Property rights as a type of property. Property rights in Russian law

Source: Digital catalogue branch department in the direction of "Jurisprudence"
(Libraries of the Faculty of Law) of the Scientific Library. M. Gorky St. Petersburg State University

Property law as an object of civil circulation /

A. S. Dzhabaeva.

Dzhabaeva, A. S.
2003 Annotation: Published: Siberian Legal Bulletin. - 2003. - No. 3. Full text of the document:

Dzhabaeva, A. S.

Property law as an object of civil circulation.

Art. 128 Civil Code Russian Federation(hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) when listing objects civil rights indicates property rights, which, along with money and securities, relate to property. Property rights are also mentioned in a number of other articles of the general and special parts of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, for example, in Art. 66, 132, 382–390, 454, 572, 826, etc. Thus, we can state that there is a certain normative base ensuring the circulation of property rights. However, it should be noted that in this area there has not yet been any unified approach to the regulation of these objects, starting with an understanding of the legal nature property rights and ending with their turnover.

One of the first problems can be called the problem of the legal nature or essence of property rights. Civil law does not contain a definition of this phenomenon. As for the doctrine, it seems that we can turn to the theory of law to find out what is meant by property law. First of all, attention is drawn to the construction of a legal relationship, the elements of which are subjects, objects and content (or a set of subjective rights and legal obligations). That is, any subjective right (a variation of which is subjective property right), first of all, is an element of the content of the legal relationship. In this capacity, subjective right is traditionally understood as a measure of the possible behavior of an authorized person. At the same time, the subjective right itself has a complex structure, consists of certain powers. Depending on the specific type of subjective rights, it is customary to distinguish three powers (sometimes they are called rights): the right to one's own actions, the right to demand and the right to claim. Moreover, it is noted that the right to demand is the right to act on others (as opposed to the right to take one's own actions), in addition, the right to demand is directly linked to a legal obligation. These powers are available in various aggregates both in relative and absolute rights.

In civil law, along with the term "property right", the term "right (requirement)" is also used. The question arises, in what proportion are these categories. Based on the general theory of law, we can conclude that the second is an element of the first. Moreover, the right of demand and the legal obligation corresponding to it just create a connection between the subjects of the legal relationship. In addition, in a number of legal relations, the eligibility of a claim is a central element of the subjective right itself, since all other rights follow from the said right. In this sense, we can agree with the opinion that "the creditor's right does not exist in itself, but in relation to the claim." Despite the fact that, it would seem, the right and the requirement are only partially coinciding categories, yet civil law uses them as one-order categories. Property right can be considered as an object, along with things, other property and other objects of civil rights, precisely because the right to demand is the bearer of the function of disposing of someone else's behavior, i.e. the creditor can dispose of other people's actions of the debtor as his own, as the object of his right.

It seems that the term "property right" has a double meaning, and therefore it is necessary to distinguish the subjective right as constituent part legal relations, as an element of the content of legal relations, on the one hand, and on the other hand, directly property right (right of claim) as an object of civil law, as an object of legal relations.

Thus, the concept of property right concerns not only the content of the legal relationship, but also its object. The second problem concerns the object of the subjective right itself. Note that the situation is complicated by the fact that the question of the object of legal relationship is rather controversial in the science of civil law, as well as in the theory of law. A unified approach has not been developed, despite the fact that quite a lot of definitions have been proposed regarding the concept of an object of civil legal relations. However, the opinions expressed can be divided into two groups: the former are based on monistic conceptions, while the latter are based on pluralistic ones. Followers of the first approach propose to consider a specific good as an object - a thing or an action, while supporters of the second approach - a set of certain benefits. At the same time, even within the framework of one approach, there are differences in the interpretation of the object itself.

With regard to the thesis that property law has a dual nature - as a structural element of the content of legal relations and as an object of legal relations, it should be noted that in civil science there is still no consensus on the question of whether property law can be an independent, full-fledged object . The problem is related to the resolution of the conflict about whether the content of the legal relationship can be its object at the same time. There are two points of view on this matter. According to one of them, subjective rights (property rights in the terminology of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) cannot be objects of other rights. As arguments, they indicate that the content of the legal relationship cannot be the object of at least another legal relationship. In addition, any right always belongs to a specific subject - the creditor or the authorized person. To function as objects of turnover, property rights must be separated from their carrier. But there are no unsubjective rights. And, for example, “the transfer of a right presupposes the existence of at least an infinitely small moment in time when one person has already transferred the right, and the other has not yet accepted it.” This means that the transfer of rights is impossible. Well, and one more argument of the supporters of this position - the recognition of law as an object entails the emergence of “right to right” constructions, in particular, it becomes possible to obtain ownership of rights (for example, Article 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), and such constructions only complicate the apparatus of civil law. Thus, representatives of this point of view conclude that property rights should not be an object of civil law, neither as part of the more general category of "property", nor as a special object of civil rights. Other scientists adhere to the same opinion, however, with a slightly different argumentation. Thus, in particular, it is noted that law is an ideal phenomenon that cannot be transmitted precisely because of its ideality. The term "transfer" is characteristic of things, objects of the material world. Right immediately arises and ceases. Since law is a phenomenon of ideal properties, there are no time intervals between its termination and occurrence.

Along with this, there are opinions on the admissibility of the participation of property rights in civil circulation. So, the Civil Code of the Russian Federation directly considers property rights as objects, in addition, their circulation is allowed by the rules on the sale, on donation, on assignment, on financing against the assignment of a monetary claim, on making a contribution to authorized capital legal entities, on a commercial concession, on a simple partnership agreement, etc. As for foreign civil law, the French scientist R. Savatier can be called a prominent representative of the supporters of rights-objects. He points out that "any property, in essence, acts as a right". Although, “the idea that property is in fact rights has not yet fully entered the legal consciousness.”

Among the supporters of recognizing property rights as objects of civil law, there are different opinions regarding the legal nature of property rights. So, in particular, there are proposals to consider property rights as a kind of things, or as quasi-things. After analyzing the concept of a thing in modern civil law, I. Gumarov came to the conclusion that in addition to things - objects of the material world, there are two more types of things. These are, firstly, things directly named as such in the legislation ( securities, an enterprise as a property complex). And secondly, things that are absent in nature, but the existence of which is allowed. Moreover, this author notes that some property rights cannot act in circulation on their own, so it can be assumed that the legislator allows the vesting of some property rights that are not directly called things with the properties of things. To such, he refers to deposits of individuals and legal entities in banks, for which depositors have the right to demand the return of the deposit amount and the payment of interest on this amount (with particular emphasis on the fact that the deposit here should not be considered as a sum of money), as well as shares a member of a production cooperative and a share of a member of a limited liability company. Thus, in relation to property rights, he points out that some property rights are, in fact, intangible things. And some of them appear in civil circulation in their “original” form, on their own. But then the question arises: how to distinguish between property rights as an independent object of turnover and property rights, acting as an intangible thing? The author of this concept draws attention to this circumstance: the presence in the legislation of non-documentary securities, as well as non-cash money, indicates that the law, in addition to things as objects of the material world, simultaneously allows the existence of “non-material” things. And this suggests that the line between things as objects of the material world, on the one hand, and property rights, on the other hand, is not sufficiently defined.

