Частка у статутному капіталі господарського товариства (корпоративний пай) як об’єкт речових та договірних прав

This article is devoted to the study of the legal nature and essence of such an object of civil rights as a temporary structure for entrepreneurial activity (hereinafter referred to as the Temporary Structure). The issue of the legal nature of the temporary structure and its legal regime is relevant in today’s conditions, since the current legislation does not clearly define its legal status, including as an object of civil rights, which in turn creates legal uncertainty in the field of regulation of legal relations on the use of temporary structures. Therefore, special attention is paid to the clarification of the essence of the concept of Temporary Construction as an object of real legal relations through the prism of the current legislation on the basis of practical activity and scientific validity. The article analyzes the norms of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine «On Regulation of Urban Planning Activities», the Procedure for the Placement of Temporary Structures for Entrepreneurial Activity, which determine the concept and features of Temporary Structures, the procedure for their placement in cases determined by the current legislation of Ukraine, as well as the features and limits of the exercise of property rights in relation to the latter. Special attention was paid to the characteristic features of the Temporary Structure and the attribution of the latter to the relevant category of things in civil law. The author focuses on the importance of establishing the legal status of the Temporary Structure as an object of property rights. During the study, it was found that the Temporary Structure belongs to the category of things in civil law and acts as a specific object of law of both private and joint ownership. Based on the analysis of the norms of the current legislation, sources of scientific legal literature, and judicial practice, conclusions were made that allow us to consider that the Temporary Structure is a movable thing and a specific object of property rights. The specificity of this object lies in the fact that it has the characteristics of an object of ownership, but the latter does not have a clearly defined title owner. It was also concluded that the legal regime of the Temporary Structure today requires careful attention from the legislator, and therefore the only tool for improving the latter is a clear consolidation at the legislative level of the legal status of the Temporary Structure and the determination of its title owner, which will make it possible to unconditionally consider the Temporary Structure as an object of property rights and provide an effective mechanism for protecting the rights of their owners, as participants in civil legal relations.

The subject of this study is the norms of Spanish and Argentine civil law on objects of civil rights, which are things (cosas), property (propiedad) and objects of the “patrimonio” category, which have no analogue in Russian civil legislation. A distinctive feature of Spanish law is an open list of limited proprietary rights. Russian legislation contains a legal category of objects of civil rights, the content of which in terms of the ratio of legal categories of things, property and property rights is extremely ambiguous, in addition, the nature of the fixed list of property rights (open or closed) is also the subject of discussion. The civil legislation of Argentina provides a way to define an object of the material world as an object of civil rights without specifically specifying the norms of current legislation. It seems that this method will significantly facilitate the emergence of new civil rights not provided for by law, for example, digital or virtual objects. Moreover, Russian private international law is characterized by the problem of distinguishing between real and binding statutes. In any case, the legal regime of a thing is largely determined by the law of its location. The assets of the Russian Federation (its subjects) located on the territory of Spain can represent both property and obligation rights, which directly affects the extension of the principle of jurisdictional immunity to them.

This book is an abridged translation of the first volume of Gemeineuropäisches Sachenrecht—a milestone in European private law theory, and in comparative property law more broadly, which elaborates property law (the ‘law of things’) as a sub-discipline of European private law for the first time. The English version sets out the conceptual framework of ‘property law’ as a domain of erga omnes monopoly rights that govern the relationship between persons vis-à-vis objects of value. Within that framework, a reflexive relationship appears between property rights and their objects—in which property rights play a role in constituting the very objects (‘things’) in which they are held. With magisterial comparative scope, insights are gleaned from all the jurisdictions of the European Union (including those of the United Kingdom) and brought to bear on the subject matter without the monotony of parallel descriptions of national law. Instead, the property law of diverse legal systems is brought together in a single picture without contradiction or repetition: a systematic elaboration of the objects of property rights, the role that ‘rights’ and ‘things’ play in determining the province of ‘property law’, and various questions regarding the identification of things, their separation, alteration, or combination.

