Award (mining)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ceremony , also lending , investiture or confirmation , according to the French mining law also Concession , called, is a sovereign act, the in mining , the Mining Authority performs. The term as such comes from the old mining law . At the award, the mother is given mine ownership. This gives the mother the right to appropriate the minerals and natural resources in the lent mine field . As a rule, the award gives an unlimited right to extract the respective mineral resource in the field awarded. At the same time, the lending removes the landowner's right of disposal over these mineral resources .

Basics

Because of the mountain shelf recorded in Germany for the first time in 1158 by Emperor Barbarossa , every mining operator was entitled, under certain conditions, to dig for minerals and also to extract them . He was allowed to do this on his own property as well as on third-party property without having to ask the property owner for permission. In order for the mining company executed these activities in the legal framework, it required certain mining law regulations. In order to dig for certain minerals, the miner needed a digging license . The extraction of the respective minerals required the award. Although the granting under mining law was also referred to as a loan, it had nothing in common with the loan used in feudal affairs. The term loan was taken over from the feudal system, but no loan contract came about through the loan in the sense of mining law. This was due to the fact that mine buildings were not lent under the condition of fidelity, and mine ownership was also part of the allodial property .

The first awards were made in Schneeberg on May 3, 1316 at the beginning of the 14th century . The award was always based on the mountain regulations of the respective country. Authorized to make these awards was an official appointed by the ruler and designated in the respective mining regulations. According to the Kuttenberger Bergordnung, this was the royal Urburer, according to Freiberg mining law the supreme mountain master , according to the Schläminger Bergbrief the mountain judge and according to the statutes of the Harz forest thing the forester . As a rule, mining rights for certain metals were awarded here. The granting of hard coal was only regulated in Prussia in the 16th century with the first Bergordnung of April 27, 1542 for the county of Mark . Due to this mountain order, the first award ceremony in Grafschaft Mark was made in 1637 in Obersprockhövel . However, until the beginning of the 18th century, due to the lack of mountain supervision, there were only indeterminate lending of unmeasured mine fields in the county of Mark . In addition to the granting of mining rights, there was also the granting of the hereditary tunnel right . However, the award of an Erbstollen was linked to certain requirements. According to the Freiberg Bergordnung (Bergordnung), the permission of the sovereign was required for the granting of an inheritance tunnel. Some mining regulations require a separate award for the operation of washing and stamping works and the associated trenches.

Conditions under mining law

The legal path to the award was given by the respective mountain regulations. The principle applied here was that it was not the property owner but the first finder who had a right to be granted mine ownership. Had someone a deposit erschürft, he could at the responsible mining officials, the presumption insert it. For this he had to prove the building worthiness of the deposit. In order to guarantee this, he was obliged to expose this supposed deposit to such an extent that the responsible mining officer or a mining officer commissioned by him could convince himself of the existence of the deposit. This inspection of the site was referred to as a discovery tour according to the Prussian mountain regulations . In addition, he had to break out a manual step, i.e. a piece of the mineral from the deposit, and present it to the mining authorities as evidence. The award took place when the building worthiness of the deposit was proven and older claims did not conflict with the award. With the award, the mother then received the award certificate .

Deadlines

The mother was required to report his find to the mining authority immediately and to ask for it to be awarded. According to the Ferdinandean Mountain Regulations, he had three days to do so. Other mountain orders granted the mother longer periods. As a rule, there was a period of two weeks (with some mining offices up to four weeks), calculated from the day of the request, to request the award. The award took place after the application and the inspection by a mountain official. The obligation to notify was prejudicial according to the mining law, this meant for the mother that the expectation expired as powerless when the deadline had passed. Since the request for the award could only be submitted on certain days , the mother was given a few days of grace. If the expectation was made shortly before or shortly after the rental days, the period was only calculated from the rental day. According to the old mountain regulations, the award itself always took place on the day of the award.