Supporters of attributing property rights to things, following the logic of I. Gumarov, believe, in particular, that the civil law content of the concept of a thing is not limited to a statement of the presence of a material (material) component. Therefore, a thing can be property rights that can exist, as it were, in isolation from the basis of their occurrence, outside the framework of the original obligation. In addition to these things, there is a special category of things - "as if things" that do not meet the criterion of materiality - money and securities. Although these objects have a certain material carrier, “but the economic value of the latter in itself does not represent for the participants in property relations the value for the sake of which they enter into civil law relations. The unconditional value for such a person is precisely the right expressed in a certain form. That is, the “as if things” regime applies to any money and documentary securities. In general, it is proposed to exclude non-documentary securities from the list of things, as they do not correspond to proprietary rights. But here the question arises of what is meant by the intangible nature of money and documentary securities? Indeed, according to the authors, it is the property right that is of value in these objects. But, nevertheless, when these rights are embodied in money and securities, they are other objects than mere rights.

D. V. Murzin also takes the position of attributing property rights to things. He notes that the current Civil Code of the Russian Federation takes a new approach to the formulation of the subject of sale. It would seem that the Civil Code of the Russian Federation gives a deliberately narrow concept of the subject of the contract of sale, but paragraph 4 of Art. 454 extends the norms of this agreement to rights, which indicates the tendency of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to equate rights with things. In addition, this author proposes to proceed not from the fact that only things can appear as an object of sale, but from the fact that if an object can be sold, then it is equated to a thing, which in turn entails applying to the object norms of property law.

Thus, the majority of supporters of the recognition of property rights as independent object civil rights believe that a property right is actually an incorporeal thing. The concept of an incorporeal thing existed even in Roman law. Guy divided all things into two groups: corporeal (or things that can be touched) and incorporeal (or things that cannot be touched). As incorporeal things, he considered those "that are in law." But in Roman law the very concept of a thing was very broad. Things were not only material objects outside world but also legal relations and rights. In Russian legislation, in addition to things, there is also the category of "property", which is a generic concept for both things and property rights. It is more logical to consider property rights not as a kind of incorporeal things, but as a kind of property, as “intangible property”.

When analyzing the concept of “property law”, one cannot do without studying what is meant by the word “property”. Since property rights are a kind of property, it would seem that one can start from this category. But, as rightly noted in the literature, the term "property" is used in civil law in different values. Most often, property refers to individual things or a combination of them. In addition, the concept of "property" covers things, money, securities. In some cases, not only the listed objects, but also property rights are called property. And, finally, the concept of "property" can mean the totality of cash, money, securities, property rights, as well as the obligations of a person. Therefore, each time it is necessary to clarify and clarify the meaning of the term property in each specific case. Precisely because the category “property” is interpreted in science as a homonym and has various meanings, including property rights, the literature expresses doubt about the advisability of involving this broad concept for research and understanding of the essence of property rights. Therefore, it is proposed to use the most common interpretation of property as a thing or a set of things. But from this follows the conclusion that property rights are rights to things or property rights. However, this path is obviously erroneous, since the essence of property rights is far from being exhausted only by property rights. In addition, it is the rights of obligations that are becoming more widespread as objects of civil circulation. Perhaps it would be more successful to attempt to analyze the essence of the phenomenon under consideration through the study of the subject of civil law. Poroshkov V. notes that in civil law there has long been a concept of property rights as rights to things, but not from the point of view of objects of civil rights, but from the point of view of the content of civil legal relations. Civil Code of the Russian Federation in paragraph 1 of Art. 2 determines that civil law regulates, first of all, property relations. Therefore, in order to identify the essence of property rights as objects of civil rights, it is proposed to turn to the study of the nature of relations in which these objects are used.

Traditionally, it is considered that the subject of civil law is public relations governed by the rules of civil law. Again, traditionally, based on Art. 2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, these relations can be divided into two large groups - property and non-property. The second group is not the subject of this study, so it will remain outside our attention. With regard to property relations, we note that these are social relations arising from property (which are divided into property relations and other property relations, as well as obligations). Therefore, having clarified the question of the essence of property, it is basically possible to resolve the question of the essence of the relations arising in connection with it. This path is intense, because it allows you to go beyond the phenomenon under study and focus on another, albeit close, phenomenon. Thus, we again came to the category of property. Hence, the category "property" is the starting point in the study of the nature and essence of property rights.

If we turn to the works of the classics of Russian civil law, we can see that property in pre-revolutionary law was understood quite broadly. In particular, D. I. Meyer, speaking about the object of law, pointed out that “technically, the object of law is that which is subject to the dominance of a person as a subject of law. The objects subject to the domination of a person are persons, things and other people's actions (the actions of other people), so that all rights in their object are represented either by rights to persons, or rights to things, or rights to other people's actions. But the rights to persons are alien to the nature of property, while civil law deals only with property rights, so that rights to persons, in fact, have no place in civil law. And we therefore have to dwell on the two-term division of the object of law, i.e., to accept that the objects of civil law are things and other people's actions. Both of these subjects fit under the concept of property, so that, one might say, property appears to be an object of civil law. At the same time, the scientist pointed out that not all things and not all property rights are objects. Those are only those that represent some value, property interest, are reduced to an assessment for money. Another - no less famous researcher - G. F. Shershenevich considered property in a legal and economic sense. In the economic sense, he referred to property things (i.e., objects of the material world) and the actions of other persons (which were expressed in the transfer of things, in personal services, in the application of their labor force). At the same time, the legal understanding of property, according to the author, did not coincide with the economic one, since from a legal point of view, property is understood as the totality of property relations in which persons are located. At the same time, attention was focused on the fact that relations are property insofar as they can be valued in money, which served as a criterion for distinguishing them from personal relations. As for the composition of property relations, an asset and a liability of property were distinguished here. The asset included things belonging to a person on any real right, as well as the rights to other people's actions. Liabilities included things belonging to other persons, but temporarily in his possession, as well as obligations of a person. Of course, at that time things occupied a central place in the composition of property, although even now it should be noted that things, property rights are the central categories of civil law. Therefore, the following phrase of the classic looks quite relevant: “Our legislation does not withstand strict terminology and uses the word property instead of a thing, but instead of property it speaks of property or an estate.” Therefore, the hallmark of property, property relations at that time, speaking modern language, there was the possibility of valuation of the good, its evaluation in money.

The modern concept of property is also collective.

S. A. Stepanov identifies four meanings of the term “property”: firstly, the asset and liability of property (Articles 132, 340 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) is the most complete and broad interpretation of this concept; secondly, it is a set of things and property rights (both obligatory and real, constituting a complete asset of property); thirdly, things and real rights (incomplete asset of property), fourthly, exclusively things (real asset of property) - the most common use of the term "property"

PROPERTY RIGHTS

PROPERTY RIGHTS - the subjective rights of participants in legal relations associated with the possession, use and disposal of property, as well as with those material (property) requirements that arise between participants in economic turnover regarding the distribution of this property and the exchange (of goods, services, work performed, money, securities, etc.). PROPERTY RIGHTS are the powers of the owner, the right operational management(property rights) and obligations (including the right to compensation for damage caused to the health of a citizen due to loss of earnings, as well as damage caused to property of an individual or legal entity), the rights of authors, inventors, innovators to remuneration (fee) for the works they created (the results of their creative work), inheritance law.

