{"?xml":{"@version":"1.0"},"edm:RDF":{"@xmlns:dc":"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/","@xmlns:edm":"http://www.europeana.eu/schemas/edm/","@xmlns:wgs84_pos":"http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos","@xmlns:foaf":"http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/","@xmlns:rdaGr2":"http://rdvocab.info/ElementsGr2","@xmlns:oai":"http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/","@xmlns:owl":"http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#","@xmlns:rdf":"http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#","@xmlns:ore":"http://www.openarchives.org/ore/terms/","@xmlns:skos":"http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#","@xmlns:dcterms":"http://purl.org/dc/terms/","edm:WebResource":[{"@rdf:about":"http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-EKHD25BO/9ed589d8-998d-4dcf-82a9-9b255a0b9641/PDF","dcterms:extent":"1493 KB"},{"@rdf:about":"http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-EKHD25BO/992b6e48-2c8a-428c-a2df-1cdca88bb188/TEXT","dcterms:extent":"70 KB"}],"edm:TimeSpan":{"@rdf:about":"2013-2024","edm:begin":{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"2013"},"edm:end":{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"2024"}},"edm:ProvidedCHO":{"@rdf:about":"URN:NBN:SI:doc-EKHD25BO","dcterms:isPartOf":[{"@rdf:resource":"https://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:spr-CFT6PFGK"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Pravnik"}],"dcterms:issued":"2013","dc:creator":"Hudej, Jasna","dc:format":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"letnik:68"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"številka:7/8"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"str. 491-513, 609-610"}],"dc:identifier":["ISSN:0032-6976","COBISSID:13384785","URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-EKHD25BO"],"dc:language":"sl","dc:publisher":{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Zveza društev pravnikov Slovenije"},"dc:subject":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"pravna ureditev"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"sodna praksa"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"stvarno pravo"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"tožbe"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"zemljiška posest"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"zemljiške knjige"}],"dcterms:temporal":{"@rdf:resource":"2013-2024"},"dc:title":{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Problem izbire pravne podlage pri odločanju o izbrisni tožbi zaradi sprememb zemljiškoknjižne zakonodaje|"},"dc:description":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Due to lack of clarity of the transitional regulation in the present Land Register Act (ZZK-1) the case-law raised the question whether it is possible in certain cases to govern a claim for removal from the land register by the provisions of the former Land Register Act (ZZK) even after the enforcement of ZZK-1. The case-law does not give a clear answer to that question. The article offers a solution that could provide an appropriate transition between the two land register acts. It distinguishes between the situation, in which a claim for removal is filed against a direct acquirer, and the situation, in which such a claim is filed against a further bona fide acquirer. In the case of the direct acquisition, the solution is based on the recognition of constitutional unacceptability of ZZK provisions, regarding such aqusition. The solution concerning a further bona fide acquirer is derived from the principle of trust in law, according to which it is necessary to adequately protect also an actual owner of the property, whose position has deteriorated with the enforcement of ZZK-1. Finally, the article examines the transition between regulations of a claim for removal before the latest amending act of ZZK-1 (ZZK-1C) and after it with reference to the position of an obligational right holder who is explicitly mentioned by the amending act ZZK-1C as one of the persons entiteled to file a claim for removal"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Zaradi nejasnosti prehodne ureditve v ZZK-1 se je v sodni praksi pojavilo vprašanje, ali je mogoče v določenih primerih tudi po uveljavitvi ZZK-1 izbrisno tožbo presojati po določbah ZZK. Sodna praksa na to vprašanje ne daje enotnega odgovora. V prispevku je prikazana rešitev, ki bi lahko predstavljala ustrezen prehod med navedenima zemljiškoknjižnima ureditvama, pri čemer je ločeno obravnavan položaj, ko je izbrisna tožba vložena zoper neposrednega pridobitelja, in položaj, ko se ta tožba vlaga zoper dobrovernega nadaljnjega pridobitelja. Pri neposrednem pridobitelju predlagana rešitev temelji na spoznanju, da je bila ureditev tega položaja po ZZK ustavno nesprejemljiva, pri dobrovernem nadaljnjem pridobitelju pa je izhodišče v ugotovitvi, da je zaradi načela zaupanja v pravo treba ustrezno varovati tudi dejanskega lastnika nepremičnine, čigar položaj se je z uveljavitvijo ZZK-1 poslabšal. V zaključnem delu prispevka je predstavljen še prehod med ureditvama izbrisne tožbe pred novelo ZZK-1C in po njej, pri čemer je izpostavljen položaj obligacijskega upravičenca, ki ga novelirano besedilo izrecno uvršča med upravičene vlagatelje izbrisne tožbe"}],"edm:type":"TEXT","dc:type":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"znanstveno časopisje"},{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"journals"},{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q361785"}]},"ore:Aggregation":{"@rdf:about":"http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-EKHD25BO","edm:aggregatedCHO":{"@rdf:resource":"URN:NBN:SI:doc-EKHD25BO"},"edm:isShownBy":{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-EKHD25BO/9ed589d8-998d-4dcf-82a9-9b255a0b9641/PDF"},"edm:rights":{"@rdf:resource":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"},"edm:provider":"Slovenian National E-content Aggregator","edm:intermediateProvider":{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"National and University Library of Slovenia"},"edm:dataProvider":{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Univerza v Ljubljani, Pravna fakulteta"},"edm:object":{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.dlib.si/streamdb/URN:NBN:SI:doc-EKHD25BO/maxi/edm"},"edm:isShownAt":{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-EKHD25BO"}}}}