Lagen om avveckling av fideikommiss. Särskilt om skydd av kulturvärden i förhållande till egendomsskyddet.
(2013) LAGF03 20131Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Lagen om avveckling av fideikommiss (1963:583) syftade till att avveckla fideikommissinstitutet i svensk rätt. Fideikommissen ansågs otidsenliga och passade inte in i ett modernt samhälle. En reform infördes som avvecklade fideikommissen och återförde fideikommissegendomen till vanliga regler om arv. Fideikommissen hade som syfte att hålla ihop egendom i en persons hand. Detta medförde att samlingar av tavlor och möbler, som var betydelsefulla ur kulturhistoriskt synpunkt, bevarades samlade i sin kulturhistoriska miljö. När fideikommissen avvecklades riskerade dessa samlingar av kulturvärden att splittras och det ansågs inte vara en önskad följd av lagen. Problemet löstes genom att kulturvärden som var i farozonen för att splittras,... (More)
- Lagen om avveckling av fideikommiss (1963:583) syftade till att avveckla fideikommissinstitutet i svensk rätt. Fideikommissen ansågs otidsenliga och passade inte in i ett modernt samhälle. En reform infördes som avvecklade fideikommissen och återförde fideikommissegendomen till vanliga regler om arv. Fideikommissen hade som syfte att hålla ihop egendom i en persons hand. Detta medförde att samlingar av tavlor och möbler, som var betydelsefulla ur kulturhistoriskt synpunkt, bevarades samlade i sin kulturhistoriska miljö. När fideikommissen avvecklades riskerade dessa samlingar av kulturvärden att splittras och det ansågs inte vara en önskad följd av lagen. Problemet löstes genom att kulturvärden som var i farozonen för att splittras, bortflyttas från sin enhetliga kulturmiljö eller inte fick tillfredsställande vård och underhåll, löstes in till staten.
Uppsatsen behandlar frågan om inlösen av kulturvärdena enligt lagen om avveckling av fideikommiss var förenliga med skyddet för egendom enligt 1809 års regeringsform (1961:464). Rättsläget om omfattningen av egendomsskyddet i svensk rätt var oklart varför inskränkning av egendomsskyddet kunde meddelas.
För att kunna besvara frågeställningarna har jag även utrett syftet med inlösensparagrafen. Eftersom inlösen enligt lagen om avveckling av fideikommiss inte behandlar fast egendom har jag även undersökt vilka möjligheter som finns att expropriera fast egendom som utgör kulturvärden. Jag har även utgått från ett hypotetiskt exempel med fideikommisset Skokloster för att illustrera med ett praktiskt exempel om inlösen av kulturvärden var en kränkning av egendomsskyddet. (Less) - Abstract
- The act of liquidation of estate in tail (lagen om avveckling av fideikommiss (1963:583)) intended to end the institute of estate in tail in Swedish law. The estates in tail were considered outdated and did not belong in a modern society. The new act brought the property of the estate in tail back to the ordinary rules of heritance in Swedish law. The purposes of the estate in tail were to subsume property in the benefit of one owner. This had resulted in that valuable antiques, such as collections of paintings and furniture, were kept in their cultural-historical environment. As a result of the new act were the collections, which were of cultural-historical importance, at risk to be split apart. To avoid that the collections were moved... (More)
- The act of liquidation of estate in tail (lagen om avveckling av fideikommiss (1963:583)) intended to end the institute of estate in tail in Swedish law. The estates in tail were considered outdated and did not belong in a modern society. The new act brought the property of the estate in tail back to the ordinary rules of heritance in Swedish law. The purposes of the estate in tail were to subsume property in the benefit of one owner. This had resulted in that valuable antiques, such as collections of paintings and furniture, were kept in their cultural-historical environment. As a result of the new act were the collections, which were of cultural-historical importance, at risk to be split apart. To avoid that the collections were moved from their cultural-historical environment and to make sure they got appropriate maintain, the state expropriated the estate in tail´s collections.
The essay deals with the question if the expropriation of the culture-historical collections were legitimate, or if it was a violation of the right to property according to the constitution act of 1809 (1809 års regeringsform (1961:464)). What the right to property declared, according to the constitution act of 1809, seems to be unclear which makes a restriction of the right to property easier.
I have also looked into the purpose of the ability to expropriate cultural-historical collections. Expropriate real estate wasn’t possible according to the act of liquidation of the estate in tail, but was legitimate by other regulations. These regulations were therefore closer analyzed in my essay. I have also used a hypothetical example, an estate in tail named Skokloster, to show how the act affected the right to property. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3800727
- author
- Frisell, Malin LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20131
- year
- 2013
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Fideikommiss, kulturvärden, egendomsskydd.
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 3800727
- date added to LUP
- 2013-10-18 13:00:14
- date last changed
- 2013-10-18 13:00:14
@misc{3800727,
abstract = {{The act of liquidation of estate in tail (lagen om avveckling av fideikommiss (1963:583)) intended to end the institute of estate in tail in Swedish law. The estates in tail were considered outdated and did not belong in a modern society. The new act brought the property of the estate in tail back to the ordinary rules of heritance in Swedish law. The purposes of the estate in tail were to subsume property in the benefit of one owner. This had resulted in that valuable antiques, such as collections of paintings and furniture, were kept in their cultural-historical environment. As a result of the new act were the collections, which were of cultural-historical importance, at risk to be split apart. To avoid that the collections were moved from their cultural-historical environment and to make sure they got appropriate maintain, the state expropriated the estate in tail´s collections.
The essay deals with the question if the expropriation of the culture-historical collections were legitimate, or if it was a violation of the right to property according to the constitution act of 1809 (1809 års regeringsform (1961:464)). What the right to property declared, according to the constitution act of 1809, seems to be unclear which makes a restriction of the right to property easier.
I have also looked into the purpose of the ability to expropriate cultural-historical collections. Expropriate real estate wasn’t possible according to the act of liquidation of the estate in tail, but was legitimate by other regulations. These regulations were therefore closer analyzed in my essay. I have also used a hypothetical example, an estate in tail named Skokloster, to show how the act affected the right to property.}},
author = {{Frisell, Malin}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Lagen om avveckling av fideikommiss. Särskilt om skydd av kulturvärden i förhållande till egendomsskyddet.}},
year = {{2013}},
}