Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Socialisation of Property

  • Chapter
The Theory of Nationalisation

  • 91 Accesses

Abstract

The process of socialisation of law, of which nationalisation forms an essential element, has one focal point on which all the important problems converge.

“Property, the power of man to dispose of an object, is part of the economic order, for every utilisation implies an appropriation. It is impossible to abolish it.

But a confusion very often arises between its economic aspect and its legal aspect. From the latter point of view, property may be individual or collective, and it is between these two concepts that the debate continues.”

L. Baudin, Manuel d’Economie politique, Paris, 1950, Vol. I, p. 98.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Challaye, op. cit., p. 84: “In all cases of dispute, the Code defends the interest of the proprietor.”

    Google Scholar 

  2. Savatier, Les Métamorphoses, op. cit., p. 223: “It is enough to take a panoramic view of the Civil Code to assess the predominant importance of vested property.”

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kruse, op. cit., pp. 473, 474; Salieron, op. cit., p. 150; Levin and Karass, op. cit., pp. 304, 305; Venediktoff, op. cit., Socialist Property, pp. 18–19.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See above, p. 3 et seq.; see also Challaye, op cit., p. 121.

    Google Scholar 

  5. H. Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis, (German edition by W. Schätzel) Tübingen, 1950, p. 146: “Simultaneously with the creation of the world, God gave to man the right to all things of an inferior kind.”

    Google Scholar 

  6. P. Tuor, Das schweizerische Zivilgesetzbuch, Zürich, 1934, pp. 448, 449.

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. Tuor, Das schweizerische Zivilgesetzbuch, Zürich, 1934, p. 450.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Decugis, P. Tuor, Das schweizerische Zivilgesetzbuch, Zürich, 1934, , p. 231: “Towards the end of the eighteenth century, the idea of individual and private property had reached its culminating point.”

    Google Scholar 

  9. The final abolition of slavery in the French colonies dates from 1848.

    Google Scholar 

  10. E.g. trade marks, which in addition to being exclusive and absolute, are of indefinite duration, subject to the payment of registration fees.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kruse, op. cit., p. 106.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Salieron, op. cit., pp. 177, 180.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kruse, op. cit., pp. 150 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Grotius, op. cit., p. 147.

    Google Scholar 

  15. The definition given in.Article 730 of the Swiss Civil Code is significant: “A praedial servitude is a burden imposed on immovable property for the benefit of another immovable, which obliges the owner of the servient property to permit certain acts of interference on the part of the owner of the dominant property, or himself to abstain for the benefit of the dominant owner from exercising certain rights of ownership over his own property. An obligation to do certain positive acts can be attached to land only as a burden annexed to a servitude.”

    Google Scholar 

  16. See also Swiss Civil Code, Article 745, Usufruct; Article 776, Residence; Article 779, Building; and Article 780, Waters.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Article 646 (3) of the Swiss Civil Code: “Every joint owner has the rights and duties of an owner in respect of his share.”

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kruse, op. cit., p. 166.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ib.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gide and Rist, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 248.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See above, p. 6; Lajugie, op. cit., p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  22. See above, p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See above, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Challaye, op. cit., p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  25. W. Sauer, System der Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, Bale, 1949, p. 267: “Property is not only dominion over a thing, but also dominion through a thing, since the will of the owner resides in and is effective in the thing.”

    Google Scholar 

  26. G. Schwarzenberger, The Protection of British Property Abroad (Current Legal Problems, 1952), London, 1952, p. 295.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See above, p. 31 et seq.; see also Decugis, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 197 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, op. cit., p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Article XVII of the Declaration. 80 Article 544 of the Civil Code.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Article 545 of the Civil Code.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Preamble, para. 1 of the Constitutions of 1946 and 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  32. J. Rivero and G. Vedel, Les Principes économiques et sociaux de la Constitution: le Préambule, Collection Droit social, May 1947, p. 29: “A paradoxical solution ! It is only too clear that the idea of property has evolved since ‘89; its staunchest defenders in the Assembly itself were in agreement in finding that sacredness was out of place here.”

    Google Scholar 

  33. Article 903 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kruse, op. cit., pp. 7, 9.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Fr. Giese, Enteignung und Entschädigung, Tübingen, 1950, p. 3: “In Germany, too, we have for a very long time had a property crisis.”