Extension of the deadline

If a mother was unable to submit the application on time due to adverse circumstances, such as storms, snowfall or water ingress into the treasure trove, he could request an extension of the deadline from the mining authority. The Mining Authority then checked whether the obstacles could be removed in the foreseeable future and usually approved the extension of the deadline. This administrative act cost the mother a fee of a dime. A total of up to three requests for an extension of the deadline could be made. After the third extension of the deadline, the so-called courtesy slip was deposited in the mountain book, which effectively reserved the award for the mother. In order to avoid unnecessary blockages of the sites, the respective mother was obliged to pay an extension fee of one groschen every quarter on the rental days . If the mother did not pay the fee, his claim to the muted fief was forfeited and the deposit could be acquired by another mother. If several Kux owners were involved in a treasure trove , the extension of the deadline could only be granted if all shareholders were in agreement. If a shareholder did not comply with the request by the mining authority to pay his contribution within a period of four weeks, his share was transferred to the other owners.

Pit size

The size of the lent mining field varied from state to state. As a rule, the pit fields for metal-containing minerals were divided into narrower, elongated fields, and for fuels such as hard coal or lignite, larger pit fields were allocated. In ore mining, common sizes were the quarter field and the length field . The size of the allocated field was also dependent on the optimal yield of the respective mineral resource. Another aspect was the local situation. Fields that were located in mountainous areas were dimensioned more generously than fields in the lowlands due to the valleys and the resulting interruption of the deposit. In addition, natural boundaries such as B. Streams and rivers play a role in the conferred field size.

Visual inspection of the deposit

Before the mining authority granted Muter the mining license, the site was inspected by the miner or by a mountain jury. The reason for the inspection was an examination of the site for building worthiness and whether the deposit had really been exposed. The surface exposure of the deposit could be dispensed with in the case of deposits that were already partially accessible through tunnels or routes. In addition, the observance of the distances to other treasure troves was checked and checked that no third party would be impaired in their mining activities. This inspection, during which the building worthiness of the deposit was checked, was called a field inspection . When permits were issued for the first time, a mark was made in the rock by the mountain jury at the site where the deposit was exposed for the first time. This marking was used as evidence during later reviews or in the event of a dispute. In the case of pits that had already been checked once but then fell into the open mountain range , a new deposit check was not carried out when mining activity resumed.

Further formalities

In early mining, the award was sealed with an oath. After the miner had arrived at the treasure trove, he asked the first mother: " Which mine is yours, which passage is rich in ore? " The mother then pointed with his finger at the place of discovery. The mountain master then instructed Muter to step to the reel and to swear two fingers on his right hand and to speak the oath:

“I swear by God and all the saints and call them to witness that this walk is mine, and on top of that,
if it is not mine, then this is not my head, and this hand of mine will no longer serve its purpose in future. "

Only after the swearing-in was the treasure trove measured by the miner .

Duration of the mining license

The entitlement (mining license) was usually unlimited in time and only expired when the deposit was exhausted. In certain cases, however, a time limit of between ten and fifty years was also possible. This type of authorization was comparable to a time lease. To ensure that no overexploitation was carried out even in the case of temporary leases , these building plots were subject to special supervision by the mining authority. If a mother was able to register a preferential right to an extension of the contract despite the time limit, these pits were viewed as if the fields were leased for an indefinite period of time, as in this case it was assumed that the miners were careful in the exploitation of the deposit.

A third variant was the granting of conditions, the mining license on revocation. Here certain conditions were imposed on the owner of the mine for the mining license when it was granted. If he did not comply with these conditions, the mining authority was authorized to withdraw the mining license from the owner. In order to avoid arbitrariness here, the head of the mining authority was urged to do this only after careful examination.

