Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T20:56:33.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Socialist mountains out of capitalist molehills: ownership and use of land in the German Democratic Republic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Caroline Forder
Caroline Forder*
Affiliation:
University of Lancaster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To understand the rights in land of a person in the GDR the first task of an English lawyer is to consider the rules being applied in terms of concepts and institutions in operation in England. The GDR have opted for a ‘mixed’ property system, retaining ‘pure’ personal ownership (similar to the rights given to landowners under English law) alongside the socialist creatures: contractual rights (use-contracts) and the hybrid use-rights in public land. Property law has long provided for the creation of rights which provide at the outset for the conditions under which the right will end; this is one of the principal attributes of leasehold tenure in England. It is indeed striking how many of the characteristics of use rights can be discovered among the provisions and decisions upon the security of tenure of tenancies in England.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , July 1986 , pp. 154 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Lace v Chantler [1944] KB 368; Centaploy v Matlodge [1974] Ch 1.

2. Land Registration Act 1925, s 70( I)(g); Hodgson u Marks [I9711 Ch 892; William and GQm Bank u Bolund [ 19801 3 All ER 138.

3. Inga Markovitz, Sozialistisches und Bürgerliches Zivilrechtsdenken in der DDR (Cologne, 1969).

4. Markovitz, Inga, ‘Socialist vs Bourgeois Rights: an East-West German Comparison’ (1987) v Chi L R 45.Google Scholar

5. Art 22 Abs 2 Zivilgesetzbuch der DDR vom 19 Juni 1975 (G B1 1975 Nr 27 s 465) (ZGB) (the Civil Code).

6. Alan Ryan, Property and Political Theory (Oxford, 1984), p 173.

7. Note on Sources of Law in the German Democratic Republic. Since the division of Germany in 1949 jurists in the German Democratic Republic have systematically replaced the German Civil Code of 1900 with codes which embody socialist principles. The code most relevant to land ownership is the Civil Code of 1975. The codes, and official commentary thereon, are the primary source of law. They are supplemented by statutes (Gesetze) and directives (Richtlinien) which issue from the highest court. The court of first instance for property matters is the Kreisgericht (broadly similar to our county court), from which appeals based on law or fact may be made to the Bezirksgericht (district court). After that the matter is closed between the litigants, although the President of the Oberste Gericht (Highest Court) may decide to refer a case to the Court for a ruling. Lawyers in the GDR are only interested in judicial decisions in the previous year or so, for cases have no binding force, and serve only to show how the law is currently being applied. However, the decisions are of great interest to an English reader, because it is only by considering the cases that we can understand the practical problems arising in the GDR, and appreciate the methods of solution.

8. Art 295 ZGB..

9. Arts 94–132 ZGB..

10. Because of the experience under Hitler, public property in the Gdr is not state owned, but is ‘People's Property. Cf International Encyclopedia of Comparative Low, vol VI, ch 2, para 76 (Viktor Knapp).

11. Art 287 Abs 1 ZGB..

12. Art 2 Abs 3 Nutzungsrechtgesetz: Gesetz über die Verleihung von Nutzungsrechten an volkseigenen Grundstücken vom 14.12. 1970 (G B1 1970 Ted I Nr 24 s 372).

13. Paul Spicker, The Allocation of Council Housing (London, 1983). M. Leaven, A Woman's Place: Family Break-ups and Housing Rights (London, 1979) and Cf Spindlow v Spindlow [1979] Fam 52, where the Domestic Violence Act 1976 was used to exclude the father from a council house of which the cohabitees were joint tenants because the court thought it was preferable that he, rather than the mother and children, was made homeless.

14. Verordnung über die Gewährung von Krediten zu vergunstigen Bedingungen an junge Eheleute von 10 Mai 1972 (G B1 1972 Ted II Nr 27 s 316)..

