The main questionnaire included a conceptual framework to deliver the respondents a common terminology. Latin language was its base, and described, for each concept, the characteristics to look for. This way, language barriers, educational, cultural and legal barriers were flatten. The justification for the contents of the conceptual framework and its terminology being based in Roman law by reference to the Portuguese law is that I found that the continental legal systems and the England and Wales legal systems share that root and that the Portuguese system is closely linked to the Roman system.
The Roman legal system had two main areas of development: the ius civile and the ius gentium. The first was essentially a legislated system, imposing to roman citizens and the second was essentially a praetorian system, imposing on the non-roman inhabitants of the empire. This dichotomy may well be the base for the different approaches to the role of the judge in the law making process that, in my view, determine the essential difference between the common law and the civil law systems.
Even so, the ius civile was the starting point for the praetorian analysis that allowed the development of the ius gentium, i.e.;, the praetorian roman law that blends codified and legislated ius civile principles and rules with the local costumes and traditions. In respect of what is important for this research, the object of the property right, the concept of the property right and, broadly, the concept and contents of the rights over immovable things other than the property right, there seems to be also a two lanes development of the concepts created under the roman law ius civile. The roman concept of emphyteusis, allowing the constitution of differentiate interests over land, as a manifestation of the disposition powers of the rightful owner, seems to be the basis for the common law system of property, based more in an array of structured interests or estates rather than the subjective rights approach that underlies the continental property
system. Being so, however there are two different approaches, there may be little doubts that there is a common root in Roman law.
The Portuguese legal system was used as a starting point to the analysis that showed that Roman law could be the solution. A comparative historical legal research set the origin of the system and grounded the belief that other continental Europe systems could be in the same situation. The Spanish and Italian systems were found to have a clear identification with the Portuguese one and further research proved that among the three legal orders under consideration, the Portuguese one could be considered paradigmatic. Hence, Portuguese property law was the conceptual paradigm for the build up of the conceptual framework.
The conceptual framework started with an historical background of the origins of the legal concept of property, beginning with the Code of Hammurabi, the Athenian Constitution, and the Corpus Iuris Civilis. The last was comprehensively reviewed. The historical background included also the Feudal period, the rise of socialism and the liberalism.
The first part of the questionnaire aimed to learn about the concept of immovable thing, accepted to be the foundation of any immovable property legal framework and defined as limited portion of land and any construction in or on it, the waters in or on it, trees and plants, while connected to it, and any rights over an immovable thing. The answers showed that, though legislative form may vary, there is an absolute legal convergence about the physical correspondence of the concept of immovable thing in the member-states.
The concept of immovable thing incorporated the rights in rem. In this matter there is some legal divergence between the member-states: immovable thing is part of the surface of the earth and the buildings that are incorporated therein. In some member-states rights in rem don’t qualify as immovable things. That is the case of Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. This fact, however, does not prevent the existing
rights in rem from having the nature, characteristics and level of protection that their equivalents enjoy in the other member-states.
Legal theory in Portugal, Spain and Italy splits the rights in rem in three families, according to functionality criterion: the acquisition rights, the enjoyment rights and the security rights. The first category includes the rights that allow a third party to acquire an enjoyment right. These rights may arise by law or contract. The enjoyment rights are the ones that allow its holder to enjoy physical or legal advantages (use) of the thing.
Security rights are the ones that allow its beneficiary to secure a credit he holds. The security rights, maxime the mortgage, are always ancillary to a credit relationship. In fact, although securities such as mortgages are considered rights in rem, as far as the level of protection its beneficiary gets from the law, the Portuguese Civil Code includes its regulation in a different book; the rights in rem are included in book III and securities are included in book II. This research focuses on the enjoyment rights in rem.
7.5 Enjoyment rights in rem – comparative analysis findings
The most absolute right in rem in the member-states under survey is the property right.
As all other rights in rem, the property right is a legal relationship between a person and a thing. This right includes the powers to use, enjoy and transfer the thing either by contract or succession, to exclude others from whatever behaviour that may conflict with it, the power to bring to action those who do it. Included within the property right is the right to establish minor rights in rem. By doing so, the owner of the property voluntarily accepts a restriction of his right. The property right is the continental equivalent of the freehold.
All of the minor rights in rem described in the conceptual framework were found in the member-states under survey. In some cases, not all exist presently, but in a way the concept is not at all strange in the legal orders under consideration.
The usufruct, includes the powers of use, enjoy, transfer and exclude others from disturbing the right and the power to bring to action those who do it. The usufruct may
property. It is usually temporary. The right to use and inhabit, includes the powers to use or inhabit an immovable thing. This is generally a more limited right than the usufruct, as it intends to allow someone to personally use and inhabit the immovable thing. In this sense, it clearly distinguishes from the usufruct where the beneficiary can take advantage of the thing either directly or through a third person. Moreover, in the usufruct it is generally accepted its transmission, whereas in the use and inhabit this is not possible.
The surface right in general matches the concept included in the conceptual framework and essentially allows someone to build in someone else’s land whilst splitting the property of the land and of the building. The first is in general temporary and by the end of the granted permit, the owner of the land acquires the buildings. In this sense, it is common in the legal orders under consideration that the main effect of the surface right is to suspend the principle of accession, by which the owner of the land acquires any building sitting on it.
Servitutiones are minor rights in rem that include the power to use an immovable or part of it. They are transmissible automatically with the dominant land or building and may be constituted by law or contract.
The emphyteusis enables someone to use and fully enjoy an immovable thing. In some member-states it is a legal institution that is no longer in use, but is, in any case, an institute that was part of the law of the land. Common trace to this institute is its similarity to the property right, with the limitation that some consideration is due to the landlord.
The lease, or bail, is normally a personal right. In this sense, the characteristics of general enforceability of the rights in rem are excluded.
The rights in rem in the English and Welsh legal system require further comparative analysis. The freehold ownership equates to absolute ownership in that it provides for the right to own, occupy and dispose of the land and any buildings on the land.
Furthermore, the freeholder may establish lesser interests on his property, in a similar way the continental owner may establish minor rights in rem over his property.
Some of the interests recognized in the English system are quite similar in its contents and constitution to some of the minor rights in rem. Such is the case of the usufruct, unknown as such in England and Wales, but where the use of trusts is common.
The same happens with the license, that presents effects and contents similar to the use and inhabit and the easements, similar to the servitutiones.
The most remarkable case of legal convergence between England and Wales and the other member-states under consideration is the emphyteusis. This institute is apparently inexistent in England and Wales. The fact is that the interests created through long lease may present remarkable similarity to the ones of emphyteusis. In many cases the tenant under a long lease will effectively be in the same position as if it owned the freehold interest in the land, with few limitations, exactly like the emphyteusis.