#1(36)'13

marTlmsajuleba
N1
da
kanoni
PROBLEMS CONNECTED
WITH THE CONCEPT OF
IMMOVABLE THING AND RIGHT
TO IMMOVABLE THING IN
THE GEORGIAN LEGISLATION
REVAZ MIKABERIDZE
Lawyer
Immovable thing and the ownership right to the latter hold a significant place
not only in daily life, but also in legal literature and state policy. Therefore, due
attention should be paid to it also on the legislative level. The concept of immovable
thing given in our civil code is of a general character and it requires further
specification.
Legal status of certain components of the existing concept of immovable thing
(subsoil minerals, buildings and constructions) is discussed in this article and by
analogy it is proposed to add water resources and forest (which under special
laws are granted a special status as subsoil minerals) to the immovable thing
concept. If subsoil minerals are directly covered by the immovable thing concept,
the same should apply to water resources and forests. The latter represent
immovable things by nature.
Regarding buildings and constructions, there are opinions that it should be
defined by legislation within what stages buildings and constructions can be
considered to be under construction process and it should not be regulated only
by existing practice. In short, the article presents the idea to have more detailed
definition of the immovable thing concept in the civil code, as it is done in
legislations of many countries.
Along with the indicated topics the article also discusses the issue that apart
from classification of things into movable and immovable items, the civil code
should also divide things into public and private ones, i.e. depending on who
could be their owners. As it is also indicated in the article, there are a number of
immovable things the owner of which can only be state.
114