Test on Property Law: Ownership and Rights

Question 1: Property rights, being absolute in the technical sense, are enforceable only against a specific debtor, similar to contractual rights.

A. Ano

B. Ne

Explanation: Property rights (real rights) are absolute in the technical sense, meaning they are enforceable erga omnes (against everyone), not only against a specific debtor like contractual rights. Therefore, the statement is incorrect.

Question 2: Constitutional and human-rights texts recognize property rights but subject them to a social function and the general interest.

A. Ano

B. Ne

Explanation: Most constitutions and human-rights instruments like the ECHR and CFREU guarantee property but also explicitly authorise limits for the public or general interest, ensuring property serves a social function and is subject to a fair balance with community interests.

Question 3: Which of the following statements accurately describe the protection of property under ECHR Protocol 1, Article 1, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)?

A. It protects the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, but allows for deprivation or control of use if it's in the public interest, under law, and subject to a fair balance.

B. The protection is absolute and does not permit any form of state intervention, even for public interest or under law.

C. In the 'Van Gogh' case, the ECtHR found a violation because a state's legitimate public interest in cultural heritage protection can never justify interference with property rights.

D. The 'Pye v UK' case confirmed that rules leading to loss of land title through adverse possession can be compatible with Protocol 1 Art. 1 if they strike a fair systemic balance for legal certainty and efficient land use.

Explanation: ECHR Protocol 1 Art. 1 protects the peaceful enjoyment of possessions but explicitly allows deprivation or control of use in the public interest, under law, and subject to a fair balance (Option 0 is correct). Option 1 is incorrect because the protection is not absolute. In the 'Van Gogh' case, the ECtHR did not rule that public interest can never justify interference; rather, it found a violation because the *disproportionality* and *excessive economic burden* resulting from delay and retrospective use of pre-emption did not justify the interference, even with a legitimate public aim (Option 2 is incorrect). The 'Pye v UK' case indeed confirmed that rules on adverse possession, even when valuable land is lost, can be compatible with Protocol 1 Art. 1 if they pursue legitimate aims like legal certainty and efficient land use by striking a fair systemic balance (Option 3 is correct).

Question 4: According to the ECtHR Grand Chamber in the Pye v UK case, what are the legitimate aims pursued by English rules on adverse possession?

A. Enhancing legal certainty regarding land titles

B. Promoting efficient land use

C. Protecting cultural heritage assets

D. Maximising compensation for original owners of lost land

Explanation: The ECtHR Grand Chamber in the Pye v UK case accepted that English rules on adverse possession pursue the legitimate aims of legal certainty and efficient land use.

Question 5: The CJEU has consistently held that Article 345 signifies neutrality between public and private systems.

A. Ano

B. Ne

Explanation: The CJEU has consistently held that Art. 345 means neutrality between systems (public/private), not immunity from EU law. Therefore, it does signify neutrality between these systems.