| Summary: | Thesis (LLD)--Stellenbosch University, 2000. === ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This dissertation is an attempt at reconciling the existing (and until recently predominant) private
law concept of ownership and the property rights espoused by the new constitutional order. The
attempts at land reform in South Africa and Germany are used as specifie examples of the
manner in which the whole property law order in both these legal systems is developed through
legislative and judicial initiative, on the basis of the constitutional provisions concerning
property protection and regulation. The purpose of the investigation is to determine to what
extent constitutional development of the private law of property will result in a property law
order serving the socio-economic and political goals of economic growth and self-fulfilment and
empowerment of the individual. Focus is placed on the influence of the constitutional protection
and regulation of property as a mechanism for developing the private law of ownership in
Germany and South Africa.
In the first part of the exposition, the choice of legal comparison as course of inquiry is
substantiated, and the terminological difficulties connected with an investigation into the
development of the private law of property by the constitutional protection and regulation of
property are discussed. Attention is given to the use of the terms "ownership" and "property" in
the private law and in the constitutional context. The term "tenure" is also discussed in the
context of land reform in South Africa. Further, the usc of terms such as "public interest",
"common weal" and "public purposes" is discussed. The use of these terms are particularly
complicated by the fact that each of them are often used in more than one sense, and that the use
of these di fferent terms overlap to varying extents.
The second part of the exposition contains information on the background of the constitutional
property orders as they arc found in Germany and South Africa.
The drafting histories of the South African and German constitutional property clauses
indicate that in both these legal systems, the constitutional property clauses have hybrid
ideological foundations. Both contain a compromise between, on the one hand, classical
liberalism (which affords the holders of rights a high degree of individual freedom and
autonomy) and, on the other hand, social democracy (which allow stronger regulatory measures,
also upon private properly).
Further, some of the structural aspects connected to constitutional protection and
regulation of property in Germany and South Africa are discussed. The positively phrased
property guarantee in art 14 GG is compared with the negatively phrased "guarantee" of s 25 Fe,
whereby the transitional property guarantee in s 28 JC is also considered. Further, the basic
structure and stages of an inquiry into the constitutional property clause are discussed, with
reference to differences between the German and South African methods. These differences are
not of such a nature that it excludes further comparison. Ilowever, it is necessary to keep the
differences in the judicial system in mind when conducting a comparison of the present nature.
Therefore, a brief overview of the judicial systems of Germany and South Africa is provided,
with specific reference to the manner in which the courts resolved certain property questions.
The principles underlying the constitutional orders of Germany and South Africa are also
discussed with specific reference to their significance for the treatment of property issues. In
particular, the meaning of the constitutional state (Rechtsstaat) and the social wei fare state
(Sozialstaat) for the solution of problems connected to property is discussed. It is indicated that
the legitimacy of the legal order in general and property law in particular, depends on the degree
of success in the implementation of these values. Further, it is indicated that the implementation
of these values also determines the importance of private property and/or regulation thereof in a
specific legal system.
In the third part of the exposition, the relevance of the constitutional protection and regulation
for the private law of ownership is discussed.
The expansion of the concept of property by the application of a "purely" constitutional
definition thereof raises the question as to the continued relevance of the private law concept of
ownership. This issue is discussed with reference to the protection of property in terms of the
constitution in comparison with the scope of property in private law. It is indicated that the
"exclusively constitutional" concept of property is by no means based only on Constitutional
law. The role of the private law concept of ownership in a constitutional order is then elucidated.
The discussion then turns to an analysis of the limitations on property endorsed by the
constitutional order. Two main kinds of limitation are possible: (i) limitation of property through
vertical operation of the constitution (ie a broad category of legislative and administrative
deprivation (regulation), and a more specialised category, namely expropriations), and (ii)
limitation through horizontal operation of the constitution (ie through the inroads allowed on
property rights by the protection of other rights in the Bill of Rights). It is indicated that the
application of the public interest / public purposes requirements are sometimes intended to
protect individual interest above those of society in general. In other cases, the public interest /
public purposes requirement is aimed at securing the interests of the society at large. Further, it is
indicated that the purpose of constitutional "interference" in the area of private property law is to
correct imbalances in the relations among private persons which are regarded by the law as
"equals," even if they are not equal for all practical purposes.