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hedemann, Fr. Giese, Enteignung und Entschädigung, Tübingen, 1950, p. 207: “In any event it is quite clear today that property under the Civil Code is already eroded by a host of special provisions.”

    Google Scholar 

  37. Article 641, Swiss Civil Code.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Article 27 (1). See above p. 31 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Article 27 (3). See above pp. 32–34.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Article 27 (3): “With this end in view, the necessary measures shall be taken... to create new agricultural communities with the indispensable lands and waters.”

    Google Scholar 

  41. H. Freund, Russia from A to 2, Sydney, 1945, pp. 124 and 450.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Article 58 of the Civil Code of the RSSR.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Articles 1, 22, 23, 24 of the Civil Code of the RSSR; Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution of the USSR.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Article 4 of the Constitution of the USSR.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Article 9 of the Constitution of the USSR.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Article 10 of the Constitution of the USSR.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Article 5 of the Constitution of the USSR.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Article 43 1. (1): “The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.”

    Google Scholar 

  49. Article 43 2. (1): “The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of the Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.”

    Google Scholar 

  50. Article 810 of the Civil Code.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Article 811 of the Civil Code.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Article 832 of the Civil Code.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Article 834 of the Civil Code.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Article 838 of the Civil Code.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Article 42 (1) of the Italian Constitution of 1947. Article 42 (2) of the Italian Constitution of 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Article 43 of the Italian Constitution of 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sarraute and Tager, op. cit., p. 520.

    Google Scholar 

  58. B. Mankowski, Questions of Status and Rights in the Peoples’ Democracies (in Russian), Review of the USSR Academy, Economic and Political Section, 1949, No. 4, pp. 301 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  59. A. V. Karass, in the Review of the USSR Academy, Economic and Political Section, 1949, No. 4, p. 306.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Article 6 of the Constitution of Bulgaria of 1947: “The means of production in the People’s Republic of Bulgaria belong either to the State (common property of the people) or to the cooperatives or to private individuals or incorporated bodies”; Article XII of the Constitution of Czecho-Slovakia of 1948; Article 14 of the Constitution of Yugoslavia of 1946; Article 5 of the Constitution of Rumania of 1948: “In the Rumanian People’s Republic the means of production belong to the State. They are the property either of the whole people or of cooperative organisations or of private individuals or incorporated bodies.”

    Google Scholar 

  61. See above, p. 36.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Article 8 of the Constitution of 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Article 9 of the Constitution of 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Article 9 (3) of the Constitution of 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Article 147 of the Constitution of 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Article 148 of the Constitution of 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Article 149 of the Constitution of 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Article 158 of the Constitution of 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Article XII (1) of the Constitution of 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Article 8 (1) of the Bulgarian Constitution; Article 16 of the Yugoslav Constitution; Article 7 of the Albanian Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Article 7 of the Bulgarian Constitution; Article 14 (2) of the Yugoslav Constitution; Article 5 (2) of the Albanian Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Article 10 (6) of the Bulgarian Constitution; see also Article 18 (6) of the Yugoslav Constitution; Article 9 (4) of the Albanian Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Article 6 of the Bulgarian Constitution; Article 14 (1) of the Yugoslav Constitution; Article 5 (1) of the Albanian Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  74. “The property of the State is the principal basis of the State in the development of the national economy” — Article 8 of the Bulgarian Constitution; Article 16 of the Yugoslav Constitution; Article 7 of the Albanian Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Article 9 of the Bulgarian Constitution: “Cooperatives are aided and encouraged”; Article 17 of the Yugoslav Constitution; Article 8 of the Albanian Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Article 10 (2) of the Bulgarian Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  77. “Private property is recognised and defended” — Article 10 of the Bulgarian Constitution; see also Article 18 of the Yugoslav Constitution; Article 9 of the Albanian Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Article 10 (5) of the Bulgarian Constitution; Article 18 (5) of the Yugoslav Constitution; Article 9 (2) of the Albanian Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Article 10 (6) of the Bulgarian Constitution; Article 18 (6) of the Yugoslav Constitution; Article 9 (4) of the Albanian Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Article 10 (3) of the Bulgarian Constitution; Article 18 (3) of the Yugoslav Constitution; Article 9 (1) of the Albanian Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Articles 4 and 8 of the Hungarian Constitution of 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Article 8 (1) of the Hungarian Constitution of 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Article 8 (2) of the Hungarian Constitution of 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Article 4 of the Hungarian Constitution of 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Article 4 (1) of the Hungarian Constitution of 1949: “In the Hungarian People’s Republic the greater part of the means of production is owned, as public property, by the State, by public bodies or by cooperative organisations. The means of production may also be in private ownership.”

