Skip to content

Acta Iuris Stetinensis

Acta Iuris Stetinensis

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe. Roczniki Prawnicze

2/2016 (14)
OpenAlex

For the whole journal, according to OpenAlex.

Citations
292
Publications
762
H-index
4
I10-index
2
Mean citedness (2 years)
0.03
Citations received by year
Journal citation chart. Exact values are available in the table below. 2017: 12 2018: 12 2019: 6 2020: 40 2021: 33 2022: 36 2023: 40 2024: 23 2025: 46 2026: 21 2017 2026
Show data table
Citations received by year
YearPublicationsCitations
20175612
20184712
2019556
20203840
20217633
20228736
20236740
20248523
20255846
20264521

Data retrieved:

What do these numbers mean?

Publications and citations cover records linked to this journal in OpenAlex. H-index is the largest number h of publications with at least h citations each. I10-index counts publications cited at least 10 times. The chart shows citations received in each year; the current year is incomplete. Coverage may differ from WNUS and other services.

The 2-year mean is an OpenAlex metric. It is not the Clarivate Journal Impact Factor.

View in OpenAlex (new tab)
Google Scholar

Glosa do wyroku Sądu Najwyższego z 27 maja 2015 roku, sygn. II CSK 502/14


(Gloss to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 27 May 2015, Ref . II CSK 502/14)
DOI: 10.18276/ais.2016.14-09
Cite

The full text is available

Abstract

The main problem of judgment of the Supreme Court dated 27 May 2015 is disposing of the right to use things and usufruct. The Supreme Court based its decision on two assumptions. Firstly, the right to the use of things and natural usufruct is autonomous traded law (see. Art. 252 and 693 § 1 of the Civil Code), and may contractually entitled to a person other than the owner, in particular the user (and perpetual user) or tenant. There can also be a whole range of people who are bound by appropriate relations under the contract and the last one in the series is entitled to receive the natural usufruct (eg. The property owner sets use for a particular person, that this property leased to another person, and this gives it in sublet). The acquisition of ownership of these usufruct determined by the essentially legal status – the existence of a privilege, not an actual possession of the main things at the time of disconnection, unless this thing is in the possession of non-authorized persons in good faith.
Preview PDF

Open PDF

Bibliography

  1. 1. J. Panowicz-Lipska, w: J. Panowicz-Lipska (red.) System Prawa Prywatnego, Prawo zobowiązań – część szczegółowa, tom 8, Warszawa 2011,
  2. 2. Ł. Wyszomirski, glosa do wyroku Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 5 października 2012 r., sygn. IV CSK 244/12, Orzecznictwo Sądów Polskich 2013, nr 10,
  3. 3. Z. Kuniewicz, S. Słotwiński, glosa do wyroku Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 5 października 2012 r., sygn. IV CSK 244/12, Przegląd Prawa Rolnego 2013, nr 2,
  4. 4. E. Gniewek, w: System Prawa Prywatnego, Prawo rzeczowe, tom 3, Warszawa 2013,
  5. 5. Ł. Żelechowski, w: K. Osajda (red.) Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, red. K. Osajda, Warszawa 2016, komentarz do art. 55 k.c.
  6. 6. E. Gniewek, w: E. Gniewek, P. Machnikowski (red.) Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, Warszawa 2016, komentarz do art. 55 k.c.,
  7. 7. M. Pazdan, w: K. Pietrzykowski (red.) Kodeks cywilny,T. I. Komentarz. Art. 1– 44910, Warszawa 2015, komentarz do art. 55 k.c.,
  8. 8. J.St. Piątowski, w: J. Ignatowicz (red.) System prawa cywilnego. Prawo własności i inne prawa rzeczowe, t. II, Ossolineum 1977,
  9. 9. M. Bednarek, Mienie. Komentarz do art. 44-–55 Kodeksu cywilnego, Kraków 1997,
  10. 10. T. Sokołowski, w: M. Gutowski (red.) Kodeks cywilny. Tom I. Komentarz do art. 1-44911, Warszawa 2016, komentarz do art. 55 k.c.,