This article considers the challenges of using and protecting forest ecosystems as natural objects of Ukrainian property rights. It has been proved that as a result of unsystematic nature use and neglect of constitutional requirements, in Ukraine there is a significant decrease in the level not only of forest productivity, but also deterioration of the environment. The directions of the land ownership reform and its natural resources and management approaches in forest ecosystems through the prism of the national interests of Ukraine have been proposed.

The paper is devoted to the analysis of the place of absolute civil rights in the system of legal regulation of relations in merchant shipping. The main objectives of the study are to identify the role and general legal features of absolute civil rights exercised in the field of merchant shipping, as well as the search for optimal directions of improvement of civil legislation regulating the relevant relations.The paper characterizes the interaction between absolute and relative rights in the process of regulating relations in merchant shipping. It is established that property rights, due to their absolute nature, constitute the legal basis for the formation of legally binding relations under private and public law. In turn, the content of property rights is actively affected by public goals and tasks of legal regulation of relations arising in merchant shipping. For example, the extension of the status of an immovable property to a marine vessel is preconditioned due to the tasks of ensuring public policy in the field of commercial navigation. The author highlights the main material objects of property rights. Particular attention is paid to the peculiarities of the property law regime applied to the sea vessel and the objectives of establishing these peculiarities. The author summerizes the main normative and doctrinal approaches to the definition of the concept of a “vessel” and substantiates the necessity of a single normative consolidation of this concept in the legislation of the Russian Federation and international law instruments.The author differentiates between absolute and relative relations in the field of commercial navigation. The author substantiates the property and legal nature of the relationship arising with regard to sea vessel possession when the vessel is leased out, as well as possession of the cargo on board of the vessel. The author makes proposals concerning inclusion in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation of certain provisions on possession of a thing, as well as proposals on the development of special legal norms governing limited property rights to objects of merchant shipping.

Mining wastes have now acquired great economic importance, becoming a subject of civil law transactions. The issues of ownership of mining wastes as objects of civil law, despite their complex legal regime, are not regulated by the legislation of the Republic of Armenia, because of which problems arise in interpreting this issue at the theoretical level and within the framework of disputes triggering between the subsoil user and the state. The present article discusses the issues of ownership of mining wastes as objects of civil law in the legal relations of subsoil use. The basic concept of mining waste as an object of civil rights is mentioned, the subject of ownership of mining wastes, problems and gaps in national legislation concerning the exercise of powers that constitute the content of ownership rights are revealed. Further, disputes arising in law enforcement practice on the ownership of mining waste are studied and analyzed. Based on the analysis conducted in this article, proposals are presented aimed at clarifying the subject of ownership of mining waste and the moment of obtaining ownership upon mining wastes, as well as legislative regulation of the exercise of ownership rights to mining waste, which will be essential for resolving disputes arising between the subsoil user and the state in law enforcement practice. Mining wastes have now acquired great economic importance, becoming a subject of civil law transactions. The issues of ownership of mining wastes as objects of civil law, despite their complex legal regime, are not regulated by the legislation of the Republic of Armenia, because of which problems arise in interpreting this issue at the theoretical level and within the framework of disputes triggering between the subsoil user and the state. The present article discusses the issues of ownership of mining wastes as objects of civil law in the legal relations of subsoil use. The basic concept of mining waste as an object of civil rights is mentioned, the subject of ownership of mining wastes, problems and gaps in national legislation concerning the exercise of powers that constitute the content of ownership rights are revealed. Further, disputes arising in law enforcement practice on the ownership of mining waste are studied and analyzed. Based on the analysis conducted in this article, proposals are presented aimed at clarifying the subject of ownership of mining waste and the moment of obtaining ownership upon mining wastes, as well as legislative regulation of the exercise of ownership rights to mining waste, which will be essential for resolving disputes arising between the subsoil user and the state in law enforcement practice. Mining wastes have now acquired great economic importance, becoming a subject of civil law transactions. The issues of ownership of mining wastes as objects of civil law, despite their complex legal regime, are not regulated by the legislation of the Republic of Armenia, because of which problems arise in interpreting this issue at the theoretical level and within the framework of disputes triggering between the subsoil user and the state. The present article discusses the issues of ownership of mining wastes as objects of civil law in the legal relations of subsoil use. The basic concept of mining waste as an object of civil rights is mentioned, the subject of ownership of mining wastes, problems and gaps in national legislation concerning the exercise of powers that constitute the content of ownership rights are revealed. Further, disputes arising in law enforcement practice on the ownership of mining waste are studied and analyzed. Based on the analysis conducted in this article, proposals are presented aimed at clarifying the subject of ownership of mining waste and the moment of obtaining ownership upon mining wastes, as well as legislative regulation of the exercise of ownership rights to mining waste, which will be essential for resolving disputes arising between the subsoil user and the state in law enforcement practice.

