scholarly journals To the Definition of Preferential Right in Civil Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-53
Author(s):  
A. V. Pikalov

The essential features of the preferential right are revealed and the main approaches to understanding its legal nature are considered. According to the first approach, preferential rights are defined as cases when, under all equal conditions, the advantage is granted by law to a specific group of persons with some special characteristics. The second approach does not have a single idea: the authors focus on a certain aspect of preferential rights and propose to understand other preferential rights in the same way. The place of “preferential rights” among other exceptions in the law is determined, the relationship and difference from related legal categories are shown. Based on the results of carried out research, the author's definition of a preferential right is developed as an additional possibility based on the property (corporate) interest of its owner, established by law or contract, to demand from the subject-accomplice in the right or the party in respect of proper behavior in the form of providing advantages over third parties. This right is proposed to be considered an independent subjective right due to the obvious independence of its existence in objective law as a measure of possible behavior defined by law (by contract, constituent document), the presence of a construction corresponding to it of a legal obligation, its own mechanism for the implementation of this right, and for a number of other reasons set out in the work.

Author(s):  
R.S. Lukashov

The article is devoted to the theoretical and legal analyses of the place of a corporate agreement in the system of civil contracts. The article identifies the key factors that justify a separate place of the corporate agreement among existing contractual structures of civil law. The article deals with scientific views on the concept and legal nature of the corporate agreement, outlines the subject of the corporate agreement, which is concluded between the participants of the legal entity of corporate type, as well as analyzed the latest legislation on the definition of the concept, subject and content of the corporate agreement, which is concluded between the members of the limited liability company.  


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (11) ◽  
pp. 28-31
Author(s):  
V.K. BAKULIN ◽  

The article analyzes the philosophical category “measure”, which due to its universality and comprehensiveness finds expression in law, since subjective law and legal obligation are always a measure of the possible or necessary behavior of the subjects of legal relations. The relationship of the category “measure” with the institutions of criminal and criminal procedural law is shown. The article examines the demonstrations of this category in the institutions of the penal law, which makes it possible to formulate the definition of a measure in the penal law and systematize the existing ones. There is revealed the need to change the subject of the penal law as a branch of law in connection with the empowerment of criminal executive inspectorates with the authority to implement measures of procedural coercion, provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
V.M. Marovdi

In this article the author considers the concept of restriction of individual rights in civil law, as well as the re-lationship between the concepts of restriction and encumbrance of civil rights. First of all, the lack of a legislative definition of the concept of restriction of individual rights in civil law, as well as the ambiguity of the position of the legislator on the use of the term restriction and its place among related conceptsIn writing this work, first of all, attention was paid to the Constitution of Ukraine, which is the Basic Law, which serves as a guide that establishes the general boundaries of human and civil rights. The connection of the provisions of the Constitution with the norms of the Civil Code of Ukraine within the framework of the chosen topic was presented. Emphasis is placed on the fundamental principle according to which the national legal system is built, namely: “everything is allowed that is not expressly prohibited by law.”The views of some scholars who adhere to their vision of the concepts under study are given. In addition, in this study, the relationship between the concepts of restriction and encumbrance of individual rights in civil law. In the process of writing this work, the positions of legal scholars who had relatively similar positions were given. They distinguish between the above concepts, and provide the relevant features. However, outside the scope of this study were many works of scientists who do not see a difference in these concepts.None of this was left out of the regulatory framework for the definition of the above concepts at the legislative level. In particular, it was found that in contrast to the concept of restriction of individual rights, including in civil law, the current legislation contains a definition of encumbrance. There are several acts that provide this definition. And in all cases, the definition is different.Based on the analysis of regulations, it was found that the legislator does not consistently approach the definition of encumbrance. In particular, in some cases the latter includes the encumbrancer’s right to the debtor’s movable property or restriction of such right, in others - prohibition or restriction of disposal and / or use of real estate, and in some cases the legislator identifies encumbrances and restrictions.According to the results of the study, the conclusions on the failure to define in national law the concept of re-strictions on the rights of persons in civil law, as well as the lack of a clear distinction between the concept of restric-tion of the right of person and encumbrance, in particular under civil law. There is a position on the need for further research on relevant topics, which will ensure clarity and clarity of the law, and promote its effective application, as well as consensus on this issue among scholars.


