To the problem of determining the object of property legal relationship
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.143.147234Keywords:
the right to property, possessions, thing, property rights, the object of property legal relationship, principle of peaceful enjoyment of possessions, propertyAbstract
The article deals with the problems of establishing the object of legal relationship property. A systematic analysis of the provisions of the domestic civil law allowed to conclude that the rules of Part 2 of Art. 190 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (CCU) represent a "stillborn" and dangerous rule, which is alien to the domestic legal system relating to the Roman-German legal family. The aforementioned norm is absolutely inappropriate in the system of property rights, its application can lead to legal chaos, and therefore it should be abolished. The objects of the property legal relationship should be attributed exclusively to things. The term “possessions”, which is used in Section 1 of Book 3 of the CCU, should be interpreted restrictively, meaning such a thing or a set of things (which corresponds to domestic legal traditions). The proposed interpretation of the term “possessions” as an object of legal relationship property is also justified by the fact that, despite the presence of its legal definition, it is filled with different meanings in various chapters and paragraphs of the CCU.
Study norms art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR) and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights suggests that the principle of "peaceful enjoyment of possessions" applies to possessions relationship (in the broad sense of these words), while possessions relationship and property relationship are related to both generic and species concepts. It emphasizes the “autonomy”, self-support and independence of the concept of “possessions”, enshrined in the ECHR from views based on the national laws of the countries parties to the ECHR. Consequently, there is no need to artificially expand the list of objects of legal relationship of private property "to eliminate contradictions" between national civil law and art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR, because such are absent.
References
Alekseev, S.S. (1982). Obshhaja teorija prava. (Vols. 1–2; Vol. 2). Moscow: Jurid. lit-ra [in Russian].
Amfiteatrov, G.N. (1945). O prave lichnoj sobstvennosti. Socialisticheskaja zakonnost', 8, 10–16 [in Russian].
Vasil’ev, Ju.S. (1984). Pravo gosudarstvennoj socialisticheskoj sobstvennosti. Moscow [in Russian].
Venediktov, A.V. (1948). Gosudarstvennaja socialisticheskaja sobstvennost’. Moscow-Leningrad: Izdat-vo AN SSSR [in Russian].
Eveckij, A. (1880). Princip prava sobstvennosti po teorii novejshih civilistov. Zhurnal grazhdanskogo i ugolovnogo prava, 6, 140–148 [in Russian].
Ioffe, O.S. (2000). Izbrannye trudy po grazhdanskomu pravu: Iz istorii civilisticheskoj mysli. Grazhdanskoe pravootnoshenie. Kritika teorii «hozjajstvennogo prava». Moscow: Statut [in Russian].
Karss-Frisk, M., Zherebcov, A.N., Merkulov, V.V. et al. (2002). Evropejskaja konvencija o zashhite prav cheloveka i osnovnyh svobod. Stat’ja 1 Protokola № 1. Pravo na sobstvennost’. Moscow [in Russian].
Konventsiia pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod. URL: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004.
Kurdinovskij, V.I. (1899). K ucheniju o legal’nyh ogranichenijah prava sobstvennosti na nedvizhimost’ v Rossii. Odessa: «Jekonomicheskaja» tipografija [in Russian].
Maslov, V.F. (1961). Osushhestvlenie i zashhita prava lichnoj sobstvennosti v SSSR. Moscow: Gosjurizdat [in Russian].
Nol’de, A.Je. (1904). Obzor novejshih uchenij o prave sobstvennosti. Vestnik prava, 7, 54–102 [in Russian].
Pravo sobstvennosti v Ukraine. (1996). Ja.N. Shevchenko (Ed.). Kiev: Blic-Inform [in Russian].
Pro vykonannia rishen ta zastosuvannia praktyky Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny: Zakon Ukrainy vid 23.02.2006 r. № 3477-IV. (2006). Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy, 30, art. 260.
Rishennia YeSPL vid 13.06.1979 r. u spravi «Marks (Marckx) proty Belhii». URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-104012 [in Ukrainian].
Rishennia YeSPL vid 21.02.1986 r. u spravi "Dzheims ta inshi proty Spoluchenoho Korolivstva" (Case of James and others v. the United Kingdom). URL: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/980_180 [in Ukrainian].
Rishennia YeSPL vid 23.07.1999 r. u spravi «Immobiliare Saffi» proty Italii» (Case of Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy). URL: http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/980_075 [in Ukrainian].
Rishennia YeSPL vid 23.01.2014 r. u spravi «East/West Alliance Limited» proty Ukrainy». URL: http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_994 [in Ukrainian].
Rishennia YeSPL vid 23.09.1982 r. u spravi "Sporrong i Lonnrot proty Shvetsii" (Case of Sporrong and Lonnroth v. Sweden). URL: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/980_098 [in Ukrainian].
Rishennia YeSPL vid 8.11.2005 r. u spravi «Kechko proty Ukrainy». URL: http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_025 [in Ukrainian].
Sklovskij, K.I. (2000). Sobstvennost’ v grazhdanskom prave. Moscow: Delo [in Russian].
Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy v 11 tomakh (1970–1980). URL: http://www.inmo.org.ua/sum.html [in Ukrainian].
Suhanov, E.A. (1991). Lekcii o prave sobstvennosti. Moscow: Jurid. lit. [in Russian].
Tolstoj, Ju.K. (1992). K ucheniju o prave sobstvennosti. Pravovedenie, 1, 15–23 [in Russian].
Halfina, R.O. (1974). Obshhee uchenie o pravootnoshenii. Moscow: Jurid. lit. [in Russian].
Tsyvilnyi kodeks Ukrainy. (2003). Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy, 40–44, art. 356.
Shershenevich, G.F. (1914). Uchebnik russkogo grazhdanskogo prava. (Vols. 1–2; Vol. 1). Moscow: Izd-vo br. Bashmakovyh [in Russian].
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Олексій Миколайович Соловйов
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