Differences in legal terms

As a rule, the terms loan , award and confirmation were classified as synonymous in the mining laws. In some mountain areas , especially in particularly large ones, the award differed from the confirmation. Since the miner was not always able to drive directly to the newly muted deposits, he had subordinates to lend him. They drove into the pits and lent the building plots. On certain working days of the miner they reported the awards to the miner, who then issued the confirmation. Another distinction was made in some mining areas according to the type of mining activity. Depending on the type of activity, a distinction was made between awarding and concession . In terms of the matter, both were permits that established mine ownership. While the applicant was granted the right of ownership and full approval for the extraction and further use of all mineral resources, the concession was limited to only a portion of the mine. The concession granted the loaner the right to build a separate building, e.g. B. to open an auxiliary shaft or an auxiliary tunnel in order to enable necessary measures for own or third-party mines that were necessary for the mine operation. These services could include ventilation of the mine workings or dewatering. The extraction of the usable minerals, the material or the spoil mountains fell under the approval of a concession.

Current regulations

In modern mining, too, the award is regulated in the mining laws. The first changes in the legal interpretation of the award came with the entry into force of the general Prussian mining law of 1865. There were significant changes, particularly with regard to better rights of third parties. According to the new mining law regulations, any rights of third parties are taken into account in the award procedure. For this reason, a so-called closing date is set before the award ceremony, on which all those who have conflicting rights or believe they have conflicting rights are invited. After the hearing, the mining authority decides whether to grant or refuse the award. Objections to the decision can then be lodged with the court within three months. If the deadline is not used, the resolution is legally valid. Another significant change is that the mother no longer has to prove that it is worth building, but only that it has been found. The law also abolished lending days. The award document will be made public.

The regulations of the Federal Mining Act (BBergG) have been in force in Germany since 1980 . The granting of mines by the mining authorities regulates and controls in which area an authorization holder is allowed to search for and mine which mined natural resources. Although the formalism is no longer as strictly regulated as it was in early mining, even today applications for a mining license must be in writing. The guidelines required for this are regulated nationwide by the responsible state ministries. With regard to the forms of authorization, a distinction is made between permission and authorization . In some areas, however, old rights still apply; these are forms of authorization derived from the old Prussian mining law.

In Austria , the mineral raw materials law applies to the prospecting and extraction of mineral raw materials. This law regulates the granting of mining authorizations. A mining authorization is granted by the authority on request to natural and legal persons. The law also regulates the allocation of pit dimensions. In any case, anyone who wants to go into mining must first submit an application to the competent authority. The authority then grants the requested mining permits after a prior examination of the application.

