Există un regim „real” al creanţelor?
Is there a „real” regime of claims?

Summary/Abstract: To ensure its coherence, building a theory of the ownership of incorporeal property needs redefining, remodeling and even distortion of some fundamental legal concepts, such as the right of ownership, property, goods and positive law. The debate regarding the validity of this theory is held almost exclusively on a conceptual level, based on often tendentious arguments. Exploring the ownership ambiguity seen in its historical evolution is the reason for these rational slippages. A rational organization of the judicial system through the concept of subjective right complicates the proceeding even more. The present study aims to demonstrate the traps that the ownership theory has upon rights by exposing, at first, the diametrically opposed philosophical meanings of ownership – the dominium in the Roman law as opposed to the dominium in the medieval law. Incapable of convincing on a conceptual level, the theory needs to be verified, secondly, in her technical aspects. Is there a certain claims’ behavior to sustain the necessity or the utility of the idea of their ownership? Analyzing the usufruct of claims is the most relevant under this matter. Its regime presents significant particularities and inconsistencies that undermine its value as an argumentative stand for the theory of the ownership of claims.

• Details
• Contents