Eminent domain

[5] This power can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character.

Many railroads were given the right of eminent domain to obtain land or easements in order to build and connect rail networks.

In the mid-20th century, a new application of eminent domain was pioneered, in which the government could take the property and transfer it to a private third party for redevelopment.

Some jurisdictions require that the taker make an offer to purchase the subject property, before resorting to the use of eminent domain.

However, once the property is taken and the judgment is final, the condemnor owns it in fee simple, and may put it to uses other than those specified in the eminent domain action.

The term "eminent domain" was taken from the legal treatise De jure belli ac pacis (On the Law of War and Peace), written by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1625,[7] which used the term dominium eminens (Latin for "supreme ownership") and described the power as follows: The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or those who act for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way.

But, when this is done, the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property.The exercise of eminent domain is not limited to real property.

But though rarely granted, this is not the exclusive measure of compensation; see Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States (business losses in temporary takings) and United States v. Pewee Coal Co. (operating losses caused by government operations of a mine seized during World War II).

[11] In China, "requisitions", the Chinese form of eminent domain, are constitutionally permitted as necessary for the public interest, and if compensation is provided.

The 2019 Amendment of the Land Administration Law of China spells out rather detailed guidelines, guaranteeing farmers and those displaced greater financial security.

[18] The liberalisation of the economy and the Government's initiative to set up special economic zones have led to many protests by farmers and have opened up a debate on the reinstatement of the fundamental right to private property.

Again, this is subject to exceptions where state deprivation of private possessions is in the general or public interest, is in accordance with law, and, in particular, to secure payment of taxes.

Settled case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) provides that just compensation has to be paid in cases of expropriation.

[20] In France, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen similarly mandates just and preliminary compensation before expropriation; and a déclaration d'utilité publique is commonly required, to demonstrate a public benefit.

[22] The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany states in its Article 14 (3) that "an expropriation is only allowed for the public good"[23] and just compensation must be made.

Esproprio – or more formally espropriazione per pubblica utilità ("expropriation for public utility") – in Italy takes place within the frame of civil law, as an expression of the potere ablatorio (ablative power).

Furthermore, the article 2 of the Constitution binds Italian citizens to respect their "mandatory duties of political, economic and social solidarity".

The implementation of the eminent domain follows two principles:[27] Nazionalizzazione ("nationalization"), instead, is provided for by article 43 of the Constitution; it transfers to governmental authority and property a whole industrial sector, if it is deemed to be a natural or de facto monopoly, and an essential service of public utility.

Article 33.3 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 allows forced expropriation (expropiación forzosa) only where justified on the grounds of public utility or social interest and subject to the payment of appropriate compensation as provided for in law.

Although he maintained absolute power over the land, he granted fiefs to landholders who served as stewards, paying fees and providing military services.

During the Hundred Years' War in the 14th century, Edward III used the Crown's right of purveyance for massive expropriations.

In spite of contrary statements found in some American law, in the United Kingdom, compulsory purchase valuation cases were tried by juries well into the 20th century, such as Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd (1919).

In England and Wales, and other jurisdictions that follow the principles of English law, the related term compulsory purchase is used.

The current statutes regulating compulsory purchase include: the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (8 & 9 Vict.

[40] Accordingly, the power does not extend to allow legislation designed merely to seek to extinguish the previous owner's title.

[41] The High Court of Australia interpreted this provision literally, relieving the Territory government of any public purpose limitation on the power.

[47][48] The term condemnation is used to describe the formal act of exercising the power to transfer title or some lesser interest in the subject property.

24, of the Chilean Constitution says in part, "In no case may anyone be deprived of his property, of the assets affected or any of the essential faculties or powers of ownership, except by virtue of a general or a special law which authorizes expropriation for the public benefit or the national interest, duly qualified by the legislator.