literature

Individual evidence

  1. ^ A b c Heinrich Veith: German mountain dictionary with evidence. Published by Wilhelm Gottlieb Korn, Breslau 1871.
  2. ↑ Explanatory dictionary of the technical art and foreign words that occur in the mining industry, in metallurgy and in salt works . Falkenberg'schen Buchhandlung publishing house, Burgsteinfurt 1869.
  3. ↑ a b c Carl Hartmann: Concise dictionary of the mountain, hut and Saltwork science of mineralogy and geognosy. Third volume, 2nd edition, Bernhard Friedrich Voigt bookstore, Weimar 1860, pp. 364–370.
  4. ↑ a b c Oswald Hoppe: The silver mining in Schneeberg up to the year 1500. Inaugural dissertation from the University of Heidelberg. Gerlachsche Buchdruckerei, Freiberg 1908.
  5. ^ Walter Bischoff , Heinz Bramann, Westfälische Berggewerkschaftskasse Bochum: The small mining dictionary. 7th edition. Glückauf Verlag, Essen 1988, ISBN 3-7739-0501-7 .
  6. ^ A b c Tilo Cramm: The mining between Dortmund-Syburg and Schwerte. Friends of Mining Historic Sites Ruhrrevier eV, Dortmund Working Group (publisher). Uwe Nolte printing company, Dortmund / Iserlohn 2010.
  7. ^ R. Willecke, G. Turner: Grundriß des Bergrechts. 2nd revised and expanded edition, Springer-Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, Berlin 1970, pp. 7-14.
  8. ^ Joachim Huske: The coal mining in the Ruhr area from its beginnings to the year 2000. 2nd edition. Regio-Verlag Peter Voß, Werne 2001, ISBN 3-929158-12-4 .
  9. ↑ a b c d Kurt Pfläging: The cradle of Ruhr coal mining. 4th edition. Glückauf Verlag, Essen 1987, ISBN 3-7739-0490-8 .
  10. ↑ a b c d Adolf Arndt, Kuno Frankenstein (ed.): Handbook and textbook of political science in separate volumes. First Department of Economics XI. Volume mining and mining policy . Published by CL Hirschfeld, Leipzig 1894.
  11. ^ A b c d Paul Martin Kreßner: Systematic outline of the mining rights in Germany with excellent consideration for the Kingdom of Saxony. Bookstore JG Engelhardt, Freiberg 1858.
  12. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j Christian Heinrich Gottlieb Hake: Commentary on mining law. Kommerzienrath JE v. Seidel art and bookstore, Sulzbach 1823.
  13. ↑ a b c d e f g h Heinrich Achenbach: The common German mining law in connection with the Prussian mining law taking into account the mining laws of Bavaria, Saxony, Austria and other countries . First part, from Adolph Marcus, Bonn 1871.
  14. ↑ Manfred Spata: The Muller mine map from the year 1775. In: The cut. 44, 1992, No. 1-2, pp. 18-19.
  15. ↑ Kurt Pfläging: Stein's journey through coal mining on the Ruhr. 1st edition. Geiger Verlag, Horb am Neckar 1999, ISBN 3-89570-529-2 .
  16. ↑ Wilfried Ließmann: Historical mining in the Harz. 3. Edition. Springer Verlag, Berlin / Heidelberg 2010, ISBN 978-3-540-31327-4 .
  17. ^ A b Hermann Brassert (ed.), H. Achenbach: Journal for mining law . Eighth year, published by Adolph Marcus, Bonn 1867, pp. 242–244.
  18. ^ Max Joseph Gritzner: Commentary on the Ferdinandeische Bergordnung from 1553. In Praumüller and Seidel, Vienna 1842.
  19. ↑ Julius Anton Schomburg: Considerations on the newer German mining legislation with regard primarily to Austria, Prussia, Saxony and Thuringia in connection with the printed mining law of the Grand Duchy of Saxony of June 22, 1857 . Voigt & Günther, Leipzig 1857.
  20. ↑ a b Georg Agricola: Twelve books on mining and metallurgy. Fourth book: Of the mine fields and of the miners' offices. In commission VDI-Verlag, Berlin.
  21. ^ A b c d Gustav von Gränzstein: The general Austrian mining law of 23 May 1854 and the ordinances on mining taxes. Published by Friedrich Manz, Vienna 1855.
  22. ^ A b Wirtschaftsvereinigung Bergbau eV: The mining manual. 5th edition. Glückauf Verlag, Essen 1994, ISBN 3-7739-0567-X .
  23. ↑ a b General mining law for the Prussian states. In force on October 1, 1865. Verlag von RL Friderichs, Elberfeld 1865.
  24. ↑ Federal Ministry of Justice (Ed.): Federal Mining Act of August 13, 1980, last amended by Article 15a of the Act of July 31, 2009 ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 2585 ).
  25. ↑ Mineral Raw Materials Act - MinroG. In: Federal Law Gazette for the Republic of Austria. Year 1999, part 1, published on January 19, 1999.

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ According to the old mining regulations of the 16th century, the prospector was not allowed to dig under the apartment (table, bed and fireplace) on foreign land. In the newer mining laws, the prospecting right was further restricted. (Source: Christian Heinrich Gottlieb Hake: Commentary on mining law. )
  2. ↑ According to the newer mining laws, however, the property owner had to be informed by the prospector where he wanted to prospect. The land owner also had to consent to prospecting. In the event of a dispute, the competent authority had to decide. (Source: Carl Johann Bernhard Karstene: Outline of German mining law doctrine, taking into account French mining legislation. )