Property turnover digitalisation: Interdisciplinary problems of post-classical jurisprudence

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.

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.

The article aims to define the legal nature and characteristics of a share in the authorized capital of a business entity as a specific object of property and contractual rights. The relevance of the research topic is because the analysis of Ukrainian corporate legislation does not provide a direct answer to the question of what the object of corporate investment is, and this creates difficulties in understanding both the essence and structure of legal relations arising from a person’s contribution to the charter capital of a business entity. Even though corporate relations have specifics, they are civil relations and should be considered within the framework of established civil law structures. The object of legal relations is a necessary element of the structure of legal relations. The objects of legal relations in which a person acquires a share in the charter capital of a legal entity and corporate rights instead of a contribution are a contribution (property) owned by a participant based on a right in rem (usually based on ownership), a share in the charter capital and corporate rights. A share in the charter capital of a business entity is a specific object in the field of property and contract law, which necessitates a special legal regime for it. The authors conclude that it is a share in the charter capital of a business entity that is the object of civil rights. The specificity of this object is determined by the fact that a share is a tradable property proper, which allows it to be an object of property rights and a subject matter of contract law. In property law, a share in the charter capital belongs to the shareholder who has contributed to the charter capital of a business entity. If a shareholder of a business entity is married and has contributed at the expense of the marital property, the share in the charter capital belongs to the spouses based on the right of joint ownership. Understanding a share as an object of property rights provides a company participant with substantive legal mechanisms for exercising and protecting its right to a share (full powers and protection through substantive legal claims). In contract law, the specifics of a share as an object of civil rights affect the determination of the moment of transfer of ownership under a contract. In this regard, the legislation should state as a rule that the moment of transfer of ownership of a share in the authorized capital under a contract is determined by the moment of its conclusion unless otherwise provided by the contract. Keywords: share in the charter capital of a business entity, corporate rights, real law, contract law, right of joint and several ownership, remedies in rem, subject matter of a contract, object of civil rights.

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.

Introduction. In the present day, the issue of fakes has evolved beyond its legal implications, encompassing socio-economic, psychological and political connotations, thus turning a threat to human rights and freedoms, transforming person’s worldview and sense of identity in a new digital world and endangering public and national interests. If the phenomenon of “fake” or digital image is integrated into the system of objects of civil rights, legal mechanisms will be capable of providing adequate protection to the fundamental values of human society. This will make it possible to identify effective strategies to protect the rights and legitimate interests of all subjects whose rights violated as a result of the subject's use of his or her digital image or the digital image of a third party. Methods. The main research method was synthesis and analysis, which helps the systematisation of civilist doctrine approaches to determining the place of digital images of a person in the system of objects of civil rights. The legal-historical method was applied to identify the legal qualification of the digital image of a person and to determine its legal nature. Results. Despite the variety of doctrinal positions, the findings of the research indicates that the point of view digital image right of a person as an intangible benefit is both well-founded and the most appropriate. Recent research has shown that the digital image of a person is a modern variation of the traditional object of civil rights as “the image of a person”, which, as a result of technological advances, has evolved into more than just a visual representation; it has become a digital copy of various personal characteristics, encompassing the forms of nonverbal communication, such as voice, specific body movements and facial expressions, specific behaviour, reactions and etc. The author concludes that digital image is an intangible benefit that can be subject to legal framework of image, taking into account its technological features and also proposes the key elements of the mechanism of legal protection.

Digital technologies are transforming many areas of public life in the modern information society. Civil law acting as a classic branch of law is adapting to the conditions of widespread use of digital technologies. In the article digital rights are considered as one of the objects of civil law. Purpose: to analyze digital rights as objects of civil law on the basis of the available theoretical provisions of the science of civil law. Methods: dialectical, formal-logical and other general scientific research methods; special legal methods: formal legal, comparative legal. Findings: digital rights as one of the objects of civil rights are property rights existing exclusively in the information environment including digital financial assets and utilitarian digital rights as well as obligatory and other rights named as such in the law the content and conditions of which are determined in accordance with the rules information system that meets the criteria established by law.

This article deals with the issues of reconsidering the concept of thing in terms of the digital environment and the formation of understanding of the digital thing. In terms of digitalization, the legal systems of civil and common law are characterized by the further development of digital objects of law towards of reflecting the material world combined with the features of the digital legal environment. The need for unambiguous regulation of relations regarding the use of new technologies necessitates the implementation in law of a new legal tools that can revolutionise commercе and non-commercial activity, which include, first of all, specifically digital things. Digital things are fundamental component of the digital legal environment, which are being recognized as existing in digital form objects of civil rights. The accommodation of digital legal objects requires a reconsidering of the concept of property and things towards the introduction of a broad understanding of thing, a kind or digital analogue of which are digital things as part of the person’s property, which are appropriated (acquisition and termination) and participated in a civil turnover under the general rules of material things, taking into account the features of the digital environment provided by law, contract or the essence of the digital thing. This necessitates the formation of conceptual legal provisions on property and a broad understanding of things, concepts and types of digital things. The authors of this research propose to reconsider the understanding of property (1) and thing (2) towards of their broad understanding in terms of digitalization, to define the concepts and legal nature (3) and types of digital things (4), to use the functional methodological approach of the digital thing (5) and the resulting features of the virtual asset as a digital thing (6).