Glossary of financial terms.

See what "PROPERTY RIGHTS" is in other dictionaries:

Property rights- (English Property rights) civil rights (see Civil rights and obligations) of participants in legal relations related to possession, use and ... Encyclopedia of Law

Property rights- (property rights) - the rights associated with ownership (ownership) to real estate (real estate). Property includes the right to use property (property), its sale, lease, donation; as well as development, use for ... ... Economic and Mathematical Dictionary

property rights- Rights associated with ownership (ownership) to real estate (real estate). Property includes the right to use property (property), its sale, lease, donation; as well as development, use for agricultural purposes, ... ... Technical Translator's Handbook

Law Dictionary

See PROPERTY RIGHTS Glossary of business terms. Akademik.ru. 2001 ... Glossary of business terms

PROPERTY RIGHTS- subjective rights of participants in property legal relations, i.e. relations related to the possession, use and disposal of property, as well as with those material (property) claims that arise between participants in a civil ... Legal Encyclopedia

Modern Encyclopedia

Property rights- PROPERTY RIGHTS, subjective rights of participants in legal relations related to the possession, use and disposal of property, as well as those material (property) requirements that arise between participants in the economic ... ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

property rights- subjective rights of participants in legal relations related to the possession, use and disposal of property, as well as those material (property) requirements that arise between participants in civil circulation regarding ... ... Big Law Dictionary

PROPERTY RIGHTS- in civil law property rights are understood as the rights of participants in civil legal relations related to the exercise of their powers of possession, use and disposal of property, as well as property claims, ... ... Legal Dictionary of Modern Civil Law

Books

, R. Zohm. This book will be produced in accordance with your order using Print-on-Demand technology. Reproduced in the original author's spelling of the 1916 edition (publishing house "Sergiev Posad" ...
Institutions. Book 2. Property rights, R. Zom. Reproduced in the original author's spelling of the 1916 edition (publishing house `Sergiev Posad`). Attention! This product is not subject to wholesale or cumulative discounts. This…

Property rights in Russian law

Introduction

Chapter 1. CONCEPT AND TYPES OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

1.1 Rights in rem and obligations

1.2 Rights to the results of intellectual activity and means of individualization

1.3 Inheritance rights

Chapter 2. FEATURES OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES AND SOURCES

APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

For many years in Russia, due to the planned nature of the economy, there was practically no turnover of property rights. Today, transactions with property rights are becoming more common. This is facilitated by both the new legislative regulation and the need to overcome the crisis of non-payments, which paralyzes the normal development of the market. However, the formation of the turnover of property rights is quite painful and contradictory. This is largely due to the shortcomings of the legal framework and the lack of scientific developments that could form the basis of legal regulation. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation also names property rights among the objects of civil rights, but does not disclose the content of this concept. Meanwhile, it seems that property rights have a number of features that inevitably affect the possibility of classifying them as objects of civil rights, legal relations, and the specifics of the circulation of these rights. It is impossible to reveal these features in isolation from the study of the concept of the object of civil legal relations in general. This category has long been controversial among jurists, including civilists, and so far in the science of civil law there has not been a common understanding of it.

Purpose of the study.

This course work pursues the goal of a comprehensive study and analysis of property rights in Russian law.

Research objectives:

Expand the concept of "property right", "property";

Determine the types of property rights in Russian law;

To characterize the types of property rights in Russian law;

Determine the features of property rights in Russian law.

The theoretical basis of the study was the works of well-known Russian civilists, in particular: Yu.S. Gambarova, K.D. Kavelina, D.I. Meyer, I.N. Trepitsyn, G.F. Shershenevich and others; scientists of the Soviet period and the present: T.E. Abova, M.M. Agarkova, S.S. Alekseeva, G. Amfiteatrova, A.N. Arzamastseva, N.A. Barinova, Yu.G. Basina, M.I. Braginsky, S.N. Bratusya, A.V. Benediktov, V.V. Vitryansky, D.M. Genkina, V.P. Gribanova, R.E. Gukasyan, I.M. Zaitseva, T.I. Illarionova, O.S. Ioffe, A.Yu. Kabalkina, Yu.Kh. Kalmykova, A.G. Kalpin, S.F. Kechekyan, SM. Kornee-va, O.A. Krasavchikova, L.A. Lunts, V.F. Maslova, A.I. Maslyaeva, N.I. Matuzova, V.P. Mozolin, I.B. Novitsky, V.K. Raikher, V.A. Rybakova, V.A. Ryasentseva, O.N. Sadikova, A.P. Sergeeva, E.A. Sukhanova, V.A. Tarkhova, Yu.K. Tolstoy, P.O. Khalfina, V.M. Khvostova, V.A. Khokhlova, Z.I. Tsybulenko, B.B. Cherepakhina, L.V. Shchennikova, K.S. Yudelson, V.F. Yakovlev and others.

CHAPTER 1. CONCEPT AND TYPES OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

1.1 Rights in rem and obligations

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation) in Resolution No. 9-P of 06.06.2000 clarified that everyone has the right to own property, own, use and dispose of it both individually and jointly with other persons (Article 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation ), everyone has the right to free use of their property for entrepreneurial and other activities (Article 34 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). Within the meaning of these provisions, the term “property” covers any property associated with the exercise of the right of private and other forms of ownership, including property rights, including the rights of possession, use and disposal of property received from the owner. The implementation of property rights is carried out on the basis of general legal principles of inviolability of property and freedom of contract, which presuppose equality, autonomy of will and property independence of participants in civil law relations, and the inadmissibility of arbitrary interference in private affairs. The concept of "property" in its constitutional and legal sense covers, in particular, real rights and rights of claim belonging to creditors.

It follows from the foregoing that the property right includes the rights of possession, use and disposal, namely: rights in rem (in terms of ownership and other rights in rem) and rights of obligations.

“A right is called a property right when a thing is its object, i.e. an object that does not have the value of a subject of law. Predominantly such a right is the right of ownership of inanimate things.

According to V.P. Mozolin and A.I. Maslyaev, the right to own means the possibility of the owner actually owning the property belonging to him, the right to use - the possibility of consumption (appropriation) by the owner of the useful properties of the property, the right to dispose - the ability to determine the owner of the legal fate of the property (its alienation, transfer to use by other persons, use by the owner himself). owner, etc.).

In other words, the owner has the right to independently make transactions regarding his property, including alienating his property into the ownership of other persons or transferring the rights of possession or use to them, while remaining the owner.

The owner's property rights to a thing arise from the moment of acquiring the right of ownership, on the grounds established by Chapter 14 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. For example, when buying a thing, the owner along with it acquires a property right to it, which allows him to use this thing and benefit from it, i.e. the owner, when using this thing, realizes his property rights. From the moment of alienation by the owner of the property (sale, donation, etc.), together with the thing, all property rights to it are “alienated”.

