POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS OF ARTICLE 6, LAW 10/2001 A CASE STUDY

Codruta Jucan

FIAT IUSTITIA, 2010, vol. 4, issue 2, 91-97

Abstract: In the context of restitution Law no. 10/2001 a particular situation is discussed: are the goods that existed at the moment of taking over subjected to restitution? Everything in the chemist’s shop represent its inventory and, at the same time, they are the chemist’s shop itself, because their destination is not given by the building in this case, but by the fact that there is the right to practice and necessary equipment to make it a sanitary unity according to legal standards. Consequently, they are movable goods which became immovable through incorporation (as is the shop license to be a chemist’s shop - sanitary unity, given to the person because he possessed the quality of a chemist, and work authorization for the building as such), as well as goods, that is to say utensils and outfit, taken over at the moment of abusive nationalization.

Keywords: restitution; movable goods; immovable goods; destination (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2010
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://fiatiustitia.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ ... 37-1-10-20110614.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:dcu:journl:v:4:y:2010:i:2:p:91-97

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in FIAT IUSTITIA from Dimitrie Cantemir Faculty of Law Cluj Napoca, Romania
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Dimitrie Cantemir Faculty of Law Cluj Napoca, Romania ().