The article reveals the requirements for immediate institutionalization of the current land norms of the Constitution of Ukraine as carried out over thirty years the so-called «land and agrarian reform» in Ukraine does not correspond to the declared land transactions, which aim at the development and real economic and legal strengthening of Ukrainian statehood. The aim of the article is to substantiate the basic principles of emergence of the system of property rights of the Ukrainian people to land and its natural resources in the accomplishment of land reform in New Ukraine as a new paradigm that develops at the highest quantum level understanding of the synergetic role legitimate interests of all citizens of Ukraine. The fundamental differences between the land norms of the Constitution of Ukraine (Articles 13, 14) and the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Articles 9) are revealed. It has been established that in the current hybrid environment of degradation and opposition to the development of the state by the unconstitutional corruption system, there is a need to unblock the resistance — in a constitutional way, by providing an immediate and fair official interpretation of the current constitutional land norms by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. It was found that due to the absence of a constitutionally declared special Law of Ukraine «On the Right to Use Natural Objects of Property Rights of the Ukrainian People» for a quarter of a century, the rights of their owner (all citizens of Ukraine) are violated and the unauthorized use of the nation’s capital occurs. As a result, the rights, duties and responsibilities of users of natural objects are not standardized, as well as full-fledged requirements for their rational use and protection on a paid basis in accordance with established regulations. The necessity of urgent introduction of land reform to date is proved — in the current constitutional field of Ukraine, ensuring the institutionalization of constitutional norms regarding the land and its natural resources as natural objects of the property rights of the Ukrainian people and the main national wealth, which is under special protection of the state. It is proposed to adopt a number of relevant laws and regulations.

The ability of an authorized person to exercise their rights without restrictions can lead to arbitrariness, negatively impacting the stability and resilience of the civil law system, as well as the ability of other entities to exercise their property rights. This is unacceptable in a rule-of-law state. Therefore, in the context of a legal state, it is necessary to develop and establish an effective mechanism for limiting property rights, one that ensures a balance between the property interests of authorized persons and the opposing rights of other individuals and the interests of society. Such limitations should promote stability, the proper development of property rights for individuals, and their appropriate exercise. Restrictions on individuals’ property rights can prevent unlawful behavior for the sake of societal interests and the rights of other authorized persons. When setting limitations, the nature of subjective civil rights must be taken into account, as they are more fundamental and primary compared to restrictions. The essence of subjective civil rights, which are exercised at the discretion of the individual, must be preserved, provided that this does not contradict important societal interests or the rights of other authorized persons. At the same time, the fulfillment of private interests, which are prioritized, should be ensured as much as possible. To this end, when imposing restrictions on the property rights of individuals, it is essential to consider the phenomena and regularities in the development of property rights, as well as the interests of other individuals and society. This idea involves the necessity of proportionate restrictions on property rights, aiming for a sufficient level of limitation while maintaining the ability to exercise property rights, considering the rights of others and societal interests. The limitations on individuals’ property rights should be based on key principles such as proportionality, reasonableness, legality, and social orientation. The application of these fundamental ideas in legal regulation helps protect the rights of individuals and ensures their proper exercise in compliance with the rights of all subjects of civil law. A promising and practically significant approach to identifying the specific characteristics of restrictions on individuals’ property rights, according to Ukraine’s civil law system, is their classification within the major civil law institutions that govern property rights (property law, contract law, non-contractual obligations, and inheritance law). One of the prerequisites for establishing restrictions on individuals’ property rights is the public interest or societal necessity that justifies limiting an individual’s rights.