By exercising his rights in rem, the owner of the property may transfer, while remaining the owner, to another person a part of his property rights, for example, transfer the property on lease. By transferring its property for temporary use, the owner-lessor retains the right to dispose of the property (or disposal and possession), granting the right of possession and use (or use) to the tenant. Those. the lessor is limited in his property rights for the term of the lease agreement - in the right to use his property or possession and use, but not in the right of disposal. As an owner burdened by lease relations, the lessor has the right to dispose of the property, including selling (donating, etc.) to another person. In this case, the transfer of ownership of the property to another person is not a basis for terminating or changing the lease agreement.

Not always the right of ownership to property, and, consequently, property rights, belong to only one person. In accordance with the provisions of civil law, property may be owned by two or more persons (Article 244 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). For example, the property of spouses acquired during marriage, as a rule, is their joint property (Article 34 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation). And, as a result, being joint owners of property, the spouses have equal property rights to this property, and the realization of property rights is possible either jointly or by one of the spouses with the consent of the other.

Let's sum up the intermediate results. As you can see, property rights are the powers of the owner of property associated with the possession, use, disposal of property. The considered property rights are property rights. Real rights, along with the right of ownership, in particular, are: the right of lifetime inheritable possession of a land plot, the right of permanent (perpetual) use of a land plot, easements, the right of operational management, the right of economic management.

“In many cases, the object of law is someone else's action: another person is obliged to perform a certain action to which the person has the right, as a result of which the right is called the right of obligation. All rights arising from contracts belong to this.

Another component of property rights is the rights of obligations arising from the contract, as a result of causing harm and from other grounds provided for by law. According to Article 307 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the debtor is obliged to perform a certain action in favor of the creditor: transfer property, perform work, make payment, etc., or refrain from a certain action, and the creditor has the right to require the debtor to fulfill his obligation. The debtor and the creditor are parties to the obligation, where the debtor is the active party, and the creditor exercises his property right through the behavior of the debtor. So, for example, the lessee has the right to present directly to the seller of the property that is the subject of the financial lease agreement, the requirements arising from the sale and purchase agreement concluded between the seller and the lessor, in particular, in relation to the quality and completeness of the property, the timing of its delivery and in other cases of improper performance of the contract by the seller. At the same time, the tenant has the rights and bears the obligations provided for by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation for the buyer, except for the obligation to pay for the acquired property, as if he were a party to the contract for the sale of the said property.

When transferring property for temporary use under a lease agreement, the owner has the right to require the tenant to properly handle his property and pay rental (leasing) payments for its provision. Having provided the property for rent, the lessor retains the right of ownership (rights in rem) to it, but, by virtue of the contract concluded with the lessee, a legal relationship of obligations arises that determines the rights and obligations of the parties to the lease agreement. Those. when the lessor disposes of his property (property) rights, legal obligations arising from the contract concluded with the lessee arise.

In addition to the rights in rem and obligations discussed above, property rights are exclusive rights to the results of intellectual activity and inheritance rights.

1.2 Rights to the results of intellectual activity and means of individualization

Consider some features of the rights to the results of intellectual activity.

It should be noted that from January 1, 2008, legal relations related to intellectual property are regulated by part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The term intellectual property means the results of intellectual activity and means of individualization that are not the result of intellectual activity, but equated to them. The objects of intellectual property include:

Works of science, literature and art;

Programs for electronic computers (computer programs);

Database; performance; phonograms;

Communication on the air or by cable of radio or television programs (broadcasting of on-air or cable broadcasting organizations);

inventions; useful models;

industrial designs;

Breeding achievements;

Topologies of integrated circuits;

Production secrets (know-how);

Brand names;

Trademarks and service marks;

Appellations of origin of goods;

Commercial designations.

At the same time, the subject of civil circulation, as a rule, is not the above objects themselves, but not the rights to them. Note that, unlike Russian legislation, international law considers intellectual property precisely as a set of rights related to it.

According to Russian civil law, the results of intellectual activity and equated means of individualization are recognized as intellectual rights (Article 1226 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The concept of intellectual property rights is new to the system of Russian legislation. Previously used in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 128, 138 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), the concept of "intellectual property" actually included both objects of civil law - "the results of intellectual activity", and the rights to them - "exclusive rights" or "intellectual property", which was not entirely correct.

The totality of intellectual rights (Article 1226 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) includes exclusive (property rights), and in cases provided for by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, also personal non-property rights and other rights (right of passage, right of access).

Intellectual rights to the results of intellectual activity arise as a result of the creative activity of a person (author) and include the author's personal non-property rights. Intellectual rights to intangible objects that are not the result of human creative activity (means of individualization, trademarks, service marks, etc.) include only exclusive (property) rights.

The exclusive right to the result of intellectual activity or to a means of individualization includes the following rights of the right holder - an individual or legal entity:

The right to use in any way that does not contradict the law (Article 1229 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);

The right to dispose of the result of intellectual activity (means of individualization), including the right to alienate, the right to transfer the rights of use, the right to allow or prohibit other persons from using the result of intellectual activity (means of individualization) (Articles 1229, 1233 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);

The right to protection from illegal (without the consent of the copyright holder) use of the result of intellectual activity (means of individualization).

Therefore, by exercising the above rights, the right holder thereby realizes his property rights, including the right of disposal, use, extracting useful properties, acquiring various benefits from the result of intellectual activity (means of individualization).

The exclusive right to the result of intellectual activity or to a means of individualization may belong to one or more persons jointly.

The use by persons who are not copyright holders of the results of intellectual activity and means of individualization that are the object of exclusive rights can be carried out by third parties only with the consent of the copyright holder.

It should also be noted that the results of intellectual activity themselves and the means of individualization equated to them cannot be alienated or otherwise transferred from one person to another (clause 4, article 129 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). However, the rights to such results and means of individualization, as well as material carriers in which the corresponding results or means are expressed, may be alienated or otherwise transferred from one person to another in the cases and in the manner established by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

We also note that intellectual rights do not depend on the ownership of a material carrier (thing) in which the corresponding results of intellectual activity or a means of individualization are expressed (Article 1227 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). And, accordingly, the transfer of property rights to a thing does not entail the transfer of intellectual rights to the result of intellectual activity itself, expressed in this thing, except for the case when the original work is alienated by its owner, who, in turn, is not the author.

Thus, taking into account the content, property rights include, in addition to real and liability rights, property rights to intangible objects - the results of intellectual activity and means of individualization equated to them.

1.3 Inheritance rights

Another type of property rights are inheritance rights, regulated by Section V of Part III of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Inheritance rights are associated with the transfer of property rights in the composition of the property of the deceased to his heirs. The composition of the inheritance includes things belonging to the testator on the day of opening the inheritance, other property, including property rights and obligations.

It should be noted that the third part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not contain special rules governing the inheritance of exclusive rights to the results of intellectual activity and equivalent means of individualization. In this regard, it is necessary to be guided by the norms of the fourth part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes general and special rules for the inheritance of intellectual property.

The transfer of property rights to inherited property is carried out by will and by law.

