Features of inheritance of some categories of residential properties

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 171-186
Author(s):  
Светлана Чернякова ◽  
Svetlana Chernyakova
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
General Procedure ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Housing Cooperatives ◽  
Common Ownership ◽  
The Common ◽  
State Registration ◽  
The Right

The article considers the issues of inheritance of privatized dwellings with encumbered rights of citizens having the right to use the living quarters; premises in houses of housing and housing co-operatives; as well as the peculiarities of inheritance of shares in the common ownership of a dwelling. The author points out that the inheritance of privatized premises which are individually owned, carried out in a general manner. However, there are several problems associated with inheritance. In accordance with the Family Code property received by one spouse to the gratuitous transactions, is their property. Therefore, if privatization took place in the payment of certain sums of money, in this case, there is a common joint property of the spouses; if the transfer occurred gratuitously, the subject of property rights is a person with whom the contract was made. The question of inheritance of premises in houses of housing and housing cooperatives is studied. The specifics of the legal regulation of these relations are determined by the legal status of the cooperatives themselves. In contrast to the general rule, ownership does not arise from the state registration, and upon the payment of a contribution. Regardless of state registration and whether there is a document confirming the ownership of the dwelling, after the death of a member of the construction co-operative, who payd for shares, housing is inherited under the general procedure. The author studies the question about the features of transactions with shares in the common ownership of dwellings and residential premises belonging to the common ownership. In accordance with para. 2, Art. 246 of the Civil Code a co-owner has the discretion to sell, give, bequeath, pledge in its share or dispose of it. It should be borne in mind that the sale and exchange shares in the common property shall be permitted only as subject to the preemptive rights of other participants in the acquisition of such shares. Housing is not recognized as common property, when it was purchased at the actual termination of the marriage, and, consequently, the other spouse does not have any rights to housing.

scholarly journals Vindication of a Share in the Right of Common Share Ownership and Some Features of the Reclamation of Common Property

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 146-150
Author(s):  
A V Zarubin
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
The Other ◽  
Share Ownership ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
Common Ownership ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
Established Order ◽  
Relative Concept ◽  
A Share

The article analyzes the problem of vindication of share in the common ownership, due to the fact that the object of vindication is the property, at that time, as a share - relative concept. This feature has forced practitioners to adapt replevin to the recovery of shares. The result was a claim of recovery rights to the share. The lawsuit, which restored the right to share, of course, necessary participants of civil legal relationship, but its effective application requires differentiation of the vindicatory claim, a claim of recognition of rights and other means of protection.When compared to the above method of protection, the author comes to the conclusion that the right distinction is based on the factor of possessions. If the owner of the share at the same time with her lost possessions, shall be declared replevin. If the owner has only lost the title, you can apply the claim of recognition of ownership. Fixed rule about the applicability of the claim for restoration of the right to a share is intended to demonstrate the possibility of protecting the rights of the owner of the share.In addition, the paper analyzes the possibility of vindication of the shares, if the assignment was accompanied by the seizure of possession by the other co-owner. The author points out that there are forbidden by law to reclaim the property from the owner, because each of the disputants is only the owner of the share. The owner of a thing is the team co-owners. The basis of the protected ownership is the established order of use or the agreement of the owner with a team of co-owners.At the same time the article reveals some peculiarities of claiming common property.

scholarly journals Law of Common Ownership in Connection with the Development of the Economy of the Collective Use of Goods and Services

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 74-82
Author(s):  
I. Z. Ayusheeva
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Sharing Economy ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Apartment Building ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Common Ownership ◽  
The Common ◽  
Shared Property ◽  
The Right ◽  
Joint Property

It becomes urgent to resolve the issue of developing the institution of law of common ownership,  as well as property law in general, regarding the fact that property law needs reforming that has not yet been  implemented, due to the emergence, in the context of digitalization, of the economy of collective use of various  goods (sharing, the economy of shared consumption), changes in the culture of consumption and the fact that not  in all cases the acquisition of goods on the basis of sole ownership is economically justified. Users’ communities,  whose members jointly acquire objects for their collective use, including objects in common ownership, can be  considered as one of the forms of sharing. Peculiarities of exercising the right to common ownership in relation  to property in the context of a sharing economy make it possible to talk about the possibility of separating an  independent type of common property along with shared and joint property (for example, collective common  property) or distinguishing a variety of common shared property—by analogy with the right of ownership to the  common property of an apartment building. The peculiarities of the implementation of this type of common  property can be enshrined in civil legislation.

scholarly journals Legal status of the company's share in own authorized capital under the Law of Ukraine “On limited and additional liability companies”: problems of legal regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 11/1 (-) ◽  
pp. 31-36
Author(s):  
Volodymyr TSIUPRYK
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Company ◽  
Authorized Capital ◽  
A Share

Introduction. Nowadays, the issue of determining the legal status of the company's share in the own authorized capital of LLC and TDV has become quite acute, as evidenced by the adoption on July 28, 2021 by the Commercial Court of Cassation in Case № 904/1112/20, in which the Court established a new approach legal nature of such a phenomenon and expressed his own position on the understanding of the legislation concerning the legal status of the share of LLC and TDV in its own authorized capital. Given that a limited liability company is the most popular type of legal entity that is chosen to conduct business in Ukraine, the analysis of this issue is relevant. Some scientific value for the development of the transfer of the participant's share are the works of individual authors devoted to the study of the legal nature of the share in the authorized capital but the problems arising around the legal status of the company. in their own authorized capital in these works were only mentioned along with others, but did not receive a detailed separate study. The purpose of the paper is to analyze the normative regulation of the legal status of the company's share in the own authorized capital of LLCs and ALCs, identification of shortcomings in their legal regulation and implementation, as well as the search for ways to eliminate them. Results. One of the most relevant decisions concerning the subject of this article is the Judgment of the Commercial Court of Cassation in case № 904/1112/20 of July 28, 2021. The court in this case found that the votes attributable to the share belonging to the company itself are not taken into account when determining the results of voting at the general meeting of participants on any issues. However, Ukrainian legislation does not contain any direct norms that would prohibit the exercise of the right to manage a company in relation to itself on the basis of a share in its own authorized capital. That is why the company cannot be a participant in relation to itself, although they seem logical, but do not have sufficient regulatory support, and therefore do not allow to be firmly convinced of their compliance with the law. In view of this, it can be stated that there is a significant gap in the national legislation on this issue, which, in our opinion, the Court failed to “fill” with this decision in the case. Conclusion. In the Ukrainian legislation at the level of the Law of Ukraine “On Limited and Additional Liability Companies” Article 25 defines the possibility for a company to acquire a share in its own authorized capital. However, the regulation of the legal status of such a share cannot be called sufficient, due to which in practice there are certain problems in the implementation of the provisions of the legislation concerning the share of the company in its own authorized capital. The solution of these legal problems is necessary to ensure the highest quality and clarity of the law, as well as to form case law with common approaches to understanding a single rule.

scholarly journals BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF THE DEBTOR’S SPOUSE: AN INTERSECTORAL ASPECT

2020 ◽  
pp. 26-30
Author(s):  
А.S. Salimov ◽  
S.V. Voronina
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Family Law ◽  
Family Relations ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Bankruptcy Law ◽  
Joint Ownership ◽  
The Common

The bankruptcy estate of the debtor spouse is all property belonging to him both on the basis ofindividual and joint ownership, including unfulfilled property obligations. The composition of the propertyof spouses is determined by the rules of family law, taking into account the legal regulation of certain typesof property, which requires special attention when forming the bankruptcy estate of the debtor spouse. Thebankruptcy estate may include the property of a citizen, making up his share in the total property, which maybe levied in accordance with civil law, family law. Family relations are built on the principle of community,which affects the implementation of bankruptcy law. To foreclose on the share of the debtor spouse, it isnecessary to separate the share of the debtor spouse from the common property, while the bankruptcy lawallows the sale of common property with the subsequent payment of funds to the debtor’s spouse.

THE RIGHT TO LOCATE AND PROSPECTS OF ITS LEGAL REGULATION IN UKRAINIAN LEGISLATION

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valeriy Aveskulov ◽  
◽  
Yuliia Deresh ◽  
Albina Romanchuk ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Conditions ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Protective Action ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Economic Pressure ◽  
Foreign Experience ◽  
Labor Legislation ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
European Experience ◽  
The Right

This article is devoted to the study of the right to lockout, the legal status and procedure of which are not regulated in the labor legislation of Ukraine. The article considers the experience of foreign countries and options for legislative consolidation of the right to lockout. It is established that there are two types of lockout - defensive and offensive, the first of which acts as a reaction of the employer to the strike. The offensive does not require such a precondition as a workers' strike and is a means for the employer to impose its working conditions. Based on this, it was determined that most countries allow the employer to resort to such a measure if the lockout is defensive, but the procedure for its implementation contains a number of restrictions. The article analyzes the provisions of the European Social Charter, the Law of Ukraine "On the Procedure for Resolving Collective Labor Disputes (Conflicts)", the Draft Labor Code of Ukraine dated 04.12.2007 № 1108, the Draft Labor Code of Ukraine dated 27.12.2014 № 1658, the Draft Labor Code of Ukraine 08.11.2019 № 2410-1, Draft Labor Code of Ukraine dated 08.11.2019 № 2410, Draft Law on Strikes and Lockouts dated 27.12.2019 № 2682. The article considers the views of domestic scholars on the feasibility of enshrining in Ukrainian law the employer's right to lockout, some of which consider it appropriate to allow the right to lockout as a protective action of the employer in response to workers' strike, but with some restrictions. Other scholars advocate a direct ban, as such an employer's right may violate workers' right to strike. Based on the positions of scientists, foreign experience and analysis of numerous legislative attempts to determine the legal status and procedure of the right to lockout, a variant of its enshrinement in the labor legislation of Ukraine is proposed to balance the rights and interests of employees and employers and avoid economic pressure on employees. The authors consider it appropriate to consolidate the right to lockout if it is defensive, following the example of European experience.

scholarly journals SYNCHRONIZATION OF PROCEDURAL AND FINANCIAL (BANKING) FUSE OF THE IMMUNITY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (37) ◽  
pp. 503-509
Author(s):  
V. Kantsir ◽  
V. Kushpit ◽  
A. Palyukh ◽  
I. Tsylyuryk ◽  
I. Kantsir
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Social Reproduction ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Jel Classification ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

Abstract. The article is devoted to analysis of the effectiveness of the main procedural legal and financial (banking) mechanisms designed to ensure the protection of property rights’ immunity. The legally regulated procedures of such protection are analyzed on platforms — both procedural and legal as well as financial and economic. There is no doubt that only in a state where the immunity of property is declared and guaranteed to the person can be provided the development of economic, intellectual, socially oriented activities. The effect of the principle of immunity of property rights is not absolute, but its restrictions are possible only on the grounds and in the manner prescribed by law. The topicality of the inviolability of property rights is due to the role of law as a platform for citizens’ property independence and their participation in the processes of social reproduction. The guarantee of property independence is the right of ownership of property and non-property rights, which is realized by giving a person the right to freely, unimpededly, and fully exercise the rights of the owner of personal property. The compliance of the inviolability of property rights during criminal proceedings is not properly ensured in the current CPC (The Criminal Procedure Code) of Ukraine; in particular, the movement of confiscated property is not regulated, which questions the novelty of inviolability. To improve the procedure for the protection of property rights, this is necessary to regulate at the legislative level the mechanism of protection and restoration of property rights of persons victimized by criminal offenses. The etymology of «inviolability» guarantees by law the protection of the status of the person from any encroachment. Inviolability in the economic and legal context is mainly understood as a person’s legal status, which is an unalterable guarantee against unauthorized restrictions by the state institutions — law enforcement, financial, court, and individuals and legal entities. An attempt is made to accumulate most of the latest achievements (both legislative, theoretically investigative and applied) on the issues of legal regulation of the studied financial and legal relations, based on which scientific views are substantiated, and proposals are developed to improve regulations in this area. The main vectors of economic and legal mechanisms for the protection of the inviolability of property rights, which would correlate with generally accepted European and world standards, have been identified. Keywords: the inviolability of property rights, property rights, principles of proceedings, judicial protection, seizure of property, financial guarantee, financial risks. JEL Classification G28; К14 Formulas: 0; fig.: 0; tabl.: 0; bibl.: 12.

scholarly journals Problems of Legal Regulation of Issues of Redistribution of Shares in the Right of Common Property

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. 460-465
Author(s):  
N. Ablyatipova ◽  
Kunitsa
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Share Ownership ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the peculiarities of legal regulation of the redistribution of shares in the right of common share ownership. The authors examine issues of the overall legal characteristics of the share ownership, the possibility of redistribution of shares, judicial practice is analyzed. It is concluded that it is necessary to improve legislative norms that regulate the possibility of redistribution of shares when using maternal funds

scholarly journals Problems of Common Property Management in the Housing Sector

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 7433-7436
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Main Type ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Property Management ◽  
Government Organization ◽  
Government Organizations ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
Collective Feature

The main specifics of the implementation of the right of common property today is determined by the collective nature of the creation and sale of property, and not by the feature of the property subject (divisibility or indivisibility of property). Accordingly, in order to implement the collective feature of common property, people shall unite, creating self-government organizations. There are judgments about the organization, which are often identified with the term "system", in the educational and scientific literature. Such an establishment of the system concept is more general than the term of organization. The ideas about the organizations created by people to manage common property are the most complex. Self-government is the main type of activity that allows for the fair distribution of the good and the burden of common property among participants in common property. It is this process that shall be designed and implemented as self-government, so that all conditions are sufficient for the collective to achieve common property and satisfy personal needs of each of them using common power. As a result, it is necessary to create a self-government organization to implement common property. The emergence (creation) of such an organization is the first necessary condition for the implementation of common property. If an organization is not created from among all participants in the common property, then the common property cannot be implemented. Thus, in this article, model representations of the simplest self-government organization will be introduced, which are necessary to solve the problems of decision-making and the implementation of common property

On Interaction between Prosecutors and Specialists when Exercising Supervisory Powers outside the Criminal Law Sphere

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. 212-220
Author(s):  
D. V. Kocheva,
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Law Enforcement Officers ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Scientific Discussion ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
The Right ◽  
Material Form ◽  
Theoretical Developments

Prosecutors outside the criminal law sphere have the power to identify violations of the law, such as the right to demand that the heads and other officials “supervised” by the prosecutor’s office assign specialists to clarify the issues that have arisen. The conclusions of knowledgeable persons, clothed in material form, are in demand among law enforcement officers in various spheres of public life. At the same time, scientists and practicing lawyers have accumulated a number of issues concerning the legal status of a specialist in the Russian legislation, which also affect prosecutorial activities. In the paper, the author attempts to call interested researchers to a scientific discussion about the need for improvement of the legal regulation of the relevant legal relationship. Thus, the author outlines the results of the analysis of the legal regulation of the mechanism of cooperation between specialists and prosecutors in the course of the latter’s supervision over the implementation of laws, the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms, existing theoretical developments, personal experience of work in the prosecutor’s office.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document