The unlawful use of government land by citizens, or so-called 'land grabbing', occurs regularly. A piece of pavement, for example, is popular, but municipal roadsides, sports fields, green areas and forest land are also occupied. After ten or twenty years Dutch municipalities might lose this land to the citizen who took it. The reason for this? Prescription. The costs involved for the state? Estimates run into billions of euros. In the research report The protection of publicly owned land from acquisitions through long-term possession, Björn Hoops, Associate Professor of Private Law and Sustainability, maps how government land might be better protected against prescription.
The main recommendation offered by Hoops is to abolish the acquisition of government owned land by prescription with immediate effect. Hoops: ‘This will clarify the legal state of affairs and protect all government owned land'. In order to prevent the deterioration of government-owned land, Hoops also recommends considering the following two measures:
Hoops: ‘Prescription means that when the period of time determined by law for the use of another's land has expired, the user acquires ownership and the owner loses ownership. The land must have been used in such a way that the user appears to be owner, for example by erecting a fence. The loss of government-owned land can have far-reaching consequences. First, as a society, we lose access to land for infrastructure and public services. Land for railways, streets, cables and pipes. Secondly, we lose money. After all, government land represents the assets of the government and therefore of our society. If the land turns out to be needed for a government project, we will have to buy it back at high cost or expropriate it. Based on previous research, I estimate that we are talking about billions of euros.’
Hoops looked at solutions to this problem in the law of Alberta (Canada), Belgium, Colorado (USA), Curaçao and Sint Maarten, and Italy. The exclusion of prescription as in Alberta and Colorado appears to be the best, according to Hoops, because it protects government land, creates the most clarity and thus prevents litigation. However, the exclusion can lead to governments no longer properly enforcing or maintaining their property. For that reason, Hoops advises to consider the two aforementioned measures.
Björn Hoops is Chair of Private Law and Sustainability at the Private Law and Notary Law of the Faculty of Law of the University of Groningen. At the moment he is a full-time Marie Curie-Fellow at the Università degli studi di Torino.
This article was published by the Faculty of Law.
Blocking motorways, protesting against abortion, and waving torches outside a politician’s home. The right to demonstrate is of great importance, but sometimes causes friction with other human rights. For her PhD research, Noor Swart is looking...
The remarkable progress in artificial intelligence (AI) is transcending boundaries and finding invaluable applications across diverse academic disciplines. Recognizing the transformative potential of AI, we are proud to introduce the new theme,...
Adriaan J. Wierenga, emergency law specialist, argues in favour of a thorough revision and simplification of the national emergency law before the next crisis arrives. Proper legislation could save lives.
The UG website uses functional and anonymous analytics cookies. Please answer the question of whether you want to accept
or reject other cookies (such as tracking cookies).
If no choice is made, only basic cookies will be stored. More information