To summarize: taking into account the content, the following types can be distinguished as part of property rights: property rights to a thing (property rights), rights of obligations, exclusive rights and inheritance rights.

Chapter 2. FEATURES OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

The initial economic basis of all property objects of civil rights are things about which property-law and obligation relations are formed. Law perceives these objects in their static state. The dynamics of real legal relations usually leads to the emergence of legal obligations in their classical form. At the same time, the real legal reality also provides an opportunity to observe the phenomena of the transition of property-law object structures into obligations-law, and vice versa. In these transitional processes, the property right, separating itself from its obligation basis, can acquire a number of proprietary features. At the same time, there is also a counter process of obtaining obligations-legal characteristics by “classic” things. The above transitional processes constitute one of the most difficult tasks of legal regulation, despite the fact that in civil law, the dispositive, contractual regime of legal regulation, which the participants in the legal relationship choose for themselves in each specific case, is predominant. This circumstance directly affects the clarity of the definition of the regime of property rights, their classification, as well as the extent to which they can appear as independent objects of law.

When determining the general boundaries of the possible manifestation of property rights as independent objects of legal regulation, one should, in our opinion, proceed from the fact that these rights can arise, firstly, with a certain dynamics of proprietary relations and, secondly, in the course of further transformation binding legal relations. After all, not every movement of property rights leads to the emergence of an independent property right. To do this, such a right must, as it were, “break away” from the thing. For example, derivative property right of economic management of property, the right of operational management of property, easements, the right of permanent (unlimited) use of a land plot, the right of lifetime inheritable possession of a land plot, etc. (Article 216 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) cannot distance themselves from their material substrate to to such an extent as to get a chance to be recognized as independent objects of civil law. They, according to Article 128 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, fall into the group of things, more precisely, they are rigidly tied to things. And the reason lies here in the fact that the given rights are not "torn off" from the thing; they directly represent the legal regime of the thing. A “separation” from a thing takes place when the law ceases to characterize the thing as a use-value. However, it remains a property right (although no longer a property right), since it retains the cost criterion. In this capacity, it can become the subject of certain transactions, and in general - the object of civil rights. So, according to paragraph 6 of article 66 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a contribution to the property of a business partnership or company can be property rights or other rights that have a monetary value. At first glance, it seems that the legislator uses a tautology, naming property rights and other rights that have a monetary value, since these "other" rights are also property rights. However, there are differences between the two rights.

The original property right always has (may have) a monetary value, since it characterizes the value of a thing in the amount of rights to it. Other rights in their original state may not have a monetary value. For example, the right of authorship, the right to invention, know-how. In the case of their introduction into commodity circulation, they acquire a monetary value. In economic practice, cases of transferring the right to use property for a certain period to the authorized (share) capital of commercial organizations are very common. Such a right, being a property right of ownership (derivative property right), acquires an independent meaning, since not a thing and not its value, but only the cost (monetary) equivalent of the right to use property, is contributed to the authorized capital of the organization. A commercial organization becomes the owner of such an equivalent. This property right of organizations is realized through the direct use of property within a specified period. There seem to be two conjugate processes going on here.

One of them is related to the movement of the property right to use as an independent object, which is expressed only in value (monetary) terms; the other - serves as the realization of property rights through the use (exploitation) of things. That is why the Federal Law of February 8, 1998 “On Limited Liability Companies” states that in the event of early termination of the right to use property, the participant who transferred the property for use by the company is obliged, at the request of the latter, to make monetary compensation equal to the payment for the use of such property in the remaining term, unless otherwise provided in the memorandum of association (art. 15). The relative independence of the analyzed rights is also evidenced by the consequences that occur for a participant in a business company who has contributed the right to use property to the authorized capital in the event of his withdrawal or exclusion from this commercial organization. In this case, as noted in the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated December 9, 1999 No. 90/14 “On Certain Issues of the Application of the Federal Law “On Limited Liability Companies”, the property remains in the use of the company until the expiration of the established period, if the memorandum of association does not provide otherwise (clause 8).

With the exit (exclusion) from society, an independent property right as an object of legal relations also ceases. And between the former member of the company and the company, classical obligations are formed for the lease of certain property.

As mentioned above, on the basis of absolute intellectual property rights, an independent property right may also arise; This is due to the possibility of materialization of intangible property and its participation in commodity circulation. The introduction, for example, into the authorized (reserve) capital of the right to use a patent, know-how, and other similar rights that have a value expression, is a clear confirmation of what has been said. On the basis of a commercial concession agreement, independent property rights are also formed.

Property law as a separate object of civil law, in respect of which legal relations arise, also takes place when the obligation undergoes certain changes in the course of its dynamics. But such dynamics should not lead to the termination of the obligation itself, as such. For example, an independent property right does not arise as an object of relations if the obligation is terminated by novation, in accordance with Article 414 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

It is important that changes in the obligation concern, to a certain extent, its subjects or subjects and content. The “purity” of such a structure is not violated even in the case when the obligation is terminated by the release of the debtor by the creditor from the obligations that lie on him (Article 415 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Although here the subject of a unilateral transaction of the creditor is his property right, which he himself terminates, it becomes obvious that this is only part of the obligation, on the basis of which the right to claim against the debtor arose.

The dynamics of the obligation may lead to the emergence of various property rights as independent objects of legal regulation. These rights of claim are of a monetary nature or "in-kind" form (with regard to the transfer of a thing, the performance of work, the provision of services). In the literature, it has been argued that the emergence of this kind of property rights occurs in the mode of assignment of rights. Chapter 24 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to A. Gabov, should be of a general nature for any case of assignment of rights. And no difference can be established between the transfer of "in-kind" rights and rights from pecuniary obligations. There is another view on this matter. The sale of monetary claims arising from contracts for the transfer of goods, the performance of work or the provision of services is carried out in the form of an agreement on the assignment of a monetary claim (Article 824 of the Civil Code), and not a sale; the subject of the sale may be claims in kind from contracts and non-contractual obligations.

Changes in an obligation leading to the emergence of a property right as an independent object of legal regulation concern only the subjects or subjects and the content of the original obligation. When changing persons in an obligation by way of assignment of the right to claim, the content side of the obligation, according to the general provision, remains unchanged (Articles 382-388 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In contracts for the sale of property rights, the right to claim as the subject of the contract is assessed according to the general provision by agreement of the parties, and for this reason it cannot be brought under the mechanism for changing persons in the obligation provided for in Chapter 24 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The price of the right to claim may vary depending on market conditions. This provision does not apply, of course, to gratuitous transactions regarding property rights, in particular, to a donation agreement, according to which the donor transfers to the donee a property right (claim) to himself or to a third party (Article 572 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

