Search

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., В статье рассматриваются проблемы установления объекта правоотношения собственности. В результате систематического анализа положений отечественного законодательства, норм ст. 1 Протокола № 1 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод 1950 г. и практики Европейского суда по правам человека сформулированы аргументированные выводы по исследованным вопросам., Розглянуто проблеми встановлення об’єкта правовідношення власності. У результаті системного аналізу положень вітчизняного законодавства, норм ст. 1 Протоколу № 1 Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод 1950 р. та практики Європейського суду з прав людини сформульовано аргументовані висновки з даних питань.

Problem setting. Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter – Art. P1-1) states that every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Thus in order for this article to be applicable, the applicant has to show that the right, which he alleges to be violated by the respondent state, constitutes his possession.Recent research and publications analysis. The concept of “possessions” within Art. P1-1 was analyzed by foreign scholars, such as S. Drooghenbroeck, U. Kriebaum, C. Schreurer, L. Sermet and others. The problem was also addressed by the Judge of Constitutional Court of Ukraine – S. Shevchuk.Paper objective. The main objective of the paper is to provide general criteria of what should be deemed as possession in the context of Art. P1-1.Paper main body. The case law of European Court of Human Rights allows to conclude that in order to be deemed as a possession, the subjective right in question should meet three following requirements: (1) it must have pecuniary value, which can be measured in money; (2) it must be civil in nature (as distinct from rights based on public law); (3) it must be certain enough to be enforced by the court (in contrast to the mere hope of some advantages).Conclusions of the research. As a conclusion it should be noted that in its pursuit to protect fundamental rights of a person European Court of Human Rights tends to equate legal notion of possessions with economic concept of welfare., Статья посвящена исследованию понятия «имущество», как оно понимается Европейским Судом по правам человека в контексте применения статьи 1 Протокола № 1 к Европейской Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод. Определены существенные признаки имущества в указанном контексте. Сделан вывод о том, что в своем стремлении защитить основополагающее право человека на мирное владение имуществом Европейский Суд по правам человека тяготеет к тому, чтобы, в конечном счете, уравнять юридическое понятие имущества с экономическим понятием благосостояния., Стаття присвячена дослідженню поняття «майно», як воно розуміється Європейським Судом з прав людини у контексті застосування статті 1 Протоколу № 1 до Європейської Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод. З’ясовано істотні ознаки майна у зазначеному контексті. Зроблено висновок про те, що у своєму прагненні захистити основоположне право людини на мирне володіння своїм майном Європейський Суд з прав людини тяжіє до того, що б в остаточному підсумкові прирівняти юридичне поняття майна із економічним поняттям добробуту.

Problem setting and topicality. One of the priorities of the development of the institution of family law legal control is the legislative regulation of spouses’ property relations. The Family Code of Ukraine (the FC ofUkraine) establishes two types of property relations of spouses that are based on: 1) the personal private property of spouses (ch. 7 of the FC); 2) the common joint property of spouses (ch. 8 of the FC).Analysis of the recent research and publications. As to the civil law literature the problems of common property were scrutinized by: I. V. Zhylinkova, A. Yerukh, O. S. Prostybozhenko and others, but unfortunately the problems of the conclusion of contracts by one spouse without the consent of the other concerning common property remains unconsidered in the literature.Thus, the purpose of the article is the analysis of the spouses’ responsibilities arising on the common joint property and the ability / disability of the conclusion of contracts on common property of one of the spouses.The main research material. Property acquisition during the marriage creates a presumption of the common joint property right. It is believed that if the property was acquired during the marriage, it is common. According to art. 51 of the Constitution of Ukraine each spouse has equal rights and responsibilities in the marriage and in the family. It follows from the terms of reference that rights and responsibilities of spouses regarding the property that will be acquired in marriage are equal.The FC determines one more option. According to art. 74 of the FC, if a woman and a man live as one family, but they are not married to each other or they are not in any other marriage, the property acquired during their cohabitation belongs to them by the right of the common joint property, unless other right isn’t determined between them by the written agreement. Terms of reference of art. 8 of the FC apply to the property that is the object of the common joint property of a woman and a man who are not married to each other or who are not in any other marriage.Thus, in this article responsibilities both of the persons who are in a registered marriage and the persons living as one family but not married to each other are analyzed.Conclusions. Thus, art. 65 of the FC reveals problems concerning disposition of the property that is the object of the common joint property, and as a rule during the conclusion of contracts requires a written consent of the spouse who is not a party of the contract, so that in the future there would not be questions on the occasion of who must meet the engagements taken upon oneself and, respectively, at the expense of whose (common or private) funds., В статье исследуются обязанности супругов, возникающие в отношении общей совместной собственности. Анализируется вопрос о возможности (не возможности) заключения сделок одним из супругов в отношении общего имущества без согласия другого., У статті досліджуються обов’язки подружжя, що виникають з приводу спільної сумісної власності. Ааналізується питання можливості (неможливості) укладення правочинів одним із подружжя з приводу спільного майна без згоди іншого.

The article is dedicated to types of sources of formation of marital property, in particular to the order and the grounds of acquisition of property during cohabitation, conducting entrepreneurial activity, contribution of property to the charter capital of business entities and private enterprises, a substantial increase of the property or its improvement over time of the marriage at the expense of the common funds of the conjoints., Статья посвящена видам источников формирования имущества супругов, в частности, порядку и основаниям приобретения ими имущества во время совместного проживания, осуществления предпринимательской деятельности, внесения имущества в уставные капиталы хозяйственных обществ и частных предприятий, существенного увеличения имущества или его улучшения за время пребывания в браке за счет общих средств., Стаття присвячена видам джерел формування майна подружжя, зокрема, порядку й підставам набуття ними майна під час спільного проживання, здійснення підприємницької діяльності, внесення майна до статутних капіталів господарських товариств і приватних підприємств, суттєве збільшення майна або його покращання за час перебування у шлюбі за рахунок спільних коштів.