Plocka svamp, blåbär och meteoriter? – Klassificering av meteoriter och förhållandet till allemansrätten med utgångspunkt i ett aktuellt rättsfall
(2024) LAGF03 20241Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- I november 2020 föll en meteorit ner utanför Uppsala och strax efter att den hittats blev det tvist om äganderätten till den. Ägaren till fastigheten meteori- ten landade på stämde upphittarna och hävdade att han hade bättre rätt till den. I tingsrätten föll domen till upphittarnas fördel efter att meteoriten hade klassificerats som lös egendom. I hovrätten blev det dock tvärtom då meteo- riten ansågs vara fast egendom och att fastighetsägaren hade bättre rätt. Upp- satsen har analyserat dessa frågor. Först om meteoriten utgör fast eller lös egendom och därefter om allemansrätten kan tillåta att man tar en meteorit från annans mark. Till detta har olika perspektiv behandlats. När det gäller fast eller lös egendom har meteoritens... (More)
- I november 2020 föll en meteorit ner utanför Uppsala och strax efter att den hittats blev det tvist om äganderätten till den. Ägaren till fastigheten meteori- ten landade på stämde upphittarna och hävdade att han hade bättre rätt till den. I tingsrätten föll domen till upphittarnas fördel efter att meteoriten hade klassificerats som lös egendom. I hovrätten blev det dock tvärtom då meteo- riten ansågs vara fast egendom och att fastighetsägaren hade bättre rätt. Upp- satsen har analyserat dessa frågor. Först om meteoriten utgör fast eller lös egendom och därefter om allemansrätten kan tillåta att man tar en meteorit från annans mark. Till detta har olika perspektiv behandlats. När det gäller fast eller lös egendom har meteoritens beståndsdelar såväl som dess ursprung diskuterats. Även ett eventuellt krav på varaktighet har analyserats. När det gäller allemansrätten har dess gränser försökt upprättas och därefter har me- teoritens ekonomiska aspekt vägts in. I slutsatsen applicerades detta på fallet i fråga och slutsatsen blev att upphittarna har bättre rätt. Meteoriten ansågs utgöra fast egendom och därmed i fastighetsägarens besittning, men trots det ansågs allemansrätten med beaktande av både meteoritens och fastighetens värde tillåta att den togs i besittning av geologerna. (Less)
- Abstract
- In November 2020, a meteorite fell just outside of Uppsala and soon after it was found, a dispute arose over ownership rights to it. The owner of the prop- erty where the meteorite landed sued the finders, claiming that he had a better right to it. The district court ruled in favor of the finders after classifying the meteorite as movable property. However, the court of appeal ruled the oppo- site, determining that the meteorite was real property and that the property owner had a better right. The thesis has analyzed these issues. First, whether the meteorite constitutes real or movable property, and then whether the right of public access could allow someone to take a meteorite from another per- son's land. Various perspectives have been... (More)
- In November 2020, a meteorite fell just outside of Uppsala and soon after it was found, a dispute arose over ownership rights to it. The owner of the prop- erty where the meteorite landed sued the finders, claiming that he had a better right to it. The district court ruled in favor of the finders after classifying the meteorite as movable property. However, the court of appeal ruled the oppo- site, determining that the meteorite was real property and that the property owner had a better right. The thesis has analyzed these issues. First, whether the meteorite constitutes real or movable property, and then whether the right of public access could allow someone to take a meteorite from another per- son's land. Various perspectives have been considered for this. Regarding real or movable property, the meteorite's components as well as its origin have been discussed. A potential requirement for permanence has also been ana- lyzed. Concerning the right of public access, its boundaries have been tried to be established and then the economic aspect of the meteorite has been weighed in. The conclusion was applied to the case in question, and the con- clusion was that the finders have a better right. The meteorite was considered to be real property and thereby in the property owner's possession, but despite this, the right of public access, considering both the value of the meteorite and the property, was deemed to allow the geologists to take possession of it.1 (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9153474
- author
- Wallanger, Jakob LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20241
- year
- 2024
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Civilrätt (en. private law), förmögenhetsrätt, fastighetsrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9153474
- date added to LUP
- 2024-06-26 12:30:04
- date last changed
- 2024-06-26 12:30:04
@misc{9153474,
abstract = {{In November 2020, a meteorite fell just outside of Uppsala and soon after it was found, a dispute arose over ownership rights to it. The owner of the prop- erty where the meteorite landed sued the finders, claiming that he had a better right to it. The district court ruled in favor of the finders after classifying the meteorite as movable property. However, the court of appeal ruled the oppo- site, determining that the meteorite was real property and that the property owner had a better right. The thesis has analyzed these issues. First, whether the meteorite constitutes real or movable property, and then whether the right of public access could allow someone to take a meteorite from another per- son's land. Various perspectives have been considered for this. Regarding real or movable property, the meteorite's components as well as its origin have been discussed. A potential requirement for permanence has also been ana- lyzed. Concerning the right of public access, its boundaries have been tried to be established and then the economic aspect of the meteorite has been weighed in. The conclusion was applied to the case in question, and the con- clusion was that the finders have a better right. The meteorite was considered to be real property and thereby in the property owner's possession, but despite this, the right of public access, considering both the value of the meteorite and the property, was deemed to allow the geologists to take possession of it.1}},
author = {{Wallanger, Jakob}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Plocka svamp, blåbär och meteoriter? – Klassificering av meteoriter och förhållandet till allemansrätten med utgångspunkt i ett aktuellt rättsfall}},
year = {{2024}},
}