In the practice of economic turnover, a special place is occupied by the property right of claim, called receivables, which is often assigned to another entity through financing or assignment. Accounts receivable usually include a current right arising from an agreement with the debtor, a future debt that is not enforceable at the time of the assignment or is not supported by performance. As can be seen, accounts receivable include contractual monetary and (or) highly liquid commodity obligations of the debtor, existing at the time of the assignment, and future ones (this does not take into account non-contractual monetary obligations and others of a special nature - a bank guarantee, surety, debt from a tort obligation, etc.). .P.). The "saleability" of a property claim, its commodity nature does not turn this property right into a thing. This right retains the constitutive obligation features (the purchase price depends on the debtor's property status, the duration of the debt, etc.). However, the legal obligations characteristics of a property right in certain situations can be weakened so much that the right to claim, or rather, the conditions for its existence and implementation, approach the features of objects of property rights. Such an example gives us the “Temporary instruction on the procedure for the arrest and realization of rights (claims) belonging to the debtor as a creditor for unfulfilled monetary obligations of third parties to pay for goods actually delivered, work performed or services rendered (accounts receivable) when foreclosing the property of debtor organizations ”, approved by the order of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation of July 3, 1998 No. No. 76. This in many respects noteworthy document, based on the correct understanding of receivables as rights (claims) belonging to the debtor organization as a creditor for unfulfilled monetary obligations of third parties to pay for goods actually delivered, work performed or services rendered, for the purposes of foreclosure on these rights refers them to the first priority of the debtor's property subject to arrest and sale, i.e. as property not directly involved in production, on a par with securities, cash on deposit and other accounts of the debtor, currency values, etc. But, on the other hand, the same receivables are considered simultaneously as the property of the debtor, which is in the actual use of his debtor. According to Article 58 of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”, if the debtor-organization does not have sufficient funds to pay off the debt, foreclosure is levied on other property of the debtor, regardless of where and in whose actual use it is located. That is why the seizure of receivables creates legal consequences not only for the debtor itself (a ban on the debtor performing any actions that lead to a change or termination of legal relations by virtue of which the debtor's receivables were formed, as well as on the transfer of relevant claims to third parties), but also for his debtor. Payments made by the debtor of the debtor in this manner shall be counted towards the reduction of the debtor's debt under the enforcement document on the basis of which the recovery is made. Consequently, the debtor, at the request of the person carrying out the recovery, settles not with his creditor (debtor organization), but with the debtor's creditors. Since such a procedure is established only at the subordinate level, the only legal basis for such behavior of the debtor may be, in our opinion, the fulfillment of the obligation of the debtor organization to its creditors by a third party (debtor of the debtor) in accordance with Article 313 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. To assess this situation, it is completely irrelevant that the debtor's payments are initially credited to the account of the person carrying out the collection, and only from him - to the debtor's creditors. It is important to note that the debtor's creditors do not simultaneously become creditors of the debtor's debtor (in principle, they may remain unknown to the debtor) and, therefore, do not have any independent claim against the debtor. It follows that the debtor also cannot have any objections to these creditors - neither personal nor based on his relationship with the debtor organization. Such a situation, however, is completely uncharacteristic of the forms of movement of legal relations known to us, the object of which is the right of obligation to claim. The property-commodity nature of receivables is even more clearly manifested when it is sold in the process of enforcement proceedings, for which legal tools are used that are characteristic of the sale and purchase of things (valuation and revaluation, sale at open auctions in the manner of Articles 447-449 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, commission sale, etc.). The winning bidder becomes the new creditor of the debtor, but the right of claim transferred to the buyer is no longer based on the previous relationship between the debtor and the debtor entity. The basis of the claim of the new creditor is not the assignment of the right to him (the person exercising the collection under what conditions cannot be considered as the assignor), but the acquisition, purchase of the “pure” right of claim, cut off from the original cause. Therefore, the debtor also does not have any objections against the claims of the new creditor, which would be based on relations with the previous creditor.

These rather complex transitional phenomena are not properly regulated by law, which is regrettable in view of the fact that such transitional constructions have become widespread in economic circulation. Suffice it to say that in practice there are, for example, signs of "reification" of obligations not only monetary, but also in kind, in particular, for the provision of services. So, as quasi-objects in the financial market, the so-called “tariff” has become widespread, as noted above, which is a value expression of the volume of transport services to be provided to the shipper, but is relatively free to circulate by selling it at a discount among intermediaries who do not send goods. . A similar position is occupied in the market and "energy rubles". They acquired an almost boundless scope of offsetting debts, and the credit sheets or statements used for this purpose were only one step away from bills of exchange.

Attempts to extend the theory of "incorporeal things" not only to money and securities, but also to property rights lead in practice to the destruction of a number of basic institutions of civil law. This phenomenon also affects such an institution, seemingly far from objective characteristics, as the limitation period. In the practice of the courts, there is an increasing tendency not to limit the limitation periods for the possibility of satisfying the lender's claim to the borrower for the return of sums of money under a loan agreement (loan agreement). As you know, for such claims, the limitation period begins to run after the expiration of the established period for the borrower to fulfill his obligation to repay the amount of the debt. The noted trend is based on the hidden idea that the statute of limitations, by analogy with negatory claims, should not apply to disputes about the unlawful retention of other people's funds as things (especially since money in Article 128 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is recognized as a variety of things).

Thus, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Rostov Regional Court, in its ruling dated March 22, 2000, upheld the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Rostov-on-Don dated September 28, 1999, by which the amount of a loan agreement concluded with an individual who has not repaid the debt. Despite the fact that by the time the claim was filed, the three-year limitation period had already expired, and the defendant asked to dismiss the claim on this basis, the court of first instance satisfied the claim, and the Judicial Board in its ruling indicated that the limitation period had not been missed, i.e. to. on the day the claim is filed, the debt is not returned, as a result of which the court reasonably, in accordance with Art. 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, did not apply this term.

As can be seen, the ruling presents two mutually exclusive arguments in favor of the decision taken by the district court. On the one hand, it is indicated that the limitation period has not been missed, on the other hand, the cassation instance believes that the limitation period does not apply at all, since the debt was not returned by the defendant at the time of filing the claim. And this means that by the last argument, the obligatory loan relations are taken out by the court beyond the limits of the institute of limitation period. However, the current legislation does not allow agreeing with such decisions and rulings of the courts, which, unfortunately, are not uncommon in the law enforcement system. Obviously, in such situations, the measure of property features in property objects that are not things - in money, securities, property rights, materialized objects of intellectual property should be observed with jewelry accuracy and consistency.

The concept of property, social relations that develop over the possession of the means of production and consumer goods. Characteristics of private, state, municipal property. Acquisition and termination of ownership.

Emergence of rights and obligations of spouses. Classification of personal non-property rights. Institute of property of spouses: norms of family law. The rule on the presumption of consent of the spouse to a transaction on the disposal of common property. The concept of a marriage contract.

Generalization of the types and features of civil legal relations: property and non-property, absolute and relative, property and mandatory, urgent and perpetual. Signs of an invalid transaction. Terms of implementation of subjective civil rights.

The concept and specificity of civil relations, their property and non-property types. Absolute, relative, real and obligatory civil relations. Features of the functioning of civil rights. The main types of civil rights.

Forms of ownership and rights to it. Property law, civil law protection of property rights. Claim for recovery of property from someone else's illegal possession(vindication). Claim for the elimination of violations not related to deprivation of possession (negator).

The concept and types of real rights of persons who are not owners. Classification of civil rights, division into real and obligatory. The right to own, use and dispose of their property. The right of economic management and operational management.

