La 'publificació'de les 'urbanitzacions particulars' històriques

Identificador:  TDX:2825

Handle: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11797/TDX2825

Autores:  Martínez Deó, Jacobo

Resumen:
The term “urbanization” has never been the subject of a positive definition, and its use —even normative— as an existing legal and administrative institution is imprecise, leading to ambivalences and misrepresentations of non-urbanistic sectorial regulations. The analysis of the origin of those first realities (1956 Law), and its subsequent evolution in the block of the 1976 Rebuilt text, which far outstripped the exercise of a simple recasting, they constitute the first objective of the work. These “urbanizations” (civil law realities) were converted into a process, which starts at the time of the transition, which we call “publishing”, carried out, with a plausible underlying conducive that would be the ambivalent normative that would entail the “publishing”' of those realities, with the consequent transfer of the private responsibilities of execution and maintenance to the public domain. Explain the regulatory constraints of the processes of “publishing” the unitary objects of the private law “private urbanizations”, and how the processes happened, it constitutes the second of the objectives of the investigation. The analysis of the regulatory evolution following the 1976 regulatory bloc, with the current regulation of private real estate complexes, which places us in the current situation, constitutes the third objective. The fourth objective, to point out not what an “urbanization” is, but simply what it is for urbanization to be understood. To offer a plausible unambiguous normative definition of the word in the administrative law not to endow it with any new content, but just to deny what does not correspond to it, that categorization of object or institution immersionally achieved. To propose, in short, a simple conceptualization without an object. A “urbanization” must necessarily be concluded in the light of all the research, it is nothing, it does not enjoy any inherent characteristic that makes it worthy of being constituted in any object of the conceptualizable right as such.