TEMPORAL LIMITS OF THE REALIZATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHT OF A PERSON
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
This scientific work is devoted to the study of the topical issue of the temporal limits of subjective civil law. The main thesis is argued that the exercise of the right is possible only during its existence. At the same time, it should be noted that the exercise or non-exercise of one's civil right depends entirely on the will of the authorized person. Such implementation of the powers laid down in the law can take place through the active action of the managed person, or by requiring him to perform an action from the debtor. But the corresponding act should be carried out within the limits of the existence of the right. It is necessary to distinguish between the period of existence of the material right itself and the period of its belonging to a certain person. For example, ownership of a certain thing will exist as long as the thing itself exists. However, during this time, the owner of this property may change several times. But the change of specific owners does not affect the period of existence of civil law. Thus, it is emphasized that the time factor is necessarily part of civil relations. The work analyzes the protection of the interests of legal subjects by establishing certain limits of the exercise of subjective rights and establishing the duty of each authorized person to exercise their rights properly. The determination of the limits of the exercise of subjective rights is not considered as a limitation of these rights, but as a legal expression of the already existing equal position of people in the system of social relations. The article critically evaluates the outdated classic thesis, according to which going beyond the limits of legal equilibrium by carrying out an "untimely" civil action is an abuse of law, a special type of misconduct aimed at the realization by the subject of legal relations of his subjective interest with a negative content, which manifests itself in violation of the subjective rights of other persons. It turns out that in a temporal sense such a qualification is simply impossible. Exercising a subjective right outside the limits of its existence cannot be qualified as an abuse of the right, because the right, in fact, does not yet exist or no longer exists. Actions by a person outside the limits of permitted conduct or the validity period of the right will be considered as the actions of a person to whom the right does not belong at all. Therefore, abusing the right through "untimely" application of it during its validity is impossible, exercising the powers that were part of the right outside its time limits will be a common offense.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
limits of exercising subjective right, abuse of right
2. Bakaiev D.S. (2013). Kontseptsiia zlovzhyvannia pravom u pravovii doktryni [The concept of abuse of law in legal doctrine]: avtoref. dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk: 12.00.01. Zaporizhzhia, [In Ukrainian].
3. Borysova V. I. (2014). Do problemy samostiinykh pravovykh mozhlyvostei subiektiv tsyvilnykh pravovidnosyn. [To the problem of independent legal possibilities of subjects of civil legal relations].
Actual problems of private law: materials of the international science and practice conf., dedicate. 92nd anniversary of the birth of Dr., Prof., member of the Cor. Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR V. P. Maslov. Aktualni problemy pryvatnoho prava: materialy mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf., prysviach. 92-y richnytsi z dnia narodzhennia d-ra yuryd. nauk, prof., chl.- kor. AN URSR V. P. Maslova, Kharkiv, [In Ukrainian].
4. Borysova V.I., Spasybo-Fatieieva I.V., Yarotskyi V.L. (ed). (2011). Tsyvilne pravo: pidruchnyk [Civil law: textbook]: u 2 t. Kharkiv: Pravo, T.1. [In Ukrainian].
5. Gorbas D.V. (2009). Zdiisnennia subiektyvnykh tsyvilnykh prav fizychnykh osib: poniattia, sposoby, mezhi [Implementation of subjective civil rights of natural persons: concepts, methods, limits]. Dys... kand. nauk: 12.00.03. [In Ukrainian].
6. Grybanov V.P. (2000). Osushchestvlenie i zashchita grazhdanskih prav [Implementation and protection of civil rights]. Moskva: Statut, [In Russian].
7. Grynko P. O. (2011). Poniattia sekundarnoho prava [Concept of secondary law]. Universytetski naukovi zapysky-University scientific notes, 2, 130-140. [In Ukrainian].
8. Gruzdev V.V. (2001). Istechenie sroka deistvyia dohovora [Expiry of the contract]. Pravo y ekonomika – Law and economics, 4, 21-24. [In Russian].
