The right to use public houses obtained by the hot

2022-08-06
  • Detail

The right to use public houses obtained by employees is protected by the civil law. The nature of the right to use public houses shared by employees belongs to the "property rights related to property ownership" stipulated in the general principles of the civil law, that is, the usufructuary right. If it is forcibly occupied by its employees or other citizens, it is a civil tort, and the resulting disputes are within the jurisdiction of the people's court

case details

both the plaintiff Xia Biying and the defendant Ma Bingyin are employees of the rural economic service center in Shengqiao Town, Lujiang County, Anhui Province (hereinafter referred to as Shengqiao agricultural economic center). In 1998, the unit prepared to build a dormitory building in the form of financial allocation and staff fund-raising to keep the system vibrating, and divided the overhead floors between the ground floor and the ground level into buildings for staff to store items (hereinafter referred to as storage rooms) according to the number of rooms. After the completion of the main project of the building, Shengqiao agricultural economic center will allocate one set of rooms on the 4th floor and the 2nd floor of the same unit to the plaintiff and the defendant respectively, and decided to allocate one storage room at the corridor entrance of the unit to the plaintiff for free. Subsequently, the defendant occupied the storage room. After the housing reform, the plaintiff and the defendant have now obtained the ownership of the above-mentioned rooms. The ownership of the storeroom in the lawsuit belongs to Shengqiao agricultural economy center. Shengqiao agricultural economic center failed to mediate the dispute for many times. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, ignoring the opinions of the unit, forcibly occupied the storage room shared by the plaintiff, infringed the plaintiff's right to use the storage room, which constituted a civil infringement, so the court was requested to order the defendant to stop the infringement. The defendant argued that the ownership of the storage room claimed by the plaintiff now belongs to Shengqiao agricultural economy center. The plaintiff does not have the qualification of litigation subject, and requested the court to dismiss the lawsuit according to law

After trial, the people's Court of Lujiang County, Anhui Province held that the plaintiff and defendant in this case were equal subjects. The ownership of the storage room disputed by both parties belongs to Shengqiao agricultural economic center, which has the right to allocate all its storage rooms to employees. Its employees have the right to use the shared storage room, which is another real right derived from property ownership. It has the legal attribute of "property rights related to property ownership" stipulated in Section 1 of Chapter V of the general principles of the civil law and is protected by the civil law. The defendant forcibly occupied the building, which was a civil tort. According to the provisions of Article 5 of the general principles of the civil law and paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 134, it is decided that mabingyin will vacate the above storage room to Xia Biying within 10 days after the judgment takes effect

after the sentencing, neither party has appealed

evaluation and analysis

the case is simple, that is, the defendant occupied the public storage room shared by the plaintiff. However, the scope of application of the notice on the acceptance of real estate cases (hereinafter referred to as "Interpretation No. 38") issued by the Supreme People's Court (FA Fa [1992] No. 38) and the legal nature of the right to use public houses and other buildings involved in this case are typical

I Scope of application of Interpretation No. 38 Article 3 of Interpretation No. 38 stipulates: "Any real estate dispute that does not meet the relevant prosecution conditions of the civil procedure law and the administrative procedure law and belongs to the nature of implementing policies left over by history, any real estate dispute caused by the adjustment and allocation of administrative instructions, the merger and separation of institutions, etc., and any serious real estate dispute that may lead to major accidents due to the building and distribution of houses within the unit, etc., are not within the scope of the competent work of the people's court. The party concerned brings a lawsuit for this reason The people's court shall refuse to accept the lawsuit or reject the lawsuit according to law, and may inform it to apply to the relevant departments for settlement. " "Interpretation No. 38" no matter VOC or odor, we will decompose the target into 2310 main interior parts. After the introduction, most courts and judges will rule that such disputes brought to the court will not be accepted or dismissed. However, the law does not specify the specific departments to deal with, and the units themselves are usually unable to solve it, resulting in such contradictions becoming more and more prominent. In fact, there are various causes of real estate disputes within the unit, including historical legacy, administrative instructions, the implementation of housing reform by the unit, the transfer of employees from the unit, internal building, housing distribution, etc. The subjects of disputes are also different, some occur between units and employees, some occur between employees and employees, or between employees and other personnel of other units. Therefore, to judge whether the house property disputes within the unit fall within the scope of court acceptance, we must understand and apply the "interpretation 38" according to the general principles of the civil law and the legislative spirit and basic principles of the civil procedure law. The interpretation stipulates in Article 3 that the precondition for the court not to accept such disputes is that the disputes must not meet the prosecution conditions stipulated in the civil procedure law. It is obvious that the plaintiff and the defendant are equal subjects in this case. The key to the question is whether the dispute between the two parties is a civil rights dispute arising from property relations, specifically whether the right to use the public storage room enjoyed by the plaintiff is protected by the civil law

II. The legal attribute of the right to use public houses, storage rooms and other buildings (hereinafter referred to as the right to use public houses)

the right to use public houses is the embodiment of China's traditional welfare housing distribution system. The owner of the right to use public houses is a staff member of a state organ or a state-owned or collective enterprise or institution, who enjoys the right to use a certain area of houses owned by the unit due to the unit's house distribution. From the formal point of view, the right to use public houses is a kind of house lease right, that is, creditor's rights, because employees generally have to pay a certain amount of rent to the unit. However, in terms of content, the creditor's right to use public houses has actually alienated into real right. Because the right to use public houses is long-term and can even be inherited, and the right holder can live for a long time. In fact, he has the right to occupy and use public houses. Secondly, the rent of the public house is not agreed by the parties. It is far lower than the market price rent, or the unit returns it to the user in the form of housing maintenance subsidies, or even directly specifies that it is used by the user free of charge as in the case. It can be seen that in the United States, the owner of the right to use actually obtains the permanent right of possession and use, and the right to benefit from low rent or no rent

usufructuary right is another real right derived from property ownership. It is a right set on others' property for the purpose of possession, use and income. Its basic legal characteristics are: ① it is a right that limits the exercise of ownership with the content of the power and function of ownership. ② It is the direct right to control the property of others obtained by non owners based on law, contract or other legal means. ③ It is a relatively independent other real right separated from the power and function of ownership

Copyright © 2011 JIN SHI