Constitutional property law in Central Eastern European jurisdictions: A comparative analysis.

Swanepoel, Jan - Harm (2016-12)

Thesis (LLD)--Stellenbosch University, 2016

Thesis

ENGLISH ABSTRACT : This dissertation investigates three areas of constitutional property law doctrine, namely the concept of property for constitutional purposes, the distinction between deprivation and expropriation and the application of the proportionality principle as a means of determining the legitimacy of interferences with property. More specifically, it is determined how these three doctrinal areas are approached in the established constitutional democracies of Germany, the United States of America, the principles developed by the European Court of Human Rights, as well as relatively young constitutional democracies in Central Eastern Europe and South Africa. The respective German and US law approaches to the three doctrinal areas differ in certain aspects. Interestingly, while their points of departure differ, they reach similar conclusions in some instances. These two jurisdictions are presented as two points on a continuum of approaches to the three doctrinal areas, with the aim of determining whether the constitutional democracies in Central Eastern Europe and in South Africa resemble an approach closer to German or US law. The principles of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the three doctrinal areas are also investigated because they represent an alternative framework that influences the development of constitutional property law in the younger constitutional democracies, particularly in Central Eastern Europe because of their links to the European Union. Generally speaking, in relation to the three doctrinal areas, the dissertation concludes that on the continuum between German and US law, the constitutional democracies in Central Eastern Europe and South Africa seem to follow an approach that resembles German law rather than US law, although no explicit reference is made in this regard.

AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING : Hierdie proefskrif ondersoek drie gebiede van grondwetlike eiendomsreg-leerstelling, naamlik die konsep van eiendom vir grondwetlike doeleindes, die onderskeid tussen ontneming en onteiening en die toepassing van die proporsionaliteitsbeginsel as meganisme om die legitimiteit van inmenging met eiendom te bepaal. Die ondersoek is verder gerig op hoe hierdie drie leerstellingsgebiede in die meer gevestigde grondwetlike demokrasieë van Duitsland en die Verenigde State van Amerika en die beginsels ontwikkel deur die Europese Hof van Menseregte benader word, vergeleke relatief jong grondwetlike demokrasieë in Sentraal-Oos-Europa en in Suid Afrika. Die onderskeie Duitse en Amerikaanse benaderings verskil met betrekking tot sekere aspekte. Interessant genoeg, verskil hul uitgangspunte in bepaalde opsigte en tog word soortgelykte gevolgtrekkings getref. Wat die drie leerstellingsgebiede betref, verteenwoordig hierdie twee jurisdiksies dus twee punte op ʼn kontinuum. Onderliggend aan hierdie ondersoek is die vraag of demokrasieë van Sentraal-Oos- Europa en Suid-Afrika se benaderings vergelykbaar is met die Duitse of eerder die Amerikaanse reg. Die beginsels van die Europese Hof van Menseregte word ook in hierdie verband ondersoek omdat hulle ʼn alternatiewe raamwerk daarstel, veral wat die ontwikkeling van grondwetlike eiendomsreg in die jonger grondwetlike demokrasieë betref. Hier ter sprake is veral Sentraal-Oos-Europa, as gevolg van hul bande met die Europese Unie. Met betrekking tot die drie leerstellingsgebiede kom die proefskrif oor die algemeen tot die gevolgtrekking dat op die kontinuum tussen Duitse en Amerikaanse reg, die grondwetlike demokrasieë in Sentraal-Oos-Europa en in Suid Afrika benaderings volg wat vergelykbaar is met die Duitse reg eerder as die Amerikaanse reg, al word daar in hierdie verband nie eksplisiet daarna verwys nie.

Please refer to this item in SUNScholar by using the following persistent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/100343
This item appears in the following collections: