INTRODUCTION

For many years in Russia, due to the planned nature of the economy, there was virtually no turnover of property rights. To date, transactions with property rights are becoming more common. This is facilitated by both new legislative regulation and the need to overcome the nonpayment crisis that paralyzes the normal development of the market. However, the formation of a turnover of property rights is quite painful and contradictory. This is largely due to shortcomings in the legal framework and the lack of scientific research that could be used as a basis legal regulation. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation names property rights as objects of civil rights, but does not disclose the content of this concept. Meanwhile, it appears that property rights have a number of features that have an inevitable impact on the possibility of classifying them among the objects of civil rights, legal relations and the specifics of the circulation of these rights. It is impossible to disclose these features in isolation from the study of the concept of the object of civil relations in general. This category has long caused controversy among legal scholars, including civilists, and to date there has not been a common understanding of the science of civil law.

Purpose of the study.

This course work aims at a comprehensive study and analysis of property rights in Russian law.

Objectives of the study:

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;

To determine the peculiarities of property rights in Russian law.

The theoretical basis of the study was the works of famous Russian civilists, in particular: Yu.S. Gambarova, K.D. Kavelina, D.I. Meyer, I.N. Trepitsyna, G.F. Shershenevich and others; scientists of the Soviet period and the present time: T.E. Abovoy, M.M. Agarkova, S.S. Alekseeva, G. Amphitheatrov, A.N. Arzamastseva, N.A. Barinova, Yu.G. Basina, M.I. Braginsky, S.N. Brother, A.V. Benediktova, V.V. Vitryansky, D.M. Genkina, V.P. Gribanova, R.E. Gukasyan, I.M. Zaitseva, T.I. Illarionova, OS Ioffe, A.Yu. Kabalkina, Yu.H. Kalmykova, A.G. Kalpina, S.F. Kechekyan, CM. Korney va, O.A. Krasavchikova, L.A. Lunts, V.F. Maslova, A.I. Maslyaev, N.I. Matuzov, V.P. Mozolin, I.B. Novitsky, V.K. Reichera, V.A. Rybakova, V.A. Ryasentseva, ON Sadikova, A.P. Sergeeva, E.A. Sukhanova, V.A. Tarhovo-va, Yu.K. Tolstoy, P.O. Khalfina, V.M. Khvostova, V.A. Khokhlova, Z.I. Tsybulenko, B. B. Cherepahina, L.V. Schennikova, K.S. Judelson, V.F. Yakovlev and others.

\u003e CONCEPT AND TYPES OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

\u003e Property and obligations rights

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation) in its Resolution No. 9-P of 06.06.2000 clarified that everyone has the right to own property, to 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 the free use of his 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 to private and other forms of ownership, including property rights, including the rights of ownership, use and disposal of property received from the owner. Realization of property rights is carried out on the basis of general legal principles of inviolability of property and freedom of contract, involving equality, autonomy of will and property independence of participants in civil law relations, the inadmissibility of arbitrary interference of anyone 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 a property right includes the rights of ownership, use and disposal, namely: real rights (in terms of property rights and other real rights) and obligations of obligations.

"The right is called a thing when its object is a thing, i.e. subject that does not matter the subject of law. Mostly such a right is the ownership of inanimate things. ”

According to V.P. Mozolin and A.I. Maslyaev, under the authority of possession is understood the possibility of actual possession of property belonging to him by the owner, under the authority of use - the possibility of consumption (appropriation) by the owner useful properties  property, under the authority of the order - the ability to determine the owner of the legal fate of the property (its alienation, transfer to the use of others, the use of the owner, etc.).

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

Property rights to a thing from the owner arise from the moment of acquisition of the right of ownership, on the grounds established by Chapter 14 of the Civil Code. For example, when buying a thing, the owner along with it acquires the property right to it, which allows him to use this thing and benefit from it, i.e. the owner when using this thing realizes its property rights. From the moment the property is alienated by the owner (sales, donations, etc.), along with the thing, all property rights to it are “alienated”.

Realizing his property rights, the owner of the property can transfer, while remaining the owner, to another person a part of his property rights, for example, to transfer the property for rent. When transferring their property for temporary use, the owner-landlord retains the right to dispose of the property (or disposition and possession), granting the right of possession and use (or use) to the lessee. Those. the lessor is limited in his property rights for the term of the lease agreement - in the right to use his property or to own and use, but not in the right of disposal. As the owner, burdened with rental relations, the lessor has the right to dispose of the property, including selling (donating, etc.) to another person. At the same time, the transfer of ownership of the property to another person does not constitute grounds for termination or amendment of the lease agreement.

The right of ownership of property, and, consequently, property rights, does not always belong to one person only. In accordance with the provisions of civil law, property may be owned by two or several persons (art. 244 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). For example, the property of spouses acquired in a 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 the property associated with the possession, use, disposal of property. The property rights in question are property rights. Real estate rights along with the right of ownership, in particular, are: the right to lifelong inheritable possession land plot, the right of permanent (perpetual) use of the land plot, easements, the right of operational management, the right of economic management.

“In many cases, the object of the right is the action of someone else: the other 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 law of obligation. All rights arising from contracts belong here. ”

Another component of property rights are the rights of obligation arising from the contract, as a result of injury, and from other grounds provided by law. According to Article.307 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the debtor is obligated to perform a certain action in favor of the creditor: transfer the property, perform work, make payment, etc., or refrain from a specific action, and the creditor has the right to demand that the debtor discharge his duties. The debtor and the creditor are parties to the obligation, where the debtor is the active party, and the creditor realizes his property right through the behavior of the debtor. So, for example, the tenant has the right to make directly to the seller of the property that is the subject of a financial lease agreement the requirements arising from the contract of sale concluded between the seller and the lessor, in particular, with regard to the quality and completeness of the property, the timing of its delivery and in other cases improper performance of the contract by the seller. In this case, the tenant has the rights and obligations under 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 of sale of the specified property.

When transferring property for temporary use under a lease agreement, the owner has the right to demand from the tenant proper treatment of his property and payment of rent (leasing) payments for its provision. By providing the property for rent, the lessor retains the right of ownership (property rights), but, by virtue of the agreement concluded with the tenant, a liability relationship arises that defines the rights and obligations of the parties to the rental agreement. Those. at the disposal of the landlord of their property (property) rights, liability relations arise arising from the contract concluded with the tenant.

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

What is “Property Rights” and what does it mean? Meaning and interpretation of the term in dictionaries and encyclopedias:

Financial Dictionary   " Property rights

subjective rights of participants in legal relations related to the possession, use and disposal of property, as well as the material (property) requirements that arise between participants in the economic turnover regarding the distribution of this property and exchange (goods, services, work, money, securities and others). PROPERTY RIGHTS are the powers of the owner, the right of operational management (real) and obligations of obligation (including the right to compensation for damage to the health of a citizen due to loss of earnings, as well as damage to the property of a natural or legal person), the rights of authors, inventors, rationalizers for remuneration (fee) of the works they have created (the results of their creative work), inheritance law.

Law Dictionary   " Property rights

Subjective rights of participants in legal relations associated with possession, use and disposal of property, as well as with those material (property) requirements that arise between participants in civil turnover regarding the distribution of this property and exchange (goods, services, works, securities, money, etc. .). I. p. Are the powers of the owner, the right of economic management, the right of operational management (property and I. p.) And obligations of obligation (including the right to compensation for damage caused to the life or health of a citizen, as well as damage to the property of physical or legal entity), the rights of authors and inventors to remuneration, inheritance rights.

Economic Dictionary   " Property rights

Subjective rights of participants in property relations, i.e. relations associated with the possession, use and disposal of property, and t.zh. with those material (property) requirements that arise between the participants of civil turnover regarding the distribution of this