moment the full right of ownership is lost or obtained, even where more valuable movables are involved. The necessity examine the legal prerequisites of transferring ownership in movables is underlined by the outstanding role of the relevant norms in both securing the interests of a private person and the smooth yet reliable functioning of the economic exchange. A central aim of the thesis was to provide a comprehensive analysis on the prerequisites and possible modes of implementation of transferring ownership in movable property. The focal point was laid on the question to what extent there are possibilities available to the parties to customise their transfer or to modify some of its aspects. To transfer ownership in movable property, the law firstly requires the conclusion of a ‘real agreement’ between the transferor and the transferee, and secondly, the delivery of possession to the transferee. Although in case of movables the participants in trade often do not realise the necessity to conclude a separate ‘real agreement’, this element cannot be seen as a formal requirement inhibiting the trade in movables. It is sufficient if the parties act in a way leading a reasonable person to the conclusion that both parties wished the right of ownership to pass from the transferor to the transferee. The possibilities of concluding a ‘real agreement’ are wholly flexible and freely customisable. Although the main definition of delivery denotes the physical handing over of the movable to the transferee, the law also sets forth a number of alternatives. It is possible to substitute the factual delivery of possession by concluding agreements with a certain content, thus allowing for a flexible arrangement of the details of transferring ownership also in that respect; e.g., by way of representation. The thesis also examines the model rules on acquisition and loss of ownership of movables contained in the recent Draft Common Frame of Refrence with a view to establishing whether they contain novel and more flexible solutions as compared to those existing in Estonian law. As a result the conclusion is drawn that in most cases both regulations will lead to similar balanced results. When interpreted with a view to the needs of the current socio-economic order, the existing rules are sufficiently flexible, allowing for fully adequate possibilities of customisation.
Kirjeldus
Märksõnad
vallasomand, omand, võrdlev õigusteadus, õigussüsteemid, Euroopa Liidu õigus, Eesti, movable property, ownership, comparative law, legal systems, European Union Law, Estonia