النظام القانوني للحائط المشترك (دراسة مقارنة)

Abstract

The second study dealt with the concept of joint wall in the Iraqi, Egyptian and Jordanian legislation. In the second demand we discussed the legal nature of the common wall and the proof of participation in it. The second section was allocated In order to study the provisions of the joint wall, where we addressed the first requirement the use of the joint wall, and in the second demand, the wall of the joint wall and maintenance and repair expensesThe study concluded with several results, the most important of which are:1 - It is not permissible to dispose of the joint wall independent of the real estate, or to request division, because this violates the purpose that was prepared from the walls of the joint wall.2 - The Jordanian legislator made the joint wall within the rights of easement in contrast to what went to the Iraqi legislator, which made it one of the common forms of ownership.3- The Iraqi and Jordanian legislators came out on the basis of "proof of who is claimed" in the field of proving the participation in the ownership of the joint wall, and even established a presumption that facilitates the proof of participation in the wall (a valid legal presumption to the contrary)The most important recommendations are:1. The Iraqi and Jordanian legislators shall state explicitly and affirm the inadmissibility of dividing and disposing of the common wall. The Iraqi legislator also states that it is not permissible to divide the common private road.2 - The Jordanian legislator should make the common wall common in the forced common property, not make it within the rights of easement.3 - The Jordanian legislator must explicitly stipulate that the joint wall remains common between the owners of the builders to the extent of height before the rampage, as well as obligating the partner who has taken part in the partnership if the partner paid half of the cost of ramping, which went to the Iraqi legislator.