A Review on What is Considered to Be Movable Structures

Adem Yelmen

Makale detayları

A Review on What is Considered to Be Movable Structures

Yazarlar:

Adem Yelmen

Yayıncı:

Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.73 Issue 3, pp.2015-2046

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001330914

pISSN:

1301-1308

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Movable structures are structures that are subject to ownership independent of the ownership of the land on which they are built. Due to this feature, important consequences arise. For this reason, it is of great importance which structures can be characterized as movable structures. In order for a building to be qualified as a movable structure, as a rule, both objective and subjective elements must be realized together. The objective element refers to the light connection of the structure with the land. The subjective element is that the structure is built for temporary purposes. Consideration of the examples that give rise to the situations where both of these elements are realized together allows the issue to be concretized and clarified. In this study, especially within the framework of the cases reflected in the Turkish and Swiss judiciary, the examples that are accepted and not accepted as movable structures are discussed within the framework of the evaluation criteria. In addition to these, the cases where only one of the two relevant elements is realized and the discussions it brings with it are analyzed. At this point, it is evaluated that in cases where the objective element is fulfilled and the subjective element is not fulfilled, the movable structure is excluded; whereas in some cases where the objective element is not fulfilled and the subjective element is fulfilled, the movable structure should remain within the characterization of movable structure.

 Movable structures are structures that are subject to ownership independent of the ownership of the land on which they are built. Due to this feature, important consequences arise. For this reason, it is of great importance which structures can be characterized as movable structures. In order for a building to be qualified as a movable structure, as a rule, both objective and subjective elements must be realized together. The objective element refers to the light connection of the structure with the land. The subjective element is that the structure is built for temporary purposes. Consideration of the examples that give rise to the situations where both of these elements are realized together allows the issue to be concretized and clarified. In this study, especially within the framework of the cases reflected in the Turkish and Swiss judiciary, the examples that are accepted and not accepted as movable structures are discussed within the framework of the evaluation criteria. In addition to these, the cases where only one of the two relevant elements is realized and the discussions it brings with it are analyzed. At this point, it is evaluated that in cases where the objective element is fulfilled and the subjective element is not fulfilled, the movable structure is excluded; whereas in some cases where the objective element is not fulfilled and the subjective element is fulfilled, the movable structure should remain within the characterization of movable structure.

 Movable structures are structures that are subject to ownership independent of the ownership of the land on which they are built. Due to this feature, important consequences arise. For this reason, it is of great importance which structures can be characterized as movable structures. In order for a building to be qualified as a movable structure, as a rule, both objective and subjective elements must be realized together. The objective element refers to the light connection of the structure with the land. The subjective element is that the structure is built for temporary purposes. Consideration of the examples that give rise to the situations where both of these elements are realized together allows the issue to be concretized and clarified. In this study, especially within the framework of the cases reflected in the Turkish and Swiss judiciary, the examples that are accepted and not accepted as movable structures are discussed within the framework of the evaluation criteria. In addition to these, the cases where only one of the two relevant elements is realized and the discussions it brings with it are analyzed. At this point, it is evaluated that in cases where the objective element is fulfilled and the subjective element is not fulfilled, the movable structure is excluded; whereas in some cases where the objective element is not fulfilled and the subjective element is fulfilled, the movable structure should remain within the characterization of movable structure.

 Taşınır yapılar, üzerinde yapıldıkları arazinin mülkiyetinden bağımsız mülkiyete konu olan yapılardır. Bu özelliği itibariyle önemli sonuçlar gündeme gelmektedir. Bu sebeple hangi yapıların taşınır yapı olarak nitelendirilebileceği büyük öneme sahiptir. Bir yapının taşınır yapı olarak nitelendirilebilmesi için kural olarak hem objektif hem de sübjektif unsurun birlikte gerçekleşmesi gerekmektedir. Objektif unsur, yapının arazi ile bağlantısının hafif olmasını ifade eder. Sübjektif unsur ise, yapının geçici amaçla yapılmış olmasıdır. Söz konusu her iki unsurun birlikte gerçekleştiği durumlara vücut veren örneklerin ele alınması, meselenin somutlaşmasına ve netleşmesine imkan vermektedir. Bu çalışmada da özellikle Türk ve İsviçre yargısına yansıyan olaylar çerçevesinde taşınır yapı niteliğinde kabul edilen ve edilmeyen örnekler, değerlendirme kriterleri çerçevesinde ele alınmıştır. Bunların yanında, ilgili iki unsurdan sadece birinin gerçekleştiği durumlar ve beraberinde getirdiği tartışmalar incelenmiştir. Bu noktada ise, objektif unsurun gerçekleşip sübjektif unsurun gerçekleşmediği durumlarda taşınır yapının dışına çıkıldığı; objektif unsurun gerçekleşmeyip sübjektif unsurun gerçekleştiği bazı durumlarda ise taşınır yapı nitelendirmesinin içinde kalınması gerektiği değerlendirilmiştir.

Makale detayları

A Review on What is Considered to Be Movable Structures

Yazarlar:

Adem Yelmen

Yayıncı:

Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.73 Issue 3, pp.2015-2046

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001330914

pISSN:

1301-1308

Structure

movable structure

fixture

accessory

ownershipYapı

taşınır yapı

bütünleyici parça

eklenti

mülkiyet

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Adem Yelmen

Yayıncı: Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar: Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi: Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.73 Issue 3, pp.2015-2046

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 10/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001330914

pISSN: 1301-1308

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Adem Yelmen

Yayıncı:

Ankara University

Ana Başlıklar:

Hukuk (Diğer)

Dergi:

Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.73 Issue 3, pp.2015-2046

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

10/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001330914

pISSN:

1301-1308