Is the crime of sale other than a previous contract applicable to the sale of a common share in a property?
Communism is one of the legal cases that arise from the multiplicity of right-holders, which is not limited to the right of ownership, but can be achieved in relation to other rights in kind, such as the right of usufruct, easement, etc. However, In which the communism is often achieved, the text of which appears in articles 824 to 843 of the Code of Obligations and Contracts.
In the issue of communism, the problem of "sale" is often raised, which leads to the occurrence of many people in a crime that was unknown to them. The question here is whether the crime of selling, contrary to a previous contract, applies to those who sell a common share in a property? – According to Dr. Yasser Al-Amir, Professor of Criminal Law and the lawyer of veto.
The Court of Cassation addressed this question in Appeal No. 3280 for the year 68/2007 14/14, by answering the «eviction», because it is required for the crime to be the sale of a certain unit ready to be used for the purpose for which prepared for it and thus the resale of a common share in the drug The offense of sale is available to more than one person who is affected by Article 23/1 of Law No. 136 of 1981.
The Court of Cassation stated that: Whereas the first paragraph of Article 23 of Act No. 136 of 1981 stipulates that: "The penalty of the crime of punishment stipulated in the Penal Code shall be punishable by the owner who receives in any form – in particular or through mediation – The same unit or leased to more than a tenant or sold to non-contracted with him to buy them, and cancel all disposal of the sale after that date, even if registered ».
It is stated that the obligation to commit the crime of sale, contrary to the previous contract, is that the selling property is a specific unit prepared for its use in the purpose for which it was prepared. This is indicated by the clear linguistic connotation of the word "unity" And the fact that the term of the law is clearly indicative of the intention of the street, it should be limited to the application of what is done with the declaration of the text of the law applicable .
This was the case, and it was clear from the contested judgment that the criminal case was filed against the appellant by describing that he sold a common share in a property that was sold to the civil claimants. The common share was not applicable to the law or the language of the unit description, The right to a specified place of separation. Moreover, it is expressly stated in the above-mentioned law that the interpretation of the unit should not be extended to the common quota, because measurement is prohibited in the field of impurity. The offender has the right to sell the offense to more than one person assigned to him Subh to the appellant immune Altotam.
In the case of a criminal case, the civil court has jurisdiction that the damage is the result of the crime for which the criminal proceedings were filed. If the damage arises from an act that is not considered an offense – as in the case at hand – the claim for compensation is outside the jurisdiction of the criminal courts – In this case, the contested judgment contradicted this view by convicting the appellant and forcing him to pay compensation. The wrong building was the application of the law. Pursuant to article 39/1 of Law No. 57 of 1959 on cases and procedures of appeal before the Court of Cassation, It is governed by law, which requires Z contested judgment and the abolition of the appellant judgment, and the innocence of the appellant, which was assigned to him pursuant to article 304.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the jurisdiction of the misdemeanor court's consideration of the civil case.
.
Post a Comment