    Google Scholar 

  86. Even for the period after the First World War, W. Schücking, Der Schutz wohlerworbener Rechte im Völkerrecht, Festgabe für Max Huber, Zürich, 1934, p. 217, makes the following observation: “The change in the views on economic policy and the terrible economic plight of the time have brought about in many countries in the period since the war such interference with the undoubted rights of private property that the former rigidity of that concept is now undergoing a strange process of softening.”

    Google Scholar 

  87. G. Scelle, Précis de Droit des Gens, Paris, 1932–34, Vol. II, p. 111: “In our days the limitations in the social interest on the right of property have become so numerous and so grave that it is no longer possible to regard it as an absolute power to dispose of the things appropriated.”

    Google Scholar 

  88. See above, G. Scelle, Précis de Droit des Gens, Paris, 1932–34, Vol. II,p. 36: below p. 123 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  89. See above, G. Scelle, Précis de Droit des Gens, Paris, 1932–34, Vol. II, pp. 36 and 54.

    Google Scholar 

  90. See above, G. Scelle, Précis de Droit des Gens, Paris, 1932–34, Vol. II, p. 332 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Rivero and Vedel, G. Scelle, Précis de Droit des Gens, Paris, 1932–34, Vol. II,, p. 30: “The Assembly did not say what it was thinking. In its very large majority it did not subscribe to the outworn formula of 1789...one rather gets the impression of a salutation given out of politeness to an idol which is no longer believed in, but which no-one knows how to replace. It is a politeness which deceives nobody.”

    Google Scholar 

  92. Rivero and Vedel, G. Scelle, Précis de Droit des Gens, Paris, 1932–34, Vol. II,, p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  93. R. Brunet, La Garantie internationale des Droits de l’Homme, Geneva, 1947, p. 77.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Challaye, R. Brunet, La Garantie internationale des Droits de l’Homme, Geneva, 1947, p. 123.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Salieron, R. Brunet, La Garantie internationale des Droits de l’Homme, Geneva, 1947, p. ii.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Decugis, R. Brunet, La Garantie internationale des Droits de l’Homme, Geneva, 1947, pp. 233, 234.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1947, p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  98. See above, Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1947p. 154 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  99. See below, Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1947 pp. 116–123.

    Google Scholar 

  100. See below, Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1947 pp. 123–130.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Chenot, Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1947, p. 364.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Schiicking, Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1947., p. 217.

    Google Scholar 

  103. “...une indemnité ‘juste et préalable’.”

    Google Scholar 

  104. L. Baudin, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1947, p. 99.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Challaye, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1947, p. 110.

    Google Scholar 

  106. See above,Challaye, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1947 p. 31 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  107. The German Joint Stock Companies Act of 30th January, 1937 may be cited as an example, based on the principle that a joint stock company involves “social functions” which prevail even over the interests of the shareholders. Article 70 (1) of this Act provides: “The management shall be personally responsible for conducting the business in such a way as is required by the well being of the undertaking and its employees, and the public interest of nation and State.” The same idea is implicit in the whole Act; see also Article 121 (3): “Anything which the management communicates to the auditors while informing them of a duty of secrecy imposed on the ground of the public interest of nation and State may not be included in the auditors’ report.” See also Article 128 (3), Article 288 (1): “Where a public company or a trading company with shares imperils the public interest the State economic court may, at the request of the minister for Economic Affairs, wind up the company.”

    Google Scholar 

  108. Binder, Du Droit civil au Droit public, 1947., p. 468 et seq.,’ see above, pp. 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  109. L. Duguit, Les Transformations du Droit privé depuis le Code Napoléon, Paris, 1912, p. 158: “Property is no longer the subjective right of the proprietor, it is the social function of the holder of wealth.”

