Published since November 20, 2011

European Property Law Journal

ISSN: 2190-8362

Editor-in-chief: Sjef van Erp

About this journal

The European Property Law Journal (EPLJ) focuses on both private and public law aspects of land, movables, claims and so-called new objects of property law, such as "virtual" property. Articles are based upon comparative legal analysis and examine property law from a European perspective. This includes not only the multidisciplinary study of property law and the effects of the EU internal market on the national property law systems, but also the philosophical and ideological aspects of property law.

Abstracting and Indexing

European Property Law Journal is covered by the following services:

Baidu Scholar
Cabells Journalytics
CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)
CNPIEC - cnpLINKer
Dimensions
EBSCO (relevant databases)
EBSCO Discovery Service
Genamics JournalSeek
Google Scholar
Hein Online
J-Gate
JournalTOCs
KESLI-NDSL (Korean National Discovery for Science Leaders)
MyScienceWork
Naver Academic
Naviga (Softweco)
Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers
Primo Central (ExLibris)
ProQuest (relevant databases)
Publons
QOAM (Quality Open Access Market)
ReadCube
Scilit
Semantic Scholar
Sherpa/RoMEO
Summon (ProQuest)
TDNet
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb
WanFang Data
WorldCat (OCLC)
X-MOL
Yewno Discover

Supplementary Materials

Instructions for Authors_EPLJ

Topics

Volume 12 Issue 2-3

December 2023

Frontmatter

Publicly Available February 20, 2024

Frontmatter

Page range: I-IV

Download PDF

Editorial

February 20, 2024

Lost in translation and in dogmatic thinking?

Sjef van Erp

Page range: 75-78

Open Access February 20, 2024

On the principle of public faith of land registers in a comparative context

Paweł A. Blajer

Page range: 79-125

Download PDF

February 20, 2024

Three-dimensional property: Current development trends on the Polish example

Maria Kaczorowska

Page range: 126-147

Abstract

126The majority of modern European legislations traditionally follows the concept of land ownership derived from Roman law. It is based on the assumption that the owner’s rights are unlimited in spatial terms. Within this understanding, the spatial scope of ownership extends to open space above and below a specific part of the land’s surface, delineated two-dimensionally. Several exceptions to the general underlying approach have been successively introduced in particular European legal systems in the course of historical development. These include, in the first place, building leases and apartment ownership as well as separate ownership of buildings. Furthermore, widely accepted limitations as to the vertical scope of ownership stem from specific regulations in the fields of mining law, geological law, water law and aviation law. Another manifestation of departure from the traditional concept of land ownership are legal solutions falling into the category of three-dimensional (3D) property, which is of increasing interest nowadays in view of growing needs for new forms of ownership and land use in densely built urban areas. At the core of the concept of 3D property in the strict sense lies the possibility to divide the space into distinct layers defined by horizontal and vertical planes, and to create so-called three-dimensional immovable properties which constitute independent objects of property rights. Such 3D units can serve multiple above- and underground investment purposes. Regulations regarding different models of 3D property rights have already been adopted in a number of countries in Europe and worldwide. Recently, conceptual work on layered ownership has been undertaken in Poland, which has opened a discussion in the legal scholarship on the future legislative changes to be implemented in order to introduce the notion of 3D property to domestic law. In parallel with these tendencies, the idea of 3D cadastre is being promoted. It offers 127the possibility to register real estate objects located at different levels. Worthy of note in this regard is also the impact of the current technological advancements on increasing the investment potential of urban space through 3D property formation. This article elaborates, first, on the general concept and selected types of 3D property rights existing in national jurisdictions. Against this background, the proposal for the new legal construct of layered ownership has been discussed with particular consideration of the possible ways of adapting it to the Polish property law framework. Some of the opportunities and challenges brought about by the 3D property rights development have been then outlined in the context of extensive implementation of emerging technologies in real estate transactions.

February 20, 2024

Emission Allowances and Carbon Credits as Property: A Finnish Perspective

Janne Kaisto

Page range: 148-210

Abstract

148Whether emission allowances and carbon credits constitute property is an interesting legal question in every private law system. EU ETS allowances and similar allowances are instruments that are used to settle obligations based on previous emissions. If the concept of property is defined at the level of rights, allowances should not be considered as property. Yet, they may qualify as objects that can be owned. We come to this conclusion in Finland where the concept of property is usually defined so that property consists of patrimonial rights. Furthermore, ownership of allowance is property. Similarly, CERs under Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol and A6.4ERs under the Paris Agreement do not constitute property under Finnish private law but qualify as objects of ownership. The same findings apply to carbon credits issued by independent crediting mechanisms, presuming it is reasonable to conceptualize the credits at hand as objects of ownership.

February 20, 2024

Function follows Form or Form follows Function – The Legal Nature of CBDC

Christina M Lemke

Page range: 211-279

Abstract

211Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) is often described as the future of money, pictured to function as a new, widely adopted means of payment. Whilst economic and public law implications of CBDC issuance have received close scrutiny, private law issues – especially the question of CBDC’s legal nature – have received little attention. This is surprising, given that the function of money as a means of payment is primarily shaped by the private law framework. So far, this framework is tailored to money’s specific forms of appearance, either as (tangible) property or as (intangible) claims against financial intermediaries. Early research has sought to simply classify CBDC within this dichotomy, according to its design respectively being token or account based. Assuming a German private law point of view, this paper will put such classification to the test as regards the intended “European CBDC”, the digital euro. It will show that the focus on token versus account is misguided and ultimately unhelpful, as the digital euro would in neither form fit within the existing legal framework. Drawing on the discussions surrounding the legal nature of cryptocurrencies and cryptoassets, as well as the recent experience with the dematerialisation of securities, it will be argued that the envisioned dematerialisation of cash offers the opportunity to re-think the legal nature of such new money, based not on its form, but on its function as a circulating means of payment. Putting function before form allows technology-neutral answers to related issues, such as the legal assessment of CBDC transfer, ultimately equipping private law for the future of money.

February 20, 2024

Causal and Abstract Systems for the Transfer of Corporeal Movable Property – The (Un-)Importance of the Distinction in Light of Other Legal Mechanisms to Protect Transferees in Good Faith

Leonard Lusznat

Page range: 280-300

Abstract

280The article rejects the (possible) assumption that what is important instead of the distinction between causal and abstract systems for the transfer of corporeal movable property is (only) the protection of transferees in good faith. Its analysis takes five existing abstract jurisdictions (Germany, Estonia, Greece, Scotland and South Africa) into account. It identifies and examines three legal mechanisms (other than the principle of abstraction) to shield parties in good faith from the invalidity of preceding contractual agreements, that is, firstly, bona fide acquisition, secondly, relative effects of invalidity, and thirdly, (instant) acquisitive prescription. The article demonstrates that the (practical) relevance of adhering to the principle of causality or abstraction almost exclusively depends on the rules of other areas of law (delict or tort, unjustified enrichment, compulsory enforcement and insolvency law) as well as the three legal mechanisms protecting bona fide parties analysed – hence, the distinction between causal and abstract jurisdictions is indeed of limited significance. However, the protection an abstract legal system is able to offer goes in three respects beyond safeguarding transferees in good faith: firstly, for parties in bad faith, secondly, in two-party situations, and thirdly, for third-party holders of limited/subordinate real (security) rights, which is why the (possible) assumption raised above is rejected.281

Volume 12 (2023)

Volume 11 (2022)

Volume 10 (2021)

Volume 9 (2020)

Volume 8 (2019)

Volume 7 (2018)

Volume 6 (2017)

Volume 5 (2016)

Volume 4 (2015)

Volume 3 (2014)

Volume 2 (2013)

Volume 1 (2012)

No ranking information is available for this journal.

Submit

Any correspondence, queries or additional requests for information on the manuscript submission process should be sent to the European Property Law Journal: eplj@maastrichtuniversity.nl

Detailed instructions for the authors you will find here.

Hybrid Open Access

In this journal, authors have the option to publish their article under an open access license. Open Access allows you as an author to retain copyright and share your findings with colleagues and interested parties worldwide without any restraints.
Please note that authors from institutions with which we have a transformative agreement can publish open access without paying an article processing charge (APC). More information on the eligible institutions and articles can be found under the "Funding and Support" tab here.

Editorial

Editor-in-Chief
Prof. Sjef van Erp, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Assisstant Editor
Stefanie Senden, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Editorial Board
Prof. Anna Veneziano, Teramo, Italy
Prof. Dr. Arthur Salomons, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Dr. Bram Akkermans, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Prof. Dr. Brigitta Lurger, Graz, Austria
Prof. Dr. Caroline Rupp, Würzburg, Germany
Prof. Dr. Eva-Maria Kieninger, Würzburg, Germany
Prof. Dr. Vincent Sagaert, Leuven, Belgium
William Swadling, MA (Oxon), LLM (Lond), UK
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Faber, Salzburg, Austria

(Deutsch)

Online ISSN: 2190-8362
Print ISSN: 2190-8273
Type: Journal
Language: English
Publisher: De Gruyter
First published: November 20, 2011
Publication Frequency: 3 Issues per Year