Leon Glikman`s comment in daily business news of the 22nd of June 2017 on the construction of guest apartments
Estonian daily business news newspaper „Äripäev“ asked attorney-at-law Leon Glikman to comment on the recent issue that arose in Nõmme regarding the construction of guest apartments. According to Leon Glikman it is only possible to restrict the owner`s constitutional right to decide appropriate actions with his or her land in cases where there is overwhelming public interest or if rights of the neighbors are violated.„The law provides an owner with the right to use land for business purposes according to his or her discretion. Conflicting rights are balanced mainly in planning proceedings where everyone has the right to present objections and challenge the planning“ finds Leon Glikman in his comment.
Leon Glikman does not see a particular difference between a neighboring home and a guest apartment, as both are used by people and everyone has the right to freely give his or her home to otter people´s use. „The developer builds in order to later sell and rent out the premises. The controversy with the state construction register may mean that the interests of the developer have changed in time and the registry entry has not been updated“ explains Glikman.
The article is available in the „Äripäev“ of the 22nd of June 2017: http://www.aripaev.ee/uudised/2017/06/22/poore-kinnisvaraarendusel-spordihotellist-sai-kodu-nommel
Leon Glikman – professional debater
In Äripäev’s lifestyle magazine Gentleman, a thorough article about Leon Glikman was published.
Leon Glikman participated in EBS’s Executive MBA program’s legal themed lecture series as guest lecturer
Leon Glikman: the matter of immigrants should be put to referendum
he matter of accepting immigrants should be put to referendum, finds Leon Glikman, attorney-at-law. “Forcing the immigrants on a poor country like Estonia is immoral, as the country is not able to meet the needs of its own citizens struggling under the tax burden,” he said.
Leon Glikman’s chapter in the book “Statute of Limitations in International Commercial Claims“
Leon Glikman analyzes limitation periods valid in Estonia.
Leon Glikman: The everlasting worry about the protection of fundamental rights
Leon Glikman writes about fundamental rights in Eesti Päevaleht and why it is so important to protect them, finding that “Inexpert statements, as “I have nothing to hide” and “no one can blame the innocent” are very common and used for justifying the toleration of wire-tapping.”
Leon Glikman: Sometimes it must be allowed to pay a bribe
Another angle of bribe: Companies are bound to communicate with officials in their comfort zone in order to develop their economic activities.
Leon Glikman: Why I’m not requesting the authorization for state secrecy
Why I’m not requesting the authorization for state secret? Attorney-at-law does not risk with the professional secrecy.
Leon Glikman: Administration ofjustice from another planet
Leon Glikman talks about administration of justice: I’ve often been asked if it’s worth protecting one’s rights in court and my answer has always been “yes”.
Kredex Krediidikindlustuse AS wins in Circuit Court
Leon Glikman was appointed as conciliator to the ICSID by the Republic of Estonia.
Leon Glikman comments on money laundering and the prevention of terrorism on the edition of "Äripäev"
Leon Glikman commented the options of recovery on the example of major bancruptcy cases he has advised
Leon Glikman commented the options of recovery on the example of major bancruptcy cases he has advised.
Chambers Global awarded GLIKMAN ALVIN the highest ranking
Chambers Global, one of the most prestigious law firm publications in the world, has again provided Law Firm GLIKMAN ALVIN with the highest assessment.
GLIKMAN ALVIN sucessfully acted for AS KredEx Krediidikindlustus in a large insurance dispute with an Estonian manufacturer of glazed fascades
GLIKMAN ALVIN sucessfully acted for AS KredEx Krediidikindlustus in a large insurance dispute with an Estonian manufacturer of glazed fascades.The quantum of the dispute was close to €14 million and ended in all claims against our client being rejected.