The fourth part of the exposition concentrates on the land reform programmes in Germany (after
the reunification of 1990) and South Africa (since 1991) in order to analyse the attempts by the
legislature and judiciary to give effect to the improved property order as anticipated by
constitutional development of property. In both Germany and South Africa political changes
made land reform programmes essential:
In South Africa the land reform programme was introduced to reverse the injustices
created by colonialism and apartheid. A tripartite programme is employed for this purpose. The
new kinds of land rights created through this system of land reform are indicated. The manner in
which this body of law is treated by the courts is also analysed with reference to its relevance for
the development of Property Law in general.
In Germany a property and land reform programme became necessary with the
reunification. On the one hand, the socialist property order in the former GDR had to be replaced
by the property order already existing in the FGR, and on the other hand the individual claims
for restitution of the land and enterprises taken by the GDR state or its Soviet predecessor had to
be balanced against the claims that present occupiers of such land have to it. The influence of
legislation and litigation connected to these issues on the development of Property Law is
discussed.
The final part of the exposition is a summary of the conclusions drawn during the course of the
analysis. === AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: In 'n poging om in hierdie uiteensetting die bestaande (en tot onlangs nog oorheersende)
privaatregtelike begrip "eiendom" te versoen met die breër eiendomsbegrip wat deur die nuwe
grondwetlike bestel gepropageer word, word die grondhervormingsprogramme in Suid Afrika en
Duitsland gebruik as voorbeelde van die wyse waarop die bestaande Eiendomsreg in beide
regsisteme deur die wetgewer en die howe ontwikkel word. Die doel van die ondersoek is om
vas te stel tot watter mate die grondwetlike ontwikkeling van privaatregtelike Eiendomsreg sal
bydra tot die totstandkoming van 'n eiendomsregtelike regsorde waarin die sosio-ekonomiese en
politieke doelwitte van ekonomiese groei en die vrye ontwikkeling en bemagtiging van die
individu gedien word. Die klem word geplaas op die grondwetlike beskerming en regulering van
eiendom as 'n meganisme waardeur die privaatregtelike Eiendomsreg in Duitsland en Suid-
Afrika ontwikkel kan word.
Die eerste deel van die uiteensetting begrond die keuse van regsvergelying as metode van analise
en bespreek die terminologiese probleme wat in 'n ondersoek na die grondwetlike ontwikkeling
van die privaatregtelike eiendomsreg kan opduik. Aandag word gegee aan die gebruik van
begrippe wat verband hou met eiendom en publieke belang in sowel die privaatreg as in die
grondwetlike konteks. Die gebruik van verskillende terme, veral in Engels, kan problematies
wees, en daarom word dit breedvoeriger bespreek.
In die tweede deel van die uiteensetting word die agtergrond waarteen die grondwetlike bestelle
van Duitsland en Suid-Afrika funksioneer, bespreek:
Eers word die formulering van die eiendomsklousules in Suid-Afrika en Duitsland vanuit
'n historiese perspektief ondersoek. In beide regsisteme is die grondwetlike eiendomsklousules
op 'n kompromis tussen verskillende ideologieë gebaseer. Enersyds op klassieke liberalisme, in
terme waarvan eienaars en ander reghebbendes 'n hoë mate van individuele vryheid en
outonomie toegeken word; andersyds op sosiaal-demokratiese denke, in terme waarvan strenger
regulerende maatreëls (ook op privaat eiendom) geduld moet word.
Dan word sommige van die strukturele aspekte verbonde aan die grondwetlike
beskerming en regulering van eiendom in Duitsland en Suid-Afrika bespreek. Die positief
geformuleerde eiendomswaarborg in art 14 GG word vergelyk met die negatiewe formulering in
art 25 FG en die positiewe waarborg in art 28 lG. Verder word die basiese struktuur en fases van
'n grondwetlike ondersoek in die beskerming en regulering van eiendom bespreek, met spesifieke
verwysing na die verskille in die Duitse en Suid-Afrikaanse benaderings. Hierdie verskille is nie
van so 'n aard dat dit regsvergelyking kortwiek nie. Nogtans is dit noodsaaklik dat die
benaderingsverskille in ag geneem word vir 'n meer diepgaande vergelyking. Daarom word 'n
vlugtige oorsig oor die rol van die howe in die hantering van eiendomsvraagstukke in
grondwetlike konteks verskaf.
