- •Time-Limited Interests in Land
- •The Common Core of European Private Law
- •Contents
- •General editors’ preface
- •Preface
- •Contributors
- •Abbreviations
- •1 Setting the scene
- •1. The scene
- •2. Balancing the interests: a handful of common problems
- •3. Time-limited interests arising by operation of law
- •2 General introduction
- •1. Overview
- •2. The hybrid character of time-limited interests in land
- •3. The approach and purpose of this study
- •3.1. Background
- •3.2. Drawing a geographical map of the law of Europe
- •4. The genesis of the book
- •4.1. Narrowing down the topic
- •4.2. Terminology
- •5. Structure of the book
- •3 Historical evolution of the maxim ‘sale breaks hire’
- •1. Introduction
- •2. The Roman-law approach
- •3. The ius commune position
- •3.1. Medieval learned law
- •3.2. From medieval learned law to the Prussian Civil Code
- •3.3. From the Prussian Civil Code to the German Civil Code
- •4. Conclusions
- •4 The many faces of usufruct
- •1. Usufruct in tax and estate planning
- •1.1. Transferring assets yet retaining control and income
- •1.2. Overview
- •2. The concept of usufruct
- •3. The traditional face
- •3.1. Control
- •3.2. Income
- •4. The modern face of usufruct
- •4.1. Control
- •4.2. Income
- •5. The Janus face
- •6. The twisted face
- •6.1. Default rules
- •6.2. Contractual expansion
- •6.3. Limits
- •7. Conclusion
- •Comparative observations
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •Denmark
- •England
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Hungary
- •Italy
- •The Netherlands
- •Poland
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Spain
- •Comparative observations
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •Denmark
- •England
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Hungary
- •Italy
- •The Netherlands
- •Poland
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Spain
- •Comparative observations
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •Denmark
- •England
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Hungary
- •Italy
- •The Netherlands
- •Poland
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Spain
- •Comparative observations
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •Denmark
- •England
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Hungary
- •Italy
- •The Netherlands
- •Poland
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Spain
- •Comparative observations
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •Denmark
- •England
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Hungary
- •Italy
- •The Netherlands
- •Poland
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Spain
- •Comparative observations
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •Denmark
- •England
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Hungary
- •Italy
- •The Netherlands
- •Poland
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Spain
- •Comparative observations
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •Denmark
- •England
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Hungary
- •Italy
- •The Netherlands
- •Poland
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Spain
- •Comparative observations
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •Denmark
- •England
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Hungary
- •Italy
- •The Netherlands
- •Poland
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Spain
- •Comparative observations
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •Denmark
- •England
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Hungary
- •Italy
- •The Netherlands
- •Poland
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Spain
- •Comparative observations
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •Denmark
- •England
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Hungary
- •Italy
- •The Netherlands
- •Poland
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Spain
- •Comparative observations
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •Denmark
- •England
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Hungary
- •Italy
- •The Netherlands
- •Poland
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Spain
- •Comparative observations
- •Austria
- •Belgium
- •Denmark
- •England
- •France
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Hungary
- •Italy
- •The Netherlands
- •Poland
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Spain
- •Case 1
- •Case 2
- •Case 3
- •Case 4
- •Case 5
- •Case 6
- •Case 7
- •Case 8
- •Case 9
- •Case 10
- •Case 11
- •Case 12
- •Belgium
- •Denmark
- •England
- •Germany
- •Greece
- •Hungary
- •Italy
- •Poland
- •Portugal
- •Scotland
- •South Africa
- •Spain
- •Bibliography
- •GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
- •AUSTRIA
- •BELGIUM
- •DENMARK
- •ENGLAND
- •GERMANY
- •GREECE
- •HUNGARY
- •ITALY
- •THE NETHERLANDS
- •POLAND
- •PORTUGAL
- •SCOTLAND
- •SOUTH AFRICA
- •SPAIN
- •General index
- •Country index
- •Books in the series
c a s e 2 : a t h i r d p a r t y |
141 |
Germany
B’s lease would be protected against C if he/she has obtained possession of the property prior to the transfer of ownership to C. If the landlord transfers a leased property to a third party, the latter automatically assumes the rights and obligations of the landlord arising from the lease (Civil Code, § 566(1)). This protection is based on the rule that ‘hire trumps sale’. B is protected even if C had no knowledge of the lease and irrespective of whether he/she acquired the property for value or without consideration. Since it is not possible to register lease agreements in the Land Register, there will be no publicity as to the existence of the lease. Of course, C would be entitled to compensation if A had not disclosed the existence of the lease to C.
The rule ‘hire trumps sale’ is also applicable in the case of an agricultural lease of land (Landpachtvertrag) (Civil Code, § 593b).
Rights capable of registration such as a duly registered usufruct
(Nie§brauch), right of habitation (Wohnungsrecht), permanent right of habitation (Dauerwohnungsrecht) or a permanent building right (Erbbaurecht) will be enforceable against C, irrespective of C’s knowledge or whether C acquired the property for value or not.
If, for whatever reason, the registration of B’s right in the Grundbuch is cancelled by mistake, B will only be protected if C acquired the property with actual knowledge that it is subject to B’s right (Civil Code, § 892(1)). Constructive knowledge will not exclude a bona Þde acquisition by C. If B’s right is cancelled by mistake in the Land Register (Grundbuch) without C having actual knowledge of its creation (bona Þde acquisition), a further distinction must be made between an acquisition for value and an acquisition for no consideration. If C acquired the property for value, B is limited to claims for unjust enrichment against A (Civil Code 816(1), sent. 1). If, however, C acquired the property for no consideration, B can claim that C allows his/her (B’s) real right to be registered again (Civil Code, § 816(1), sent 2).26
Greece
Greek law distinguishes between a lease on immovable property evidenced by a document with a certified date and a lease without such a date. If the lease is contained in a deed with a certified date, the transfer
26 Bundesgerichtshof BGHZ 81, 395.
142 c a s e s t u d i e s
of the property by the landlord (A) to a third party (C) would have the effect that the new owner (C) would be subrogated to the rights and obligations of the former owner A (Civil Code, art. 614). This would mean inter alia that the new owner, subject to any agreement to the contrary contained in the lease,27 must allow the tenant to exploit the property until the expiry of the lease. If the contract is not executed in the above manner, or contains a stipulation that, upon alienation of the property, the new owner shall have the right to evict the tenant, the new owner is entitled to terminate the lease on a month’s notice if the term of the lease is for a year or less than a year, or on two months’ notice if it exceeds a year (Civil Code, art. 615), unless the property was leased as a primary residence, where the contract may only be terminated after three years have elapsed from the start of the lease (Law 1703/1987, art. 2, § 1, as replaced by Law 2235/1994, art. 1, § 5). In this situation, the tenant will have a claim for compensation on account of the landlord’s breach of contract. Rent paid in advance to A, assignments of future rents by A, as well as attachments of rents effected by A’s creditors, shall not be effective vis-a`-vis the new owner C in respect of rent for more than three months, computed as from the date the new owner C notified the tenant B of the transfer of the property to himself/herself (Civil Code, art. 616).
Greek law prescribes that leases for a term exceeding nine years must be transcribed in the conveyance records of the Land Register in the district where the property is situated (Civil Code, art. 1208). If notarially executed and transcribed, such a lease will be effective against the new owner to whom the property has been transferred (Civil Code, art. 618).
We have seen that a lease of agricultural land (including a crop-sharing lease) is governed by the same provisions as an ordinary lease, unless regulated differently in specific provisions of the Civil Code (Civil Code, arts. 620 and 641, § 2). In this respect the provisions on an agricultural lease (Civil Code, art. 637) require that in the case of a lease not contained in a deed bearing a fixed date the new owner (C) must give at least six months’ advance notice should he/she wish to evict the lessee (B). Such notice shall only take effect after the leased land has been harvested.
Since usufruct is one of the recognised real rights in Greek law (Civil Code, art. 973), B’s right is absolute and can be invoked against everybody (erga omnes) subject to the proviso that the usufruct must be executed in a notarial deed and transcribed in the Land Register before registration of the transfer of the land to C (Civil Code, arts. 1143, 1033 and 1192(2)). Lack
27 Antapasis, in Georgiades and Stathopoulos, GCC, Collective Analysis, art. 614 no 29 (364).
c a s e 2 : a t h i r d p a r t y |
143 |
of transcription results in the non-constitution of the usufruct (Civil Code, art. 1198). The same rules apply in the case of the personal servitude of habitation (Civil Code, art. 1187. See also the answer to Case 1 above).
In the case of a loan for use, B’s right will not be enforceable against C. The borrower for use only acquires the personal right to use the property (Civil Code, art. 810). 28 The contract of loan for use gives rise to a relative right which can only be enforced inter partes (principle of relativity of obligations (Civil Code, art. 287)). Consequently, the new owner of the property (C) will have the right to demand from B acknowledgement of his/her ownership and the return of the property to him/ her (C) (Civil Code, art. 1094). B is not entitled to refuse restitution of the property (Civil Code, art. 1095). However, since B will no longer have the use of the property, he/she will have a contractual claim for damages against A for subsequent impossibility of performance.
Hungary
It is a common rule for all types of leases (ordinary, residential, income producing or income producing in respect of agricultural property) that where the title of the property is transferred, the new owner in principle acquires the property encumbered with the lease, even if the purchaser acted in good faith and had no actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the lease. In the case of a lease for a fixed term, the acquirer cannot terminate the contract unless the tenant deceived him/ her as to the existence or the substantive content of the main conditions of the lease (Civil Code, § 432(2)). It must be stressed that the initial landlord cannot terminate a lease for a definite term either.29 In this case no actual or constructive knowledge is required on the part of the purchaser, nor is any public notice mechanism provided for since lease contracts cannot be entered in the Land Register, with the exception of the lease of agricultural property, which can be registered specially for
28See Case 1.
29Where the identity of the landlord changes, the transfer of the claim for rent is governed by the rules of assignation. Through the assignation the assignee steps into the shoes of the assignor. The obligor can enforce against the assignee all claims that existed following intimation of the assignation (Civil Code, § 432(3) and, §§ 328–9). If the tenant paid rent, in advance, the landlord cannot claim rent for the period covered unless he/she was not or should not have been aware of the advance payment when concluding the contract (Civil Code, § 432(4)).
144 c a s e s t u d i e s
other purposes (Law on Agricultural Property, § 25/A-25/D). The exercise of possession by the tenant can be seen as a form of public notice. However, the above rule does not require that the tenant actually take possession of the property and consequently it does not follow that the latter’s taking possession of the property must precede that of the purchaser.
Both usufruct and the right of use are rights in rem and accordingly have effect erga omnes. Rights in rem over immovable property will survive the transfer of title to the property if their registration precedes the registration of the transfer of title.30 C’s knowledge of the pre-existing usufruct or right of use is irrelevant as the doctrine of constructive notice finds application where rights are registered over immovable property. In this regard it is irrelevant whether or not the purchaser acquired the property for value or for no consideration.
As regards the loan for use, there is no provision which conflicts with the privity of contract and the relative structure of contractual legal relationships.
Italy
The right of the tenant (B) remains completely enforceable if the lease was registered in the Land Register before registration of the transfer to C (Civil Code, arts. 1599 and 2644). Alternatively, the tenant will only be protected for a period of nine years from the conclusion of the contract if the lease was not registered (Civil Code, art. 1599). Only leases granted for more than nine years therefore require registration in order to be enforceable (Civil Code, art. 2643 n. 8).
If B was granted a usufruct, use, habitation or a hereditary building right, his/her right remains enforceable if the legal act constituting the limited right or transfer of ownership in the building (in the case of a hereditary building right) was registered before registration of the transfer to C (Civil Code, art. 2644).
The right of the borrower is not enforceable against C31 (unless there is a stipulation to this effect in the agreement between A and C).
30Note that the validity of a usufruct and a right of use requires either registration or acquiring possession.
31See e.g. Cass. civ. 15/05/1991 n. 5454.