Author(s):  
Borys Soloviov

Nowadays the processes of democratization, liberalization, integration of Ukraine into European and world space take place. Theundisputed significance for these processes is the signing of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union.Thus, the rapprochement of Ukraine with the European community, which has taken place in recent years, affects the sphere of privatelaw relations, which make up the subject matter of civil law. Taking all mentioned above into account corporate relations and its nationalregulation is critical issue for analysis.The provisions of national legislation regarding the definition of corporate rights and respective legal relations are analyzed. Specialattention is paid to the position of the civil law doctrine representatives in terms of legal nature and features of corporate legal relations.Analysis of current doctrine gives ground to state that corporate relations are considered to be a special type of civil legal relationsthat make up the subject of civil law. At the same time recognition of corporate relations as a type of civil ones makes it possible to useall the civil law tools and mechanism of legal protection and enforcement for corporate relations regulation.The relevant practice of the highest judicial bodies of Ukraine is analyzed. The analysis of the legislation and judicial practicehas given an opportunity to stress some problems that need to be eliminated. To our mind, one of the main problems is “fragmentation”of the legislator’s attention to the definition of corporate legal relations, which creates the ground for numerous discussions. At the sametime there are critical problems in judicial practice. For instance, we cannot agree with the Supreme Court’s attempts to find corporatelegal relations in those types of legal entities in which such legal relations do not take place at all.It is crucial to stress that recodification of civil legislation in Ukraine has its direct impact on private legal relations system andits mechanism of legal regulations.


Author(s):  
H. O. Urazova

The variety of fiduciary legal relations in the civil law of Ukraine requires the study of their individual elements, in particular, the fiduciary duty. Therefore the purpose of this article is to clarify the legal nature of the fiduciary duty, in order to avoid legal uncertainty, which leads to difficulties in law enforcement and, as a result, ineffective legal protection of violated rights of a person due to non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of such an obligation in relation to her.Analyzed such concepts as "fides", "fiducia", duty in civil law. It has been established that the first, respectively, in Roman law had several meanings, but the main thing is the trust of the participants in civil relations to each other. The second have to understood as the proper behavior of the subject of civil relations, the content and model of which are determined by the requirements of the rule of law, the will or persons authorized by the transaction or other legal facts.It was found that the fiduciary duty is the proper behavior of the subject of a trust relationship, due to the conclusion of certain agreements (for example, commissions, property management, joint activities, the provision of lawyer services, etc.), or the occurrence of legal facts (election of a body or person of a legal entity, who (who) has the right to act on her behalf, the establishment of guardianship or trusteeship, the death of an individual, etc.).


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 355-362
Author(s):  
Yuri O. Zaika ◽  
◽  
Oleksandr Ye. Kukhariev ◽  
Volodymyr L. Skrypnyk ◽  
Aliesia A. Mytnyk

The relevance of this study is due to the necessity to ensure the proper exercise of subjective civil rights in the field of inheritance law. Protection in inheritance is related to the general right to protection. Due to the peculiarities of inheritance law as a sub-branch of civil law, it has its own specifics, which is manifested primarily in the definition of special ways to protect violated unrecognized or challenged rights. In addition, the protection of the rights of heirs takes place only within the inheritance relationship, which is characterized by a long nature. The purpose of the article is to identify the features of protection of subjective civil rights of heirs in the field of inheritance. This necessitates the use of special methodological approaches that will identify the characteristics of protection of the rights of heirs, as well as research methods such as dogmatic, formal-logical, systematic, comparative law. The article analyses the recognition of the right of ownership of inherited property in court and proves that this exceptional method of protection is used if there are obstacles to the notarization of inheritance rights. The most typical and widespread special ways to protect the rights of heirs are considered: removal from the right to inherit, invalidation of the will, change of the order of obtaining the right to inherit, reduction of the size of the obligatory share in the inheritance. The outlined issues were not widely covered in the legal literature, as the attention of scholars was mainly in the perspective of clarifying the legal nature of protection and defence, the ratio of forms and methods of protection of subjective civil rights, analysis of general methods of protection of subjective civil rights. That is why this work is an important contribution to outlining the issue of inheritance law and attracting due attention of the scientific community.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (15) ◽  
pp. 126-149
Author(s):  
Pavlo Serhiiovych Berzin ◽  
Ruslan Anatoliiovych Volynets ◽  
Mykhailo Mykhailovych Khomenko

The article analyzes the criminal and civil understanding of the concepts of "foreign property", "right to property" and "property law". Different meanings of these concepts are considered. Differences in criminal and civil law understanding of these concepts and their relationship are established. It is substantiated that the subject of possession provided for in p. 2 art. 191 of the Criminal Code is only someone else's property, not the right to property and property rights. It is substantiated that the concept of "property" in the relevant compositions of criminal offenses against property performs other functions than the concept of "property" in civil law, and that the criminal law understanding of property and civil law definition of property in p. 1 of art. 190 of the Civil Code are unequal (different). On this basis and taking into account the legal positions of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, the conclusion is formulated that the subject of possession in the relevant composition of criminal offenses against property can be only someone else's property, not the right to it or not a property actions. The concepts of “property right” and “right to property” are not identical, and the concepts of “property right”, the term "right to property" constitute real rights on the property, but no other rights that are not property. In view of this, the possession by an official by abusing his official position the right to property or, in other words, the possession by an official by abusing of the right to property cannot be qualified under the relevant part of art. 191 of the Criminal Code. In addition, the article analyzes the definition of "right to property", which affect the recognition of the right to property as a kind of "subject" of the so-called "selfish abuses" under art. 364, 364-1 of the Criminal Code. It is emphasized that when an official possession the right to property committed by abusing his official position, he cannot qualify under the relevant part of art. 191 of the Criminal Code, as there is no such mandatory feature of p. 2 of art. 191 of the Criminal Code of abuse as someone else's property that is the subject of abuse.


Author(s):  
A. V. Zarubin

The author focuses on the similarity between relations of joint shared property and corporate relations, and proposes a “collective (a team of co-ownwers)” concept of joint property rights that is designed to solve the main problems of relations in question, including the definition of the subject of the right to joint shared property. From the point of view of the “collective” concept, the right to joint property is uniform. If the ownership of individual participants was extended to the whole thing, everyone’s will would be decisive in determining the fate of the thing, but the actual situation is not like this. In addition, possession is an external manifestation of ownership. At the same time, none of co-owners has the opportunity to appropriate the whole thing or even its part. He has only the right to claim possession. The general rule applies to the thing that is the object of the right to joint property. The right to joint property belongs to the team of co-owners as a non-entity community. There is no contradiction in the fact that the right belongs to an unauthorized association (a non-entity community), since the right can be attributed to the person whose will and domination is recognized by law, even if the law denies it as the subject (participant) of civil law relations.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 93
Author(s):  
Andrzej Chłopecki

Definition of Debt SecuritiesSummaryThe main subject of this article is the definition of debt securities in Polish civil law. This expression („debt securities”) used in many parliaments bills, was not defined on the level of the parliaments bill. Especially in cases of so called „hybrid securities” (securities with the mixed legal nature) there is a necessity to analyze and define their legal nature. This article gives a very short overview on the different types of securities and proposes their systematical classification. The main conclusion of this article is: either in the case of the mixed nature of securities, the right to demand from the issuer to withdraw securities (to pay for them or exchange them into a different type of securities) determines the legal nature of securities as debt securities.


2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 13-25
Author(s):  
Nenad Stefanović

The paper analyzes the civil law aspects of the responsibility of medical workers and institutions due to the damage caused by the doctors' mistakes in providing medical care. The aim of this paper is to present all the basics of physician responsibility, if it is established that there is a close connection between the error and the proven error and damage caused to the health of the patient, but also to third parties. The issue of medical error is not exclusively related to compensation for damages, since it heavily relies on medical law too. Although mistakes are mainly caused by the wrong actions of the doctors in performing their professional activities, the paper also deals with the responsibility of medical institutions for the damage being caused. An inaccurate definition of the legal nature of doctors' responsibilities, obligations imposed on medical workers by law, the definition of errors in a medical treatment, as well as the legal basis of liability to third parties, indicate that there are many not only legal but also ethical and moral dilemmas requiring the additional attention and analysis, which is also the goal of this paper.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document