9. Gubar O. (2013). Nedopustymist zlovzhyvannia pravom u tsyvilnomu pravi Ukrainy [Inadmissibility of abuse of rights in the civil law of Ukraine]: avtoref. dys. k.jur.n. : 12.00.03. Kyiv. [In Ukrainian].
10. Guyvan P.D. (2020). Pro chasovi mezhi zdiisnennia subiektyvnoho prava v rehuliatyvnykh tsyvilnykh pravovidnosynakh [About the time limits of the exercise of subjective law in regulatory civil legal relations]. Yurydychnyi visnyk Legal Bulletin, 4, 30-37. [In Ukrainian].
11. Guyvan P.D. (2014). Strok subiektyvnoho materialnoho prava yak kharakterystyka yoho zmistu [The term of subjective material law as a characteristic of its content]. Business, economics and law-Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i parvo, 8, 19-23. [In Ukrainian].
12. Guyvan P.D. (2017). Chasovi kharakterystyky zdiisnennia subiektyvnoho materialnoho prava [Temporal characteristics of the implementation of subjective substantive law]. Naukovi pratsi Natsionalnoho universytetu «Odeska yurydychna akademiia»-Scientific works of the National University "Odesa Law Academy", 19, 114-121. [In Ukrainian].
13. Guyvan P.D. (2005). Deistvie vo vremeny normatyvnyh aktov [Action at the time of normative acts]. Yuridicheskaia praktika – Legal practice, 22, 12-13. [In Russian].
14. Guyvan P. D. (2021). Zahalna kharakterystyka strokiv u tsyvilno-pravovomu zoboviazanni [General characteristics of terms in a civil legal obligation]. Naukovi pratsi Natsionalnoho universytetu «Odeska yurydychna akademiia»- Scientific works of the National University "Odesa Law Academy", 28, 44-50. [In Ukrainian].
15. Guyvan P.D. (2003). Dohovir kupivli-prodazhu i pravo vlasnosti na maino, shcho realizuietsia [The contract of sale and the right of ownership of the property being sold]. Visnyk Akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy- Bulletin of the Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 1(32),107-113. [In Ukrainian].
16. Ioffe O.S. (2000). Iz istorii tsivilysticheskoy mysly. Grazhdanskoe pravootnoshenie. Krityka teorii "khozyaystvennogo prava" [From the history of civil thought. Civil relationship. Criticism of the theory of "economic law"]. Moskva: Statut, [In Russian].
17. Ioffe O.S., Grybanov V.P. (1964). Predely osushchestvlenyia subectivnyh hrazhdanskyh prav [Limits of the implementation of subjective civil rights]. Sovetskoe hosudarstvo i pravo -Soviet state and law, 7, 76-85. [In Russian].
18. Kaliuzhnyi R.A., Shapenko L.O. (2019). Kontseptualnyi zmist subiektyvnoho prava v umovakh pravovoi intehratsii [The conceptual content of subjective law in the conditions of legal integration]. Yurydychnyi visnyk- Legal Bulletin, 4 (53), 54-61. [In Ukrainian].
19. Karnaukh B. (2020). Zlovzhyvannia pravom ta yoho pravovi naslidky [Abuse of law and its legal consequences]. Entrepreneurship, economy and law-Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo, 9, 31-36. [In Ukrainian].
20. Kharytonov Ye.O. (2016). Pryvatne pravo yak «ievropeiskyi kontsept»: pidgruntia ta koreliaty [Private law as a "European concept": background and correlates]. Chasopys tsyvilistyky -Journal of Civil Studies, 20, 8-16. [In Ukrainian].
21. Khodyko Yu.Ie. (2017). Spirni obiekty rechovoho pravovidnoshennia ta yikh pravovykh rezhym [Disputed objects of the property relationship and their legal regime]. Pravo i suspilstvo- Law and society, 6, 85-90 [In Ukrainian].
22. Kot O. (2013). Problema zlovzhyvannia subiektyvnym pravom u tsyvilnomu pravi Ukrainy [The problem of abuse of subjective law in the civil law of Ukraine]. Visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy Bulletin of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 4(75), 133-141. [In Ukrainian].
