Full text of the paper:
Collected Papers of the Faculty of Law, University of Novi Sad
2018, vol. LII, No. 4, pp. 1775–1792
Language of the paper: Serbian
Original Scientific Article
udk: 349.44:347.235
doi: 10.5937/zrpfns52-20231
Authors:
Sloboda Midorović, Assistant
University of Novi Sad
Faculty of Law Novi Sad
s.midorovic@pf.uns.ac.rs
Dušan Nikolić, Ph.D., Full Professor
University of Novi Sad
Faculty of Law Novi Sad
d.nikolic@pf.uns.ac.rs
Abstract:
Spatial planning is of a particular importance to the community given that it brings order to the coexistence of people within certain territory and enables protection of significant public interests. International agreements, constitutions and various acts entitle state and local authorities to determine, through various spatial plans, under what conditions and in which way public spaces and privately owned property can be used. This further implies that spatial plans may limit ownership entitlements. From the owner’s perspective, effects of state intervention in such cases may prove to be positive. For instance, transformation of agricultural land of an insufficient quality in urban building land could lead to the increase of a lot’s market price. Nevertheless, there are some situations in which spatial plans may cause decrease of immovable property value. This, for example, will happen in case when authorities decide that a highway will be built near a peaceful housing block in the suburb. Contemporary legal systems widely acknowledge that public interest supersedes the private one, and that ownership right could be limited and even taken away if that appears necessary for the sake of fulfilling justified and important community’s needs. In case of expropriation, owner is entitled to the so-called fair remuneration. However, when it comes to the decrease of immovable property value due to the changes of spatial plans, numerous questions and disagreements exist. In one decision of the European Court of Human Rights that dealt with the issue of spatial planning (Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden), an opinion has been expressed that spatial planning must be devised in such a way so as to strike a balance between community interests and those of private owners. That gave birth to the fair balance doctrine. In the meantime, it was also incorporated in the regulation of the Republic of Serbia. Planning and Construction Act provides that a competent authority which changes conditions making an integral part of the issued location conditions, shall be liable for the damage caused to the investor provided that he already undertook some activities pursuant to the primarily issued location conditions. This solution was undoubtedly adopted under the pressure of foreign investments. However, it could also improve a position of other persons suffering damage due to the changes of spatial plans and documents connected to them.
Keywords:
spatial planning, public interest, ownership, immovable property value.