The place of servitudes among property rights to other people's things. The need for this category of law, types of easements. Peculiar features that distinguish emphyteusis and superficies from servitudes. Features of the use of personal and real easements. Pledge and its types.

Concept and protection intellectual property as the exclusive right of a citizen or legal entity to the results of intellectual activity and means of product individualization - a trademark. Peculiarities of license contracts and agreements.

Features of the emergence of intellectual property at various stages social production. Exclusive rights to the results of intellectual activity, enshrined in the current legislation. Patent filing priority.

The concept and types of objects, property, things in civil law. Items completely withdrawn from circulation, limited circulation, items in circulation. Divisible and indivisible. Service. Features of securities.

Grounds for the emergence of civil rights and obligations; types of objects of civil rights; restriction of property rights; forfeit, pledge, deduction. According to Art. 540 of the Civil Code of the RSFSR, the will must be made in writing.

1. Property rights

Property rights are the subjective rights of participants in legal relations related to the possession, use and disposal of property, as well as those material (property) requirements that arise between participants in economic turnover regarding the distribution of this property and the exchange (of goods, services, work performed, money , securities, etc.). Property rights are the powers of the owner, the right of operational management and rights of obligation (including the right to compensation for damage caused to the health of a citizen due to loss of earnings, as well as damage caused to the property of an individual or legal entity), the rights of authors, inventors, innovators to remuneration ( fee) for the works created by them (the results of their creative work), inheritance law.

The concept and types of property rights

Rights in rem and obligations

The content of the right of ownership lies in the fact that the owner has the right to own, use and dispose of his property. The right to possess means the possibility of the owner actually owning the property belonging to him, the right to use - the possibility of consumption (appropriation) by the owner of the useful properties of the property, the right to dispose - the ability to determine the owner of the legal fate of the property (its alienation, transfer for use to other persons, use by the owner himself and etc.).

Not always the right of ownership to property, and consequently, property rights, belong to only one person. In accordance with the provisions of civil law, property may be owned by two or more persons (Article 244 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). For example, the property of spouses acquired during marriage, as a rule, is their joint property (Article 34 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation). And, as a result, being joint owners of property, the spouses have equal property rights to this property, and the realization of property rights is possible either jointly or by one of the spouses with the consent of the other.

Another component of property rights is the rights of obligations arising from the contract, as a result of causing harm and from other grounds provided for by law. According to Article 307 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the debtor is obliged to perform a certain action in favor of the creditor: transfer property, perform work, make payment, etc., or refrain from a certain action, and the creditor has the right to require the debtor to fulfill his obligation. The debtor and the creditor are parties to the obligation, where the debtor is the active party, and the creditor exercises his property right through the behavior of the debtor. So, for example, the tenant has the right to present directly to the seller the property that is the subject of the contract financial lease, claims arising from the sale and purchase agreement concluded between the seller and the lessor, in particular, in relation to the quality and completeness of the property, the timing of its delivery and in other cases of improper performance of the contract by the seller. At the same time, the tenant has the rights and bears the obligations provided for by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation for the buyer, except for the obligation to pay for the acquired property, as if he were a party to the contract for the sale of the said property.

In addition to the rights in rem and obligations discussed above, property rights are exclusive rights to the results of intellectual activity and inheritance rights.