15. Arbeiterwohnungsbangenossencaft (AWG) Muster Statut Abschnitt VII Ziffer 5, 6 and 8 (GB1 1973 Ted I Nr 12 s 109)..

16. Bezirksgericht Halle, Urteil vom 28 Juni 1983 3 OFK 18/83 Neue Justiz (NJ) 1984 s 30.

17. Ziffer 2.8 Richtlinie des Plenums des Obersten Gerichts der DDR zur Rechtsprechung bei der Aufhebung der Eigentumsgemeinschaft der Ehegatten nach Beendigung der Ehe (G B1 1983 Teil I Nr 32 s 309). Anmerkung 2.2 to Art 39 Familiengesetzbuch Kommentar (Commentary to the Family Code) (Berlin, 1982).

18. OG Urteil vom 22 November 1983 3 OFK 40/83: NJ 1984 s 161..

19. A type of allotment used for horticulture and a summer house. For an admirable account cf Moray McGowan: ‘Playing Leapfrog in the Peoples' Potatoes: The Role of the Kleingarten in the German Democratic Republic’ in A. Bartram and T. Waines, Culture and Society in the GDR (Dundee, 1984).

20. OG Urteil vom 28 Juni 1983 3 OFK 21/83: NJ 1983 s 421..

21. Cf S. F. C. Milsom, Legal Foundations of English Feudalism (Cambridge, 1976), ch 3.

22. Art 292 Abs 1, Art 288 Abs 1 Zgb and Anmerkung 2.2 to Art 284 Zgb Kommentar. as to the termination of property rights for ‘excessive use’ in English private law cfc Graham v Philcox (1984) 48 P & CR 354.

23. Town and Country Planning Act 1971, s 87(3) as substituted by the Town and Country Planning Act 1981. Cf Telling, Planning Law and Procedure (6th edn, 1982), p 140.

24. BG Suhl, Urteil vom 17 Septembcr 1982 3 BZB 27/82: NJ 1983 s 256..

25. Town and Country Planning Act 1971, s 87(1).

26. Rent Act 1977, Case 2, Schedule 15, Part I; eg in Cobstone Invrstments Ltd v Maxim (1985) 50 P & CR 173 the order was suspended for 10 weeks only, although s 100(2) of the Rent Act 1977 does give the Registrar a discretion to suspend the order indefinitely as long as the defendant does not commit any conduct amounting to grounds for annoyance to adjoining occupiers.

27. OG Urteil vom 9 November 1983 2 OZK 34/83: NJ 1984 s 32 shows some toughening up. The creditor does not have to show any ‘pressing personal needs’ to justify pursuing execution; nor, if the property in question is a garage, is it necessary for the creditor to provide an alternative place for the debtor to store his potatoes.

28. Re Turn [1974] WLR 1556, Re Bailey [1977] 1 WLR 278, Re Lowrie [1981] 3 All ER 353. In Re Holliday [1981] Ch 405 sale was postponed for five years for the sake of the children, but this decision is unlikely to be followed. Cf In Re Abbott [1982] 3 WLR 86. Note that the Insolvency Act 1985, s 17] (not yet implemented) provides that sale of the home may be postponed for a year.

29. Art 13 Abs I Verordnung über die Lenkung des Wohnrauns vom 14.9. 1967 (G B1 1967 Teil II Nr 105 s 733).

30. ‘Fragen und Antworten’ in Neue Justiz 1983 s 503.

31. (1971) 34 MLR 441 at p443. See also A.E. Boyle [1981] Conv 108.

32. The Civil Judicial Statistics (1983) give the figures for possession orders of residential premises in 1983 as 76,904 suspended for three months or less, and 7,899 suspended for more than three months; and cf Deptford Housing Aid Centre's Submissions to the Department of the Environment (1979). They estimated that at least 2500 tenants in that year lost their homes because of default on the mortgage payments by their landlord.

33. Arts 34 and 37 Verfassung der DDR vorn 6 April 1968 (Berlin, 1976) (GDR constitution).

34. Anmerkung 2 to Art 312 ZGB Kommentar..

35. Art 314 Abs 2 Satz 2 ZGB. Art 314 Abs 3 Satz I ZGB, and cf G. Hejhal and C. Janke, Zur Rechtsprechung über Verträge zur Nutzung von Bodenflächen zur Erholung: NJ 1981 s 452..

