LEGAL ASPECTS OF DISTRIBUTION LAND EASEMENT AND SUPERFICIES

Abstract

Purpose. The research is aimed at conducting a comparative analysis of legal institutions of land easement and superficies in Ukrainian legislation. The main goal is to identify the common features and differences of these institutions, as well as consider their practical application. This will allow for a deeper understanding of the legal nature of land servitude and superficies, their importance for the regulation of land relations, and will make it possible to avoid practical problems in their application. Methods. In the research process, the methods of comparative analysis, systemic approach, as well as analysis of regulatory legal acts and judicial practice were used. The method of comparative analysis was used to determine common and distinctive features of land easements and superficies. The systemic approach made it possible to characterize the legal regulation of these institutions in the context of the land law system. The analysis of regulatory legal acts and court decisions helped to clarify the peculiarities of legal regulation and practical application of land servitude and superficies in Ukraine. Results. As a result of the conducted research, common features and essential differences between land easement and superficies as independent institutions of land law were established. It was found that they differ in the objects of the land use right, terms, content and legal consequences. The doctrinal definitions of superficies and the proposed own definition of land easement and superficies are also summarized. Conclusions. The study of land servitude and superficies showed that these institutions, despite their common nature, have significant differences in the legal regime, limits of use and grounds for termination. A land easement, as a rule, is established to meet the specific needs of adjacent land plots, while a superficies grants broader rights to build on and use someone else’s land plot. The analysis of legislation and judicial practice revealed a number of problematic issues, in particular: unclear definitions, lack of uniform judicial practice, and the difficulty of applying these institutions in practice. This indicates the need for further improvement of the legislative framework and the development of more detailed methodological recommendations. For the effective use of land easement and superficies, it is necessary to create clear and understandable rules for the establishment, modification and termination of these rights. It is also proposed to simplify the procedure of legal registration of these legal relations with the help of standard contracts. An easement provides the right to limited use of someone else’s land to meet certain needs, while a superficie provides the right to build and operate buildings on someone else’s land. The differences between these institutes lie in their object, duration of use and functional purpose, as well as the grounds and legal consequences of termination.