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 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.

Introduction. Nowadays, digital financial assets are actively being introduced into civil circulation, but there is no established practice of inheriting this benefit. The purpose of the study is to determine the place of digital financial assets in the system of objects of civil rights, identify the problems of their acceptance and registration under the procedure of inheritance, and analyze the possibilities of using the unified portal of state and municipal services to solve these problems. In the paper, the author, relying on the dialectical method, analyzes digital financial assets and concludes that they belong to the objects of civil rights. The arguments are given for the use of the unified portal of state and municipal services to solve the problem of the heirs’ lack of an access key to the repository of digital financial assets. The conclusion is substantiated by the fact that it is impossible to implement this method of solving the identified problem without the state’s active participation.

In the last few decades, issues related to the legal regulation of genetic research and the legal regime of genetic information derived from it have become particularly relevant both at the international level and at the level of individual countries. However, Russia has only recently come to realize the need for legislative regulation of the relevant relations. At the same time, a distinctive feature of such regulation is the emphasis on public-legal aspects, and civil-legal aspects have been left without due attention.The distinction between genetic information and genetic data is essential for the determination of the civil law regime of genetic information. Genetic information is personified genetic (genomic) information (information), because it has an individual, personal character as relating directly or indirectly to a particular or identifiable person. Genetic data is non-personalized (anonymized) genetic data, which are characterized by a formalized species, often contained in the information system and in this regard — systematized. Genetic information is an element of such an intangible good as the secret of private life, genetic data are, as a rule, an element of such a result of intellectual activity as a database. In addition, it is concluded that there is no doctrinal or legislative basis for the recognition of genetic information as an independent object of civil rights. The necessity of additional legislative regulation of activity of the biobanks carrying out storage of biomaterials, respectively, genetic data is proved. Genetic information contained in such biobanks should be subject to the legal regime of privacy.

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.

Introduction: the accelerated digital transformation of the economy leads to a lack of unity in understanding the essence of new digital objects and a lag in the legal regulation from the pace of digitalization. As a result, when characterizing new digital objects, there arise terminological inaccuracies, discussions regarding the expediency and correctness of legislative innovations, and the gaps in the legal regulation of digital objects of legal relations. As a result, the purpose of the current study is to define the essence and delineate the concepts of “token”, “digital assets” and “digital rights”. To achieve this goal, the following tasks are defined: to study the definitions of the above-mentioned concepts available in the legal doctrine, their role in the civil legislation, to develop a systematic understanding of the digital objects selected for research. Methods: the methodological framework for the study is a set of methods: the terminological analysis of individual digital objects – tokens, digital assets and digital rights; the generalization of the studied materials by induction to determine the subordination of the described digital objects; the generalization and comparison of doctrinal concepts on the relationship between the concepts of “digital assets” and “digital rights”. Based on the conducted research, the following results are achieved: the doctrinal differences are revealed in the understanding of the term “token”, in the correctness of the identification of “digital rights” as an object of civil rights, in the correlation of the concepts of “token”, “digital asset” and “digital rights”; the classification of digital assets is of scientific interest in the framework of further research. According to the results of the scientific research, the author has made a number of conclusions, in particular: 1) the lack of unity in the definitions of new digital terms generates discussions regarding the current norms of the Russian legislation and hinders the introduction of promising digital structures into civil circulation; 2) in order to unify digital terminology, the following changes to the Russian legislation are proposed: digital assets should be distinguished as a separate category of objects of civil rights; digital rights should be defined as a kind of digital asset expressed in monetary form; a token should be defined as a means of balance sheet accounting of a digital asset and the authentication of users of an information system.

The article deals with the provisions on changing the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on liability for new civil rights objects, for information technology, derivative financial instruments or their equivalents. The issues of liability regarding digital financial assets, digital rights, as future, new objects of civil rights on the basis of the contract are touched upon. The author analyzes the new provisions of Federal Law № 34 of March 18, 2019, as well as legislation in general and practice in terms of determining the legal status of parties to contractual relations.

In recent years digitalization is one of the main drivers of changing the financial field in the world as a whole and in Russia. At first, the phenomenon called "cryptocurrency" (in essence, it is what the economists call "private money") developed beyond state control and was subjected to a very critical attitude on the part of official regulators. However, state and central banks later joined digital experiments. Thus, the phenomenon of the “digital currency of the Central Bank” — Central Bank digital currencies (CBDC) — appeared. The Central Bank saw new opportunities, primarily in terms of abandoning paper (cash) circulation and control, in the new instrument. Many central banks in the world are currently conducting research, and some have reached the level of testing relevant solutions. The Central Bank of the Russian Federation does not stand aside as well: in 2019, the first report was prepared — a study on the prospects of digital currencies of central banks; in 2020 the report “Digital Ruble” was published for public consultation. The introduction of such a financial instrument entails significant changes in the legal field. The paper analyzes such changes as well as the main shortcomings of the Report.