Summary

The amendments adopted in 2003 set out the possibility of transferring the personal right of use in the Law of Property Act. The author is of the opinion that legal certainty has not benefited from that. It appears from the cases presented in the article that the need for the intervention by a judge in registration cases arises from the different application of law, on the one hand, by assistant judge and, on the other hand, by the notary certifying the declarations of intention of the applicants. The applicants and the notary drafting their intention as a contract unfortunately rarely pay attention to the fact that real rights are absolute rights which apply to anyone and everyone. That is why the law aims at considering—regardless of the parties’ will—also the interests of third parties, introducing imperative provisions in the law of property for that purpose. The author emphasises that the notary needs to be independent and impartial not only in considering the interests of the parties to the transaction certified by the very notary but also in considering the interests of the state prescribed by laws. The author believes that in order to avoid damage to the land register, more attention should be paid to the substantiation of the provisions to be adopted; it should be identified why assistant judges as well as the judges of the county, circuit and also the Supreme Court apply the law differently, while measures should be taken to eliminate such reasons; the notion of an authority in public law should be clarified to notaries, and it should be explained to notaries and also to judges that the party autonomy in civil law is limited mostly to the law of obligation.