The article analyzes the issues of the civil-legal nature of information, approaches to understanding it as an object of civil rights, an object of intellectual property rights, analyzes the compliance of the legislative definition and the content of the legal category «information». The processes of digital transformation that have covered Ukraine in the last decade have led to dramatic changes in the understanding of the legal essence of information. Information ceases to be a simple collection of data on actions and events, instead it becomes an important economic resource, acquires signs of goods, due to the development of technology, it is increasingly separated from its source. It is such processes that lead to scientific research in the field of current understanding of information. Not any information is endowed with the features of the object of civil relations, the object of intellectual property rights, and therefore it is considered important to distinguish those characteristics and characteristics that will be the basis for assigning information to an object whose right requires recognition and protection. To the signs already proposed by scientists in similar studies is added to this article a sign of «content,» which disassociates data that do not contain value from data that should receive legal protection. The article analyzes the current legislation in order to determine the necessary and sufficient signs for assigning certain information to the legal category «information.» Such characteristics will provide an opportunity to extend the relevant legal regime to this data. The article attempts to determine the grounds for assigning information to one of the following types for choosing a legal regime for regulating the treatment of relevant data: information as an object of intellectual property, information as an information product in a wide sense andinformation as a specific information product of a certain type.

The article discusses the issues of the modern development of the system of objects of civil rights under the influence of innovative technologies. The article studies the question of the meaning of definition and the list of objects of civil rights. The author reasons the understanding of the object of civil rights as goods. The article analyses changes to the list of objects of civil rights in connection with the exclusion of information from it and the inclusion of intellectual property and “white” digital objects. The article sequentially analyses the current situation of objects that could potentially become objects of civil rights in the future – “gray” digital objects, personal data and objects of somatic rights.

This Article examines the -symbiotic relationship between copyright and contract law. The intellectual property bargain, or the delicate balance that allegedly exists in current intellectual property law, cannot be seen merely as a matter of a balance stated in property law rules. An interaction between intellectual property and contract has always been a primary characteristic of intellectual property distributed in the open market and that interaction is central to whatever balance has been achieved. When one speaks about an existing balance in the property rights sector, it is futile to focus solely on the statutory provisions of the copyright, patent or trademark laws. One must, of necessity, understand and incorporate the fact that the policy choice has always assumed that property rights are routinely transferred, waived, released, and licensed. Only the most naive observer, or one with a clear political agenda, can look at the intellectual property laws and their history and suggest that policy in the property sphere trumps or precludes the influence of contract. In contractual relationships, underlying property rights are often relatively unimportant. They provide rules that state a legal position that exists between the contracting parties unless the parties otherwise agree. Contract law provides other default rules. In the digital world, the contract rather than the underlying property law defines the product. This being said, however, there are some settings in which contract law, intellectual property, or competition law place limits on the ability to enforce some contract terms. This Article explores some of these areas and describes their limited role in modem commerce.

This study aims to analyze and determine the criteria for intellectual property rights (copyright) as objects of inheritance in civil law and to analyze and determine the status of intellectual property rights (copyright) as objects of inheritance in civil law. Intellectual property rights are material rights, rights to objects originating from the work of the brain, the result of the work of the ratio. The result of the work of reasoning human ratios. The result of his work is in the form of immaterial objects, intangible objects, for example, copyrighted songs. Article 16 paragraph (1) Law no. 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright stipulates that by its nature copyright is an intangible movable object. Immaterial property rights are property rights whose objects are intangible objects (intangible objects). In this case many things can be used as objects of property rights which are included in the scope of incorporeal objects. For example, billing rights, rights arising from the issuance of securities, rental rights and so on. The results of the study concluded that copyright (copy rights) which is part of Intellectual Property Rights has criteria as an object of inheritance, because copyright law determines copyright as an intangible movable object that gives moral rights and economic rights to its creators which are exclusive which can be transferred to his heirs. Copyright (copy rights) which is part of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) according to civil law has the position of an object of inheritance, because the law of inheritance is regulated in book II of the Civil Code which regulates objects. Inheritance object according to civil law is an object that is the property of someone who died.