SPECIFICITY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

V. POROSHKOV
V. Poroshkov, candidate of legal sciences (Tula).
Transactions with property rights are a rapidly developing area of civil circulation. The assignment of these objects of civil rights to the number of objects of contracts of sale, pledge, donation as the most common types of agreements on the emergence, change and termination of property relations gives rise to many theoretical and practical issues. For example, can members of the owner's family pledge the right to use a dwelling (Article 292 of the Civil Code)? Is it possible to sell the right to use a thing during the period of acquisitive prescription (Article 234 of the Civil Code)? Is it possible to buy and sell the right of inheritance (Article 18 of the Civil Code), including before the death of the testator? Why is the property being sold, and not the ownership of it?
Interestingly, in civil law Soviet period it was already possible to come across a mention of property rights in the context of property (rights and obligations) transferred in the process of reorganization of a legal entity (Article 37 of the Civil Code of the RSFSR of 1964). This served as the basis for the theoretical allocation of property rights precisely as objects of civil legal relations. However, in the Civil Code of the RSFSR of 1964 there was no separate chapter devoted to the objects of civil rights. The provisions on these elements of legal relations were dissolved in other sections of the code, in particular, in the chapters on the right of ownership. The paucity of normative material, combined with the exceptional nature of relations for the transfer of property rights, did not imply wide attention to this issue, both in science and in practice.
The Civil Code of the Russian Federation devotes a special subsection to the objects of civil rights, consisting of three chapters. However, there is no legal definition of property rights. In the articles of the Civil Code devoted to the objects of civil rights, only twice there is a mention of property rights: initially in paragraph 1 of Art. 128, listing the types of objects of civil rights, and later in Art. 132, which contains provisions similar to the former Civil Code of the RSFSR on the composition of an enterprise as a property complex, where the so-called "claims and debts" of an enterprise are distinguished. This explains the need for scientific development of these provisions.
What are property rights as objects of civil rights?
First of all, it is necessary to define the meaning of the term "property" in order to understand the essence of this type of objects. At first glance, the accuracy of the definition of the concept of property rights essentially depends only on this term. However, it is not. Traditionally, the word "property" is considered as a homonym and is interpreted in various meanings: as a thing or a set of things; as things and rights to them; as the first and second meanings, plus property obligations and exclusive rights (Commentary to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, part one (item-by-article). M., 1998, p. 269). Naturally, neither the second nor even the third meaning of the term "property" is suitable for us, because these meanings already contain property rights and the definition of "property" through "property" is impossible.
This means that we should talk about "property" as a thing or a set of things. It is logical to assume that property rights are rights to things or to their totality.
The paradox of the situation lies in the fact that in civil law there has long been the concept of property rights as rights to things, but not from the point of view of objects of civil rights, but from the point of view of the content of civil legal relations. Paragraph 1 of Art. 2 of the Civil Code determines that civil law regulates, first of all, property relations. In turn, property relations could be divided into at least three groups: real, obligatory, hereditary. At the same time, the subject of any property legal relationship is already the bearer of a subjective property right.
Thus, the use of the term "property rights" in itself does not express the essence of this object. It seems that their essence as objects of civil rights can be identified from the nature of the relations in which these objects are used.
In what cases is it allowed to use property rights as objects of civil rights?
For inheritance relations, the regulation of which is still carried out by the Civil Code of the RSFSR, the provision of Art. 552 of the Civil Code of the RSFSR, which does not allow the transfer of rights to a share in royalties to the state, but implies such a transfer of property rights to individuals. The absence in the current legislation of a provision on the composition of hereditary property is compensated by rich judicial practice, which implies a broad interpretation of the term "property". So, paragraph 14 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 25, 1996 "On amendments and additions to certain issues of the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation" contains an indication of the approximate composition of the inheritance, considering as such, for example, land shares (shares), a share of the value production funds of collective farms (state farms) or shares in the amount of this share. The draft of part three of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation directly refers property rights to the number of objects that make up the concept of inheritance.
The attribution of property rights to objects of civil rights in the relationship of obligations raises a complex theoretical question about the concept of the object of obligation. Given the different points of view on this issue, property rights in a legal relationship of obligations can be defined either as an object or as a subject of obligations. In the first case, property rights are a benefit "to which the subjective rights and legal obligations are directed" (Matuzov N.I., Malko A.V. Theory of State and Law. M., 1997. P. 493) of the participants in the obligation. In the second case, property rights are the boon for which the creditor acquires "the right to other people's actions" (Meyer D.I. Russian civil law. In 2 parts. Part 2. M., 1997. P. 125). The legislator defines property rights as a subject of obligation (paragraph 1 of article 336 of the Civil Code). Apparently, this theoretical problem is important precisely for characterizing the legal relationship of obligations, since regardless of whether property rights are an object or a subject of an obligation, these benefits are directly related to civil rights in such property relations, and therefore should be considered as objects of such right.
In real legal relations, property rights as objects of civil rights are used only as a legal fiction. The explanation for this should be sought in the historically established opposition of proprietary and liability legal relations, which presupposed the existence of clear criteria for distinguishing between these categories. One of the signs of real legal relations arising from the signs of real rights is the inseparable connection of the subject of real right with the thing. In the context of our question, this means that only things, i.e. spatially limited objects of the material world. It is interesting to note that even D. Meyer suggested that "property rights will subsequently be replaced by rights to actions" (Meyer D.I. Decree. cit. Part 1, p. 227). Perhaps this is precisely what should explain the fact that civil law actually already operates with the concepts of corporeal (res corporales) and incorporeal (res incorporales) things. An example of the use of incorporeal things is securities. In Art. 142 of the Civil Code, this object is defined as a document certifying a property right. The essence of this good is not a document at all, but a property right confirmed by it. Another thing is that from the point of view of legislative regulation, it is more convenient to use an indirect construction of the ownership of a document, rather than talk about the direct use and disposal of a specific property right.
The common point for the considered examples is the fact that the subjects of these legal relations acquire the right to demand the actions of other persons, in contrast to ordinary situations where the subject becomes the owner of specific things. Thus, in all property relations, the rights of obligations are used as objects.
Consequently, the current legislative regulation of property rights as objects of civil rights is based on the recognition as such of liability property rights or, at least, property rights of a non-property nature. At the same time, property rights as objects can be used in the narrow and broad sense of this term. In the first case, only the rights of claim should be attributed to them (for example, Art. 336 of the Civil Code), in the second case, property rights are represented by the sum of rights of claim and obligations to perform certain actions (for example, Art. 132 of the Civil Code).
Property rights as objects of civil rights are characterized by such a distinctive feature as alienability, i.e. the possibility of their separation from the personality of a subject of civil law for transfer to another person. For this reason, the right to claim, for example, for maintenance obligations cannot be the subject of pledge relations (Article 336 of the Civil Code).
All these conclusions and provisions allow us to correctly understand the questions posed at the beginning of the article.
The right to use the living quarters of the owner's family members is one of property rights, namely, a variety of rights to other people's things. Therefore, being a property right, it still cannot be the subject of an obligation or other property legal relationship. At the same time, the sign of the inalienability of such a right cannot prevail over the absence of a binding nature for this right. By virtue of h. 1 Article. 53 JK RSFSR, the application of which is due to the reference nature of paragraph 1 of Art. 292 of the Civil Code, this right can be used by persons who have ceased to be members of the owner's family, but continue to live in the occupied residential premises. Interestingly, for other property rights, the legislator establishes direct restrictions on the disposal of such rights (clause 2 of article 275 of the Civil Code) or special grounds for acquiring such rights (articles of article 265, 268 of the Civil Code).
Equally, such a property right as the right to use a thing during the period of acquisitive prescription (Article 234 of the Civil Code) is not subject to sale, since the nature of this right confirms the property nature of the relations arising in this case.
For inheritance relations, on the contrary, an essential factor should be the inalienability of inheritance rights. Thus, the right to inherit, regardless of the basis of inheritance, is associated with a condition relating to the personality of the heir, and for this reason should not be the subject of contractual relations (in particular, the subject of a contract of sale). It does not matter whether this inheritance is expected, i.e. the testator is still alive, or is it already a real right to inherit after the opening of the inheritance.
It seems that the existence of such a rule would be useful both from a moral and public point of view, since it would allow avoiding unnecessary moral reasoning and simplify control over property turnover. At the same time, the absence in the current civil legislation of a direct ban on such transactions, in combination with the principle of disposability of civil law, suggests a positive solution to the issue of the admissibility of such transactions.
It is interesting that in a number of countries the opposite kind of transactions are also possible. Thus, the legislation of Hungary provides for a type of inheritance contract, according to which the testator undertakes to appoint the party contracting with him as his heir for providing maintenance or making periodic payments for life. The use of such a contract scheme in Russia is problematic, since Art. 583 of the Civil Code, which defines the concept of rent, speaks of the transfer of property into the ownership of the rent payer. According to the aforementioned agreement, the subject, apparently, is the right to inherit, which means that the question of incorporeal things will again arise.
The problem of incorporeal things and ownership of them can be divided into two aspects. First, the question of eliminating the tautology presents a certain difficulty. It is known that the contract of sale is the main way of acquiring ownership of things. The conclusion is logical - as soon as the subject of the purchase and sale agreement can be property rights, then the buyer may have the right of ownership to the property right, i.e. an illogical construction appears - right for right. A way out of this situation was proposed by D. Meyer, who believed that in such situations, the object of civil rights should be recognized not as an abstract right, but someone else's action, formalized with the help of law. In this case, the buyer will acquire ownership of someone else's action through the right to claim it. Secondly, a necessary stage in reasoning about property rights will be their correlation with the construction of incorporeal things. Here our reasoning can come to a dead end, since in their essence incorporeal things, as mentioned earlier, are property rights formalized in a certain way. But the legislator distinguishes between securities and property rights as different objects of civil rights.
In my opinion, the logically correct step would be to combine securities and property rights under the single term "incorporeal things", considering as such rights of obligations.
Of particular interest is the question of the legitimacy of using a purchase and sale agreement to regulate relations for the transfer of property rights. If property rights are understood as rights of obligations, i.e. rights of claim, then why it is impossible to use the construction of assignment of a claim (Article 382 of the Civil Code)? Apparently, a contract of sale or any other contract for the transfer of property rights should be considered as special case cessions.
LINKS TO LEGAL ACTS

"CIVIL CODE OF RSFSR"
(approved by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR on 06/11/1964)
"HOUSING CODE OF RSFSR"
(approved by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR on 24.06.1983)
"CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (PART ONE)"
No. 51-FZ dated November 30, 1994
(adopted by the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on October 21, 1994)
"CIVIL CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (PART TWO)"
dated 01/26/1996 N 14-FZ
(adopted by the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on December 22, 1995)
DECISION of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR dated April 23, 1991 N 2
"ABOUT SOME QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE COURTS ON CASES OF
INHERITANCE"
Russian justice, N 5, 2000