    Google Scholar 

  110. Duguit, Les Transformations du Droit privé depuis le Code Napoléon, Paris, 1912, p. 158;

    Google Scholar 

  111. Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public,1912, p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Challaye, Du Droit civil au Droit public,1912, pp. 109, 110.

    Google Scholar 

  113. J. Hedemann, Stier-Somlo-Elster, Handwörterbuch der Rechtswissenschaft, 1927, Vol. II, p. 166 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  114. “...property is a twofold relation in which individual power is coupled with social obligation, and legal dominion with legal limitations. ”

    Google Scholar 

  115. Some authors even date the origin of this “social” orientation of the concept of property back to the beginings of Allemanic law. For example, W. Sauer, op. cit., p. 266: “According to the notions of German law, property has always been subject to a social limitation e.g. in favour of the family-group.”

    Google Scholar 

  116. Article 27 (3) of the Constitution of Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Chile (1925), Article 10 and 10 (3): “The exercise of the right of property is subject to the limitations or principles that the maintenance and advancement of social order demand.”

    Google Scholar 

  118. Peru (1933), Article 34: “Property must be used in harmony with social interests...”

    Google Scholar 

  119. Argentine (1949), Article 38: “Private property has a social function”; Article 39: “Capital must be at the service of the national economy.”

    Google Scholar 

  120. Colombia (1945), Article 30 (2): “Property is a social function which implies obligations.”

    Google Scholar 

  121. Panama (1946), Article 45 (2): “Private property implies obligations of its owner by reason of the social function that it must serve.”

    Google Scholar 

  122. Ecuador (1946), Article 183: “Property rights are guaranteed when in harmony with their social function.”

    Google Scholar 

  123. Guatemala (1945), Article 90: “The State recognises the existence of private property and guarantees it as a social function...”; Article 92: “For reasons of public utility or necessity or social interest legally proved, expropriation...”

    Google Scholar 

  124. Venezuela (1947), Article 65: “The nation guarantees the right of property. By virtue of its social functions property shall be subjected to the contributions, restrictions and obligations established by law for purposes of public utility or of the general welfare.”

    Google Scholar 

  125. Dominican Republic (1949), Article 6 (7): “...Nevertheless this right of property may be expropriated for public utility or social interest by...”

    Google Scholar 

  126. Bolivia (1945), Article 17: “...Expropriation is effected for reasons of public utility, or when property does not serve a social purpose.”

    Google Scholar 

  127. Brazil (1946), Article 141 (16): “The right of property is guaranteed except for the case of expropriation for public necessity or utility, or social interests...”; Article 147: “The use of property shall be conditioned upon social welfare.”

    Google Scholar 

  128. Haiti (1946), Article 17 (2): “But property also entails obligations. Its use must be in the general interest.”

    Google Scholar 

  129. Nicaragua (1948), Article 60: “The exercise of property rights is subject to the limitations imposed by the maintenance and progress of the social order. In harmony with this principle the law may burden property with obligations or servitudes of public benefit...”

    Google Scholar 

  130. Giese, op. cit., pp. 15, 16: “B. After the collapse of 1945: All constitutions specify the guarantee of property, but also its social duties.”

    Google Scholar 

  131. Portugal (1935), Article 35: “Property, capital and labour exercise a social function under a system of economic cooperation and solidarity.”

    Google Scholar 

  132. Spain (1945), Article 30 (2): “All forms of property remain subordinate to the needs of the Nation and the common welfare.”

    Google Scholar 

  133. Italy (1947), Article 42 (2): “Private property is recognised and guaranteed by the law, which determines the methods of acquisition and enjoyment thereof as well as its limits to ensure its social function and to render it accessible to all.”

    Google Scholar 

  134. Saar (1947) Article 51: “Property involves obligations towards the people.”

    Google Scholar 

  135. East Germany (1949), Article 22: “Property is guaranteed by the Constitution. Its essence and limits flow from the laws and from social duties towards the community.”

    Google Scholar 

  136. German Federal Republic (1949), Article 14 (2): “Property confers obligations. The use of property must at the same time contribute to the good of the community.”

