Publication: Usurpación pacífica de bienes inmuebles
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2017-06-27
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
Introducción-Objetivos. Presupuesto inexcusable de la ocupación pacífica de bienes inmuebles ajenos es el previo reconocimiento de la propiedad sobre los mismos. Aunque la propiedad está estrechamente ligada a la historia del hombre desde sus orígenes, la propiedad inmueble no pudo tener existencia, ni por ende la usurpación, mientras el hombre mantuvo una vida nómada. Desde entonces hasta hoy, la protección que el Derecho ha dispensado a la propiedad inmobiliaria, frente a los ataques no violentos a la misma (usurpación impropia) ha sido disímil: bien fijando como pena que los responsables mueran por ello, bien una sanción pecuniaria (en ocasiones vinculada a la utilidad reportada o al beneficio obtenido), o la mera restitución del inmueble a su legítimo poseedor. El Código Penal de 1995 ha reintroducido la tipificación de la ocupación pacífica de bienes inmuebles para tutelar la propiedad inmobiliaria frente a los ataques subrepticios, clandestinos o realizados con fuerza en las cosas. La tipificación de esta conducta antisocial, y el reconocimiento de la propiedad como derecho constitucional, no han sido óbice para que exista una oposición por diversos operadores jurídicos a la aplicación de este precepto legal, una gran permisividad institucional a favor de la misma, y diversos intentos parlamentarios de derogación. Asimismo, en el ámbito doctrinal y jurisprudencial se han planteado y acogido interpretaciones del precepto penal que suponen una derogación de facto del mismo. La realidad social evidencia que la ocupación de bienes inmuebles, lejos de ser un fenómeno aislado y tendente a la eliminación se ha multiplicado exponencialmente en los últimos años, ocasionando perjuicios a los titulares de los inmuebles ocupados y al resto de ciudadanos por los problemas de convivencia que generan en su entorno social (enganches ilegales de suministros, tráfico de sustancias estupefacientes…)...
Foreword-Objectives. The peaceful occupation of real estate that belongs to others cannot exist without the prior recognition that the property is owned by someone. Although property is closely connected to the origins of the history of mankind, real estate could not have existed, and therefore neither could usurpation, when men lived nomadically. From those times until today, the protection afforded by the Law to real estate, against the non-violent violation of such property (improper usurpation), has been dissimilar and actions have ranged from punishments such as the death penalty or monetary sanctions (at times linked to the reported profit or the earnings gained) to merely returning the property to its rightful owner. The Spanish Criminal Code of 1995 has reintroduced the description of peaceful occupation of real estate to protect it in respect of surreptitious or clandestine violations or those intrusions with the use of force against property. The criminalisation of this antisocial behaviour, and the enshrinement of property as a constitutional right, have not prevented challenges by a series of legal entities against the application of this legal provision, widespread institutional permissiveness in this connection and a series of parliamentary bids seeking its repeal. Furthermore, in the scope of legal doctrine and jurisprudence, interpretations of the criminal provision have been proposed and accepted that represent a de facto repeal of the law. Social reality shows that the occupation of property, far from being an isolated phenomenon that is disappearing, has risen exponentially in recent years, causing damage to the owners of the occupied properties and also to citizens at large due to related issues (illegal connections to utilities, drug trafficking, etc.)...
Foreword-Objectives. The peaceful occupation of real estate that belongs to others cannot exist without the prior recognition that the property is owned by someone. Although property is closely connected to the origins of the history of mankind, real estate could not have existed, and therefore neither could usurpation, when men lived nomadically. From those times until today, the protection afforded by the Law to real estate, against the non-violent violation of such property (improper usurpation), has been dissimilar and actions have ranged from punishments such as the death penalty or monetary sanctions (at times linked to the reported profit or the earnings gained) to merely returning the property to its rightful owner. The Spanish Criminal Code of 1995 has reintroduced the description of peaceful occupation of real estate to protect it in respect of surreptitious or clandestine violations or those intrusions with the use of force against property. The criminalisation of this antisocial behaviour, and the enshrinement of property as a constitutional right, have not prevented challenges by a series of legal entities against the application of this legal provision, widespread institutional permissiveness in this connection and a series of parliamentary bids seeking its repeal. Furthermore, in the scope of legal doctrine and jurisprudence, interpretations of the criminal provision have been proposed and accepted that represent a de facto repeal of the law. Social reality shows that the occupation of property, far from being an isolated phenomenon that is disappearing, has risen exponentially in recent years, causing damage to the owners of the occupied properties and also to citizens at large due to related issues (illegal connections to utilities, drug trafficking, etc.)...
Description
Tesis inédita de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Derecho, Departamento de Derecho Penal, leída el 16/12/2016