Introduction: on October 1, 2019, Article 141.1 “Digital rights” was introduced into the Civil Code by Federal law No. 34-FZ of 18.03.2019. Since January 1, 2020, the so-called utilitarian digital rights have been introduced into civil circulation. In connection with such significant changes in the objects of civil rights, there appears a need for a thorough analysis of innovations in terms of their feasibility and necessity. The tasks set by the author correspond to the goal of analyzing the legal regime of digital rights: to conduct a comparative analysis of securities, primarily non-documentary ones, and digital rights. Methods: the methodological framework for the research is a set of methods of scientific knowledge, among which the main ones are the methods of historicism, systematicity, analysis, and comparison. Results: the paper examines the category “digital rights” introduced in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the special legislation regulating the utilitarian digital rights. The comparison of nondocumentary securities and utilitarian digital rights is made. The author studied the property rights that might be the content of digital rights, as well as the specifics of fixing digital rights in comparison with non-documentary securities, and the specifics of transferring digital rights from one person to another. A new non-documentary nonemissive security that mediates the circulation of digital rights – the digital certificate – is studied. Conclusions: the paper substantiates the inexpediency of introducing such an object of civil rights as digital rights into the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The conclusion is made about the excessive complexity of the structure of digital rights and digital certificates, as well as the difficulties of using them for the investment purposes.

The article examines the phenomenon of legal identification as a key element of the legal regulation mechanism. The author analyzes the content and forms of identification concerning subjects, objects, and recipients of legal prescriptions, revealing its significance for ensuring legal certainty and the effectiveness of law enforcement. Particular attention is paid to the identification of citizens and officials, including police officers, as well as identification processes concerning objects of civil rights, such as plots of land. Statistical data from judicial practice regarding disputes related to cadastral registration and the establishment of land boundaries are presented. In conclusion, the necessity of forming a unified approach to identification within the legal system and improving regulatory regulation in the context of the digitization of social relations is emphasized. The research methodology includes legal-theoretical, systemic, and comparative legal approaches, analysis of judicial practice, and statistical data. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the comprehensive examination of the phenomenon of legal identification as a key mechanism of legal regulation, encompassing both subjects and objects of legal relations. The author proposes a conceptual understanding of the phenomenon of identification. The study reveals the importance of legal identification for ensuring the clarity of norm application, preventing legal conflicts, and enhancing the effectiveness of law enforcement. Furthermore, the novelty of the research lies in substantiating the need to form unified approaches to identification and improve regulatory regulation taking into account the digitization of social relations, which has not previously been comprehensively addressed in domestic legal science. The author's analysis shows that insufficient unification of identification procedures leads to legal uncertainty and increases the risks of disputes arising in both the public interest sphere and private legal relations.

In this article, a study is conducted on the interaction of intellectual property law with branches of private law. In particular, the interaction of intellectual property law with civil law is substantiated. Intellectual property law acts as a sub-branch of civil law, respectively, the subject of legal regulation also consists of property and personal non-property relations that develop with respect to intellectual property objects. In turn, the exclusive right to intellectual property belongs to the category of property rights, and as a subjective right is one of the objects of civil rights. Some provisions of the article are devoted to the analysis of intellectual property rights with the institute of non-contractual obligations. Often, the creation of intellectual property objects is the subject of competitive obligations, and copyright holders may be harmed as a result of torts. Exclusive rights also act as the subject of inheritance and inheritance law, exclusive rights can be the subject of hereditary legal relations, which is also reflected in the content of the article. The issues of interaction of intellectual property law with private international law are touched upon, since intellectual property law is one of the institutions of private international law, which provides for conflict-of-laws regulation of relations complicated by a foreign element [1]. The uniqueness of intellectual property rights is also manifested in connection with labor law, since the subject of interaction is relations regarding official works and inventions, which, as a rule, are determined by an employment contract, but require compliance with special legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan [1]. The article analyzes the interaction of intellectual property law with family law, since exclusive rights and intellectual property objects, being property, can be the subject of family legal relations.