Verder word die beginsels onderliggend aan die grondwetlike bestelle in Duitsland en
Suid-Afrika bespreek met spesifieke verwysing na die betekenis daarvan vir die beskerming en
regulering van eiendom. Daar word veral klem gelê op die regstaat- en sosiaalstaatbeginsels. Die
legitimi teit van die regsorde in die algemeen, en meer spesifiek die Eiendomsreg, hang af van die
mate van sukses waarmee hierdie beginsels in die gemeenskap geïmplementeer word. Daar word
verder aangedui dat die toepassing van hierdie beginsels die mate van individuele vryheid in die
uitoefening van eiendomsreg en/of die graad van regulering van eiendomsreg in 'n bepaalde
regstelsel bepaal. Die derde deel van die uiteensetting konsentreer op die betekenis van die grondwetlike
beskerming en regulering van eiendom vir die privaatregtelike Eiendomsreg.
Die uitgebreide eiendomsbegrip wat in die grondwetlike konteks aangewend word, gee
aanleiding tot die vraag na die sin van 'n voortgesette enger eiendomsbegrip in die privaatreg.
Hierdie kwessie word bespreek met verwysing na die beskerming van eiendom in terme van die
grondwet, en word vergelyk met die omvang van die eiendomsbegrip in die privaatreg. Daar
word aangedui dat die sogenaamde uitsluitlik grondwetlike eiendomsbegrip geensins eksklusief
aan die Grondwetlike Reg is nie. Die rol van die privaatregtelike eiendomsbegrip in 'n
grondwetlike bestel word vervolgens uiteengesit.
Verder word die beperkings op eiendom in die grondwetlike konteks geanaliseer. In
beginsel is twee soorte beperkings regverdigbaar: (i) Beperking van eiendomsreg deur die
vertikale aanwending van die grondwet, dit wil sê deur die breër kategorie wetgewende en
administratiewe ontnemings (regulerings) van eiendomsreg en deur 'n enger en meer spesifieke
kategorie, naamlik onteiening; en (ii) beperking van eiendomsreg deur horisontale aanwending
van die grondwet, dit wil sê deur die inbreuk op eiendomsregte wat toegelaat word as gevolg van
die uitwerking van die beskerming van ander regte in die Handves vir Menseregte. Daar word
aangedui dat die vereiste van publieke belang in twee teenoorstaande opsigte gebruik word:
Enersyds om die individuele belang bo dié van die gemeenskap te stel, en andersyds om die
gemeenskap se belange as sulks te beskerm. Daar word ook aangedui dat grondwetlike
"inmenging" met privaatregtelike eiendomsreg daarop gemik is om ongebalanseerdhede in die
regsverhoudings tussen persone wat deur die reg as "gelykes" bejeën word en in effek nie gelyk
is nie, uit te skakel.
In die vierde deel van die uiteensetting word die grondhervormingsprogramrne in Duitsland
(sedert hervereniging in 1990) en Suid-Afrika (sedert 1991) bespreek. Die klem val op die
pogings van die wetgewer en howe om die verbeterde eiendomsbestel, soos wat dit in die
grondwet in die vooruitsig gestel word, te konkretiseer. In beide regstelsels het politieke
veranderinge 'n grondhervormingsprogram onontbeerlik gemaak:
Die grondhervormingsprogram in Suid-Afrika het ten doelom die ongeregtighede in die
grondbesitstelsel wat ontstaan het as gevolg van kolonialisme en apartheid uit te skakel. Vir dié
doel berus die grondhervormingsprogram op drie verwante, maar uiteenlopende, beginsels. Die
nuwe vorme van grondregte wat uit hierdie sisteem ontstaan, word aangedui, en die wyse waarop
hierdie deel van die reg deur die howe hanteer word, word bespreek met verwysing na die
betekenis daarvan vir die ontwikkeling van die Eiendomsreg.
In Duitsland is die noodwendigheid van 'n grondhervormingsprogram aan die
hervereniging van die DDR en die BRD gekoppel. Die sosialisties-georienteerde eiendomsbestel
wat in die "oostelike" deel van Duitsland aanwending gevind het, moes vervang word deur die
bestel wat reeds in die "westelike" deel van die "nuwe" staat in werking was. Verder moet die
grondeise van persone wat grond of besigheidseiendom verloor het gedurende die sosialistiese
regeringstyd en die voorafgaande Sowjetiese besetting, opgeweeg word teen die aansprake wat
huidige besitters op sulke grond het. Die invloed van wetgewing en regspraak hieroor op die
Eiendomsreg word geanaliseer.
Die laaste deel van die uiteensetting bevat 'n samevatting van die gevolgtrekkings wat deur die
loop van die analise gemaak is.
|
|---|
