IRREGULAR EASTMENTS

Neprave stvarne služnosti so novost našega stvarnega prava, urejene v 226. členu Stvarnopravnega zakonika, ki jih opredeljuje kot služnosti, ki so po svoji vsebini stvarne služnosti, vendar se ustanovijo v korist določene osebe. Združujejo elemente tako stvarnih kot tudi osebnih služnosti. Subjekt upravičenja, je bodisi pravna ali fizična oseba. V primeru slednje je možna širša možnost uporabe nepravih stvarnih služnosti. Poseben primer nepravih stvarnih služnosti, so služnosti v javno korist, ki imajo izredno velik pomen na področju javnega prava. Zaradi potreb gradnje omrežij javne gospodarske infrastrukture, so pomemben faktor pri omejitvi lastninske pravice, bodisi na sporazumni ali na prisilni podlagi. V zvezi s služnostmi v javno korist je posebej pomembno vprašanja prenosa teh služnosti, saj v primeru spremembe upravljavca določenega infrastrukturnega omrežja, po veljavni splošni ureditvi v SPZ, služnost ugasne in jo je potrebno ustanoviti na novo. Tudi če ne gre za spremembo upravljavca služnost v skladu z določili o osebnih služnostih, ugasne po tridesetih letih, medtem ko so infrastrukturna omrežja dolgoročne narave in trajajo tudi več kot petdeset let. Ti problemi privedejo do stroškovnega bremena, zamudnega dela in predvsem nepotrebnih zapletov. Zato je treba to področje na novo celostno urediti z bolj natančnimi določbami v splošnih, kakor tudi v posebnih predpisih. V tej smeri sta šla že Zakon o elektronskih komunikacijah ter Energetski zakon, vendar te novitete še zdaleč niso dovolj. Potrebna je nova celostna ureditev v enotnem zakonu,saj bi to omogočilo najlažjo uporabo določil o nepravih stvarnih služnostih.Omejitev lastninske pravice v javno korist je ob upoštevanju načel mednarodnega prava možna le v določenih primerih ob izpolnjevanju določenih pogojev. Opravičilo omejitve je javni interes, ki mora biti izkazan, vendar pa se lahko omeji pravico le v obsegu, ki je potrebna za dosego javnega interesa. Gre za minimalni možen poseg, večji obseg posega predstavlja kršitev veljavnega prava in tudi možnost varstva po veljavnem pravu. Služnosti v javno korist so na splošno urejene v Zakonu o urejanju prostora ter še posebej v drugih posebnih predpisih, ki urejajo posamezno vrsto infrastrukture.Irregular easements are novelty of the Slovenian property law. They are defined in article 226 of our Law of property Code, which defines them as easements with same content as easements in rem, but established as easements in personam. They combine elements of easements in rem and easements in personam. The subject of entitlement is natural or juristic person. In last case we can use Irregular easements more broaderly. Special term, which is widely used in public spfere , are easement for public benefit, which are also irregular easements. Because of the need for constructing economic network infrastrucures are easements for public benefit main factor at restrctitioning property rights, either on consensual or either on forced base. Restriction of property rights for public benefit is regard to the principles of international law possible just in particular cases taking into account conditions, which are needed. Excuse of restriction is public benefit, which must be shown in particular case. Due to public benefit, property rights can be restricted only in a way, which is necessary to achieve public interest. It is a minimum intervention, wider range of intervention is restricted and can lead to violation of applicable law and possibility of protection under existing law. These easements are settled in the Spatial Planning Act and are extra settled with special regulations, which manage particular kind of infrastructure. In the case of easement for public benefit, is of significantly importance, question of transmission of those easements. In the case when operator of public infrastructure changes, taking into account general provisions Code of property law, easements ends, so it must be established again. Even if the operator of public infrastructure doesn´ t change, easement ends after thirty years, which is due to long-lastnig infrastructure, which can last above fifty years, very inappropriate regulation. Those problems with forming new easement are cost burden, unnecessary and unneeded complications. This field of irregular easements must be regulated in complete, with detailed provisions in general Property Act as in special Acts. Act of electronic communications and Energetic Act went in this lead, but those novelties are insufficient. Comprehensive regulation in one act would be reasonable solution, because then irregular easements would be easily used