До проблеми визначення об’єкта правовідношення власності
To the problem of determining the object of property legal relationship

Summary/Abstract: 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.

• Details
• Contents