23. Kruk B.P. (2011). Zastosuvannia prytntsypu movchaznoi zghody pro ponovlennia dohovoru orendy zemelnoi dilianky [Application of the principle of tacit agreement on the renewal of the land lease agreement]. Universytetski naukovi zapysky UKMA- University scientific notes of the UKMA, 3 (39), 95-101. [In Ukrainian].
24. Kuznetsova N.S. (2014). Razvitye grazhdanskogo obshchestva i sovremennoe chastnoe pravo Ukrainy [Development of civil society and modern private law of Ukraine]. Vybrani pratsi. Kyiv: PrAT «Iurydychna praktyka». [In Russian].
25. Luts V.V. (2001). Kontrakty u pidpryiemnytskii diialnosti [Contracts in business activity]. Kyiv: Yurinkom-Inter, [In Ukrainian].
26. Luts V.V. (2004). Svoboda dohovoru v tsyvilnomu pravi Ukrainy [Freedom of contract in the civil law of Ukraine]. Kyiv: Shkola, [In Ukrainian].
27. Luts V.V. (1989). Sroky v hrazhdanskykh pravootnoshenyiakh [Terms in civil legal relations. Pravovedenye, 1, 37-42. [In Russian].
28. Maidanyk R. A. (2003). Problemy rehuliuvannia dovirchykh vidnosyn u tsyvilnomu pravi [Problems of regulating trust relations in civil law]: avtoref. dys. … d-ra yuryd. nauk: 12.00.03. Kyiv, [In Ukrainian].
29. Michurin Ye.O. (2006). Do pryrody obmezhen mainovykh prav fizychnykh osib [To the nature of restrictions on the property rights of individuals]. Forum Prava, 3, 84. [In Ukrainian].
30. Nolken A. (1885). Dogovory v polzu tretih lyts [Agreements in favor of third parties]. SPb.: Typohrafyia ymperatorskoi akademyy nauk, [In Russian].
31. Planiol M., Ripert G. (1946). Traite elementaire de driot civile. Paris: [In Franch].
32. Porotykova O.A. (2008). Problema zloupotrebleniya subektivnym grazhdanskim pravom [The problem of abuse of subjective civil law]. Moskva: Volters Kluver, [In Russian].
33. Rohach O.Ia. (2011). Klasyfikatsiia mezh zdiisnennia subiektyvnykh prav [Classification of the limits of the exercise of subjective rights]. Naukovyi visnyk Lviskoho derzhavnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav Scientific Bulletin of the Lviv State University of Internal Affairs, 3, 140-150. [In Ukrainian].
34. Savyny Fon F.K. (2011). Systema sovremepnnoho rymskoho prava. [The system of modern Roman law]. Moskva: Statut, T.1. [In Russian].
35. Shapenko L.O., Stepankivska N.A. (2014). Zlovzhyvannia pravom yak zahroza stabilnym suspilnym vidnosynam [Abuse of law as a threat to stable social relations]. Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal. Legal scientific electronic journal, 6, 29–32. [In Ukrainian].
36. Stefanchuk M.O. (2006). Mezhi zdiisnennia subiektyvnykh tsyvilnykh prav [Limits of exercising subjective civil rights]: avtoref. dys. kand. yuryd. nauk: spets. 12.00.03 In-t derzhavy i prava im. V.M. Koretskoho NAN Ukrainy. Kyiv. [In Ukrainian].
37. Tsyban A.A. (2017). Do pytannia spivvidnoshennia katehorii «subiektyvnyi tsyvilnyi oboviazok» ta katehorii «zaborona» [Regarding the question of the relationship between the category "subjective civil duty" and the category "prohibition"]. Pravo i suspilstvo. Law and society, 1. Ch. 2, 77-81. [In Ukrainian].
38. Yaroshenko A.A. (1972). Osushchestvlenie subektyvnyh grazhdanskih prav v protivorechii s ih naznacheniem [Exercising subjective civil rights contrary to their purpose]. Pravovedenye, 4, 30-31. [In Russian].