    Google Scholar 

  137. See above, p. 43 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Ripert, Le Déclin du Droit, op. cit., p. 197.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Venediktoff, Socialist State Property (in Russian), op. cit., pp. 222, 223.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, op. cit., p. 13: “The proprietor thus appears, even in his individual capacity and within the civil law, as charged with a public service.”

    Google Scholar 

  141. Hedemann, Deutches Wirtschaftsrecht, op. cit., p. 207: “Hitherto in the law of property the will of the owner had been dominant and limitations in favour of the public interest had been the exception, but now the common good must be the principle and the starting point, and the exercise of the proprietor’s will must be restricted to certain exceptional cases that might be admissible.”

    Google Scholar 

  142. Engels, op. cit., p. 40: “The product dominates the producers.”

    Google Scholar 

  143. Savatier, Du Droit civil au Droit public, op. cit., p. 8; G. Lyon-Caen, Contribution à la Recherche d’une Définition du Droit commercial, Revue trimestrielle de Droit commercial, 1949, No. 4, pp. 580, 582.

    Google Scholar 

  144. See above, G. Lyon-Caen, Contribution à la Recherche d’une Définition du Droit commercial, Revue trimestrielle de Droit commercial, 1949, No. 4, p. 6 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  145. See below,G. Lyon-Caen, Contribution à la Recherche d’une Définition du Droit commercial, Revue trimestrielle de Droit commercial, 1949 p. 332 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  146. As is done by Article 14 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany: “(Compensation) shall be determined on an equitable assessment of the interests of the community and those of the persons concerned.”

    Google Scholar 

  147. Article 10 (5) of the Constitution of Bulgaria: “Private property may be compulsorily limited or expropriated exclusively for a public purpose or in the interest of the State in return for fair compensation” Article 10 (6): “The State may nationalise all or part of any branch or undertaking of industry, commerce, transport or credit. The compensation shall he determined hy the enactment introducing the nationalisation.”

    Google Scholar 

  148. See below, G. Lyon-Caen, Contribution à la Recherche d’une Définition du Droit commercial, Revue trimestrielle de Droit commercial, 1949p. 332 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  149. See above,G. Lyon-Caen, Contribution à la Recherche d’une Définition du Droit commercial, Revue trimestrielle de Droit commercial, 1949 p. 31 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  150. See above, G. Lyon-Caen, Contribution à la Recherche d’une Définition du Droit commercial, Revue trimestrielle de Droit commercial, 1949p. 36; below, p. 231 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Salieron, G. Lyon-Caen, Contribution à la Recherche d’une Définition du Droit commercial, Revue trimestrielle de Droit commercial, 1949., p.xiii.

    Google Scholar 

  152. The 1924 Constitution of the USSR, in force before that of 1936, was based on the unqualified rejection of private property.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Article 4 of the 1936 Constitution of the USSR: “The economic basis of the USSR is constituted by the socialist system of economy and by the socialist ownership of the instruments and means of production...”

    Google Scholar 

  154. Article 5 of the USSR Constitution of 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Article 4 of the USSR Constitution of 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Article 9 of the USSR Constitution of 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Article 10 of the USSR Constitution of 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  158. Article 6 of the 1947 Constitution of Bulgaria.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Article 10 of the 1947 Constitution of Bulgaria.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Article 16 of the Yugoslav Constitution of 1946.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Article 18 of the Yugoslav Constitution of 1946.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Article 5 of the Rumanian Constitution of 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  163. Article 8 of the Rumanian Constitution of 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Articles 7–9 of the Albanian Constitution of 1946.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Article 4 of the Hungarian Constitution of 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Article 8 of the Hungarian Constitution of 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  167. Article 149 of the Czecho-Slovak Constitution of 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Article 146 of the Czecho-Slovak Constitution of 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Articles 146 and 158 of the Czecho-Slovak Constitution of 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  170. Article 158/2 of the Czecho-Slovak Constitution of 1948.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Articles 7 and 8 of the Constitution of 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  172. Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution of 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  173. Article 12 of the Constitution of 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Article 13 of the Constitution of 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  175. Article 4 of the Constitution of the USSR; Article 8 of the Constitution of Bulgaria; Article 16 of the Constitution of Yugoslavia; Article 5 of the Constitution of Rumania; Article 7 of the Constitution of Albania; Article 4 of the Constitution of Hungary; Article 149 of the Constitution of Czecho-Slovakia.

    Google Scholar 

  176. D. M. Genkin, S. N. Bratus, L. A. Lunz, I. B. Novizky, Soviet Civil Law (in Russian) Moscow, 1950, p. 271.

    Google Scholar 

  177. A. Denisov and M. Kirichenko, Soviet State Law (in English), Moscow, 1960, p. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  178. Constitutions: Bulgaria, Article 9; Yugoslavia, Article 17; Rumania, Article 9.

    Google Scholar 

  179. Article 10/1 of the Bulgarian Constitution: “Private property and the rights of succession thereto... are recognised and protected by law”; Article 18/1 of the Yugoslav Constitution: “Private property and private economic enterprise are guaranteed”; Article 8 of the Constitution of Hungary, etc.

    Google Scholar 

  180. Article 9 of the Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  181. Article 10/2 of the Bulgarian Constitution: “Private property acquired by labour and savings and the succession thereto shall enjoy special protection”; Article 8 of the Hungarian Constitution: “The Constitution recognises and defends property acquired by labour”, etc.

    Google Scholar 

  182. Article 7 of the USSR Constitution. See also Denisov and Kirichenko, op. cit.j pp. 123–4.

    Google Scholar 

  183. Genkin, Bratus, Lunz and Novizky, op. cit., pp. 271, 329.

    Google Scholar 

  184. A. V. Karass, The Content of the Law of Socialist State Property (in Russian), Review, Sovietskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1949, No. 7, p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  185. Article 158/2 of the Constitution of Czecho-Slovakia.

    Google Scholar 

  186. Article 6 of the USSR Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  187. Article 4 of the USSR Constitution.

    Google Scholar 

  188. Article 148 of the Constitution of Czecho-Slovakia.

    Google Scholar 

  189. Article 6 of the Constitution of Hungary.

    Google Scholar 

  190. Article 14 of the Constitution of Yugoslavia.

    Google Scholar 

  191. Article 6 of the Constitution of Rumania.

    Google Scholar 

  192. Article 7 of the Constitution of Bulgaria.

    Google Scholar 

  193. Article 4 of the Constitution of the USSR.

    Google Scholar 

  194. Article 8 of the Constitution of Bulgaria.

    Google Scholar 

  195. The Constitution of the USSR.

    Google Scholar 

  196. Article 10 of the Constitution of Bulgaria.

    Google Scholar 

  197. Article 18 of the Constitution of Yugoslavia.

    Google Scholar 

  198. Article 10 of the Constitution of the USSR.

    Google Scholar 

  199. Article 10/2 of the Constitution of Bulgaria.

    Google Scholar 

  200. For example, in Bulgaria, the Contracts and Obligations Act of 22nd November, 1950, based on the directives contained in Articles 7–10 of the Constitution affords such protection. In legislating, for instance, on the right of lien, Article 91 of the Act specifies a very definite gradation in the mode of constituting a lien according to the capacity of the property owner. Article 91 (1) governs the establishment of the right of lien in general, Article 91 (3) governs the right of lien in favour of State undertakings on simplified conditions, and, finally, Article 91 (6) stipulates that “no right of lien shall be exercised against socialist organisations.” See below p. 268 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  201. For example, the Bulgarian Criminal Code of 13th February, 1951, deals in three different chapters with offences against property and the economic order: Chapter III, “Offences against State property,” Chapter IV, “Offences against the national economyn and Chapter V, “Offences against personal property”, with sanctions differentiated according to a certain scale. See below, p. 231 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  202. Article 158/2 of the Constitution of Czecho-Slovakia.

    Google Scholar 

  203. For this category of property, for example, in Bulgaria, the law specifies certain privileges in the matter of compulsory execution for debt and the Monetary Reform Act of 12th May, 1952, certain privileges concerning the rate of devaluation.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sofia, Bulgaria

    Konstantin Katzarov (Professor of Law, Lecturer in Law)

  2. University of Geneva, Switzerland

    Konstantin Katzarov (Professor of Law, Lecturer in Law)

Authors
  1. Konstantin Katzarov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1964 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Katzarov, K. (1964). The Socialisation of Property. In: The Theory of Nationalisation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1055-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1055-4_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0425-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-1055-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation