Użytkowanie wieczyste w świetle wypowiedzi Profesora Jerzego Ignatowicza

In his critical analysis of the issues of perpetual usufruct, Professor Jerzy Ignatowicz posedthree basic questions in this respect. The first question concerns the purposefulness of maintainingthe perpetual usufruct right or a similar property right in a market economy. Secondly, if theanswer to the first question is positive, the author discusses the purposefulness of replacing the perpetualusufruct right with a similar construction. Thirdly, if it is legitimate to maintain the perpetualusufruct in the Polish system of law, he suggests a discussion on the form of modifying the property right in question, so that it becomes more adapted to the current social and economic conditions thanso far, at the same time indicating a series of questions in this respect, addressed to the legislator.Professor Ignatowicz recognises the need to maintain the right of perpetual usufruct or a similarright. In noticing the drawbacks of the right in question, he stresses the importance of stability in thearea of property law, and consequently opts for maintaining the perpetual usufruct right, yet at thesame time stressing the necessity for its modification.Despite numerous amendments, to a large extent consistent with Professor Ignatowicz’s proposals,the perpetual usufruct right requires a number of changes to adapt this right even more thanso far, to the changed conditions of management, also in the area of fiscal property.The postulated changes aim towards the independence of the perpetual usufruct from administrativelaw regulations, its popularisation, not limiting its function to its otherwise limited aims, theregulation of neighbourly relations between holders of perpetual usufruct and proprietors, the questionof the protection of the perpetual usufruct right, the purposefulness of maintaining the hithertosolutions with regard to the status of buildings and appliances placed on the leased land or the sale ofthe right of perpetual usufruct, including the question of the entry in the land and mortgage registerupon the transfer of perpetual usufruct, and particularly the most delicate issue of the annual fee tobe paid by the holder of perpetual usufruct, or maintaining the statutory right of pre-emption of perpetualusufruct for the benefit of the gmina (municipality). Despite the lapse of time, the proposal tointroduce in the Civil Code the reference to the regulations on the content and exercise of ownershipaccordingly applying to the perpetual usufruct, is still valid.Professor J. Ignatowicz’s approach with regard to perpetual usufruct is a model of conduct ofa scholar who critically examines reality, yet at the same time searching for positive solutions toproblems. Professor supports evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes. Such approaches deserveto be popularised and supported as against the emerging tendencies to shift the legal discoursefrom the substantive level to the ideological one.Artykuł nie zawiera abstraktu w języku polski

Wybrane instytucje polskiego prawa prywatnego dla ochrony wierzyciela

The subject of this article is the issue of the intensity of the protection of interests of a person who has entered into the orbit of obligatory relations. Institutions used to secure a claim are described, but doubts arise when the securities overlap and multiply when the debtor is declared bankrupt. Not every business venture is successful. Often, for reasons beyond the entrepreneur’s control, he is unable to pay debts owed to his creditors. The creditors, on the other hand, aware of the risk of entering into a contract, seek security to be established. Therefore, it is worth considering how the security should be treated in the event of the debtor’s insolvency. The study indicates that the creditor’s “own securities”, both personal and material, take precedence over the creditors who receive priority as a result of the debtor’s ineffectiveness under the provisions on the actio Pauliana. The author defends the position according to which the precedence referred to in Article 532 of the Civil Code is not the absolute precedence. The problems discussed in the study are of great interest for many representatives of the doctrine and courts. Moreover, with regard to their content, the Polish Ombudsman formulated questions about their compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Poland’s adoption of the market economy model makes these problems typical not only for Poland. A number of arguments were put forward to defend the view on the precedence of the security taken by the creditors over the priority granted by the actio Pauliana. To eliminate doubts as to the reciprocal relationship of priorities to pay the claims, an appropriate proposal for the law as it should stand (de lege ferenda) has been put forward.Przedmiotem niniejszego artykułu jest kwestia intensywności ochrony interesów osoby, która weszła w stosunki zobowiązaniowe. Opisano instytucje wykorzystywane do zabezpieczenia wierzytelności, przy czym wątpliwości pojawiają się, gdy zabezpieczenia potęgują się w razie ogłoszenia upadłości dłużnika. Nie każde z przedsięwzięć gospodarczych kończy się sukcesem. Niejednokrotnie przedsiębiorca, z niezależnych powodów, nie jest w stanie zaspokoić swoich wierzycieli. Wierzyciele z kolei, mając świadomość ryzyka powiązanego z wejściem w zobowiązanie, zazwyczaj starają się o zabezpieczenia. W związku z tym warto zastanowić się, jak należy traktować zabezpieczenia w przypadku niewypłacalności dłużnika. W opracowaniu wskazano, że „samozabezpieczenia” wierzyciela – osobowe i rzeczowe – mają pierwszeństwo przed wierzycielami uzyskującymi pierwszeństwo wskutek ubezskutecznienia czynności dłużnika na podstawie przepisów o skardze pauliańskiej. Autor broni stanowiska, zgodnie z którym pierwszeństwo, o którym mowa w art. 532 k.c., nie jest pierwszeństwem bezwzględnym czy absolutnym. Problemy poruszone w opracowaniu są przedmiotem zainteresowania wielu przedstawicieli doktryny i sądów. Co więcej, w odniesieniu do ich treści Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich sformułował pytania o ich zgodność z Konstytucją RP. Przyjęcie przez Polskę modelu gospodarki rynkowej sprawiło, że problematyka ta dotyczy nie tylko Polski. Dla obrony zapatrywania o pierwszeństwie zabezpieczenia podjętego przez wierzycieli przed pierwszeństwem, którego źródłem jest skarga pauliańska, zaprezentowano szereg argumentów, a dla wyeliminowania wątpliwości co do wzajemnego stosunku pierwszeństw do zaspokojenia wierzytelności sformułowano stosowny wniosek de lege ferenda

Interdyscyplinarna opieka nad pacjentem z chorobą nowotworową

Praca recenzowana / peer-reviewed paperZ przyjemnością przekazujemy Państwu kolejny tom monografii Interdyscyplinarna opieka nad pacjentem z chorobą nowotworową, która powstała przy współpracy Polskiego Stowarzyszenia Pielęgniarek Onkologicznych z Wydziałem Zdrowia i Nauk Medycznych Krakowskiej Akademii im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego. Problematyka przedstawiona w publikacji dotyczy wieloaspektowej opieki nad chorym na nowotwór. Opracowania są doniesieniami z badań naukowych, w których autorzy przedstawiają wnioski i kierunki działań dla praktyków. Równie dużą wartość mają rozdziały, w których praktycy dzielą się swoją wiedzą i doświadczeniem z pracy z chorymi i ich rodzinami. Tematyka monografi i dotyczy m.in.: edukacji zdrowotnej, komunikowania się, opieki nad chorym poddawanym chemioterapii, leczeniu chirurgicznemu, radioterapii i rehabilitacji. Pragniemy, aby ta książka swoją merytoryczną zawartością stała się istotnym wkładem w uczczenie tak ważnych dla pielęgniarstwa rocznic, obchodzonych w 2011 r

Użytkowanie wieczyste w świetle wypowiedzi Profesora Jerzego Ignatowicza

In his critical analysis of the issues of perpetual usufruct, Professor Jerzy Ignatowicz posedthree basic questions in this respect. The first question concerns the purposefulness of maintainingthe perpetual usufruct right or a similar property right in a market economy. Secondly, if theanswer to the first question is positive, the author discusses the purposefulness of replacing the perpetualusufruct right with a similar construction. Thirdly, if it is legitimate to maintain the perpetualusufruct in the Polish system of law, he suggests a discussion on the form of modifying the property right in question, so that it becomes more adapted to the current social and economic conditions thanso far, at the same time indicating a series of questions in this respect, addressed to the legislator.Professor Ignatowicz recognises the need to maintain the right of perpetual usufruct or a similarright. In noticing the drawbacks of the right in question, he stresses the importance of stability in thearea of property law, and consequently opts for maintaining the perpetual usufruct right, yet at thesame time stressing the necessity for its modification.Despite numerous amendments, to a large extent consistent with Professor Ignatowicz’s proposals,the perpetual usufruct right requires a number of changes to adapt this right even more thanso far, to the changed conditions of management, also in the area of fiscal property.The postulated changes aim towards the independence of the perpetual usufruct from administrativelaw regulations, its popularisation, not limiting its function to its otherwise limited aims, theregulation of neighbourly relations between holders of perpetual usufruct and proprietors, the questionof the protection of the perpetual usufruct right, the purposefulness of maintaining the hithertosolutions with regard to the status of buildings and appliances placed on the leased land or the sale ofthe right of perpetual usufruct, including the question of the entry in the land and mortgage registerupon the transfer of perpetual usufruct, and particularly the most delicate issue of the annual fee tobe paid by the holder of perpetual usufruct, or maintaining the statutory right of pre-emption of perpetualusufruct for the benefit of the gmina (municipality). Despite the lapse of time, the proposal tointroduce in the Civil Code the reference to the regulations on the content and exercise of ownershipaccordingly applying to the perpetual usufruct, is still valid.Professor J. Ignatowicz’s approach with regard to perpetual usufruct is a model of conduct ofa scholar who critically examines reality, yet at the same time searching for positive solutions toproblems. Professor supports evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes. Such approaches deserveto be popularised and supported as against the emerging tendencies to shift the legal discoursefrom the substantive level to the ideological one.Artykuł nie zawiera abstraktu w języku polski