36. Art 314 Abs 3 Satz 3 ZGB..

37. OG Urteil vom 23 August 1983 2 OZK 28/83: NJ 1983 s 507.

38. Art 314 Abs 5 ZGB..

39. Art 122 Abs I ZGB, OG Urteil vom 11 April 1980 2 OZK 10/80: NJ 1980 s 329.

40. Rent Act 1977, Case 9, Schedule 15, Part I and para I, Schedule 15, Part Iii; Littlewood v Holt [1950] 1 KB 1.

41. For strong criticism of this, see H.W.R. Wade (1955) 14 CLJ 155.

44. OG Urteil vom 14 März 1978 2 OZK 2/78: NJ 1978 s 362.

43. Art 314 Abs 4 ZGB, OG Urteil vom 23 August 1983 2 OZK 28/83: NJ 1983 s 507, Ammerkung 4.2 to Art 312 ZGB Kommentar.

44. Williams v Usherwood (1981) 45 P & CR 235; Williams v Raftery [1958] 1 QB 159; Treloar v Nute [1976] 1 WLR 1295; Powell v McFarlene (1977) 38 P & CR 452; Red House Farms v Catchpole (1977) EGD 798; Tecbild v Chamberlain (1969) 20 P & CR 633; Basildon DC v Manning (1975) 237 EG 878; Bills v Fernandez-Gonzalez (1982) 132 NLJ 66.

45. Miller v Jackson [1977] 3 All ER 338, Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 950, Kennaway v Thompson [1980] 3 All ER 329, Bridlington Relay Ltd v North Yorkshire Electricity Board [1965] 1 All ER 265.

46. Cf Wolfgang Seifert Die Stellung der Familie in der Rechtsverhältnïssen an der Wohnung 1976 Neue Justiz s 738.

47. Art 291 Abs 1 ZGB..

48. Houlder Brothers v Gibbs [1925] Ch 575; Bromley Park Garden Estates v Moss [1982] 1 WLR 1019.

49. Art 313 Abs 3 Satz 2 ZGB..

50. OG Urteil vom 10 Juli 1979 2 OZK 20/79: NJ 1979 s 516.

51. Anmerkung 3.2 to Art 313 ZGB Kommentar..

59. Beschluss des Bezirktages Neubrandenburg N 75/1975, in Johannes Klingert, Nutzung von Grundstücken und Gebäuden (Berlin, 1979), p 90.

53. [1972] Ch 359 and cf Bannister v Bannister [1948] 2 All ER 133; Griffiths v Williams [1978] EGD 919; Dodsworth v Dodsworth [1973] EGD 233; Ivory v Palmer [1975] ICR 340.

54. [1978] EGD 919.

55. Art 365, Art 362 Abs 1, Art 22 Abs 1 & 2, Art 314 Abs 3 Satz 1 & Abs 4 Satz 2 ZGB..

56. Art 124 ZGB, Anmerkung 1 to Art 125 ZGB Kommentar..

57. Anmerkung 1 to Art 22 Zcb Kommentar. Note the dissent by Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice in Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR to the effect that the ability to dispose of property is juridically distinct from the rights of enjoyment.

58. Dr F. Jansen, Das Erbrecht der DDR. Dissertation van der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Abteilung Weiterbildung und Fernstudium (Berlin, 1973), pp 15–16.

59. Marx/Engels, Werke Bd 4 Erster Teil (Berlin, 1965), s 165.

60. Art 68 Abs 1 Satz 4 ZGB, Art 5 Abs 1 Grundstücksverkehrs Verordnung vom 11.1.1963 (G B1 1963 Teil II s 159) (GVVO)..

61. I wish to acknowledge the tuition in GDR civil law of Professor Johannes Klingert, of the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Sektionrechtswissenchaft, and the financial support of the British Council and the University of Lancaster Research fund who made it possible for me to travel to Berlin. I also thank Robert Ward of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, Tricia Stainsby and my colleague, Professor Peter Wallington, who read and criticised earlier drafts. I acknowledge with gratitude the painstaking work of Helen Whittaker, who typed this and many earlier drafts. Responsibility for the state of the final work, in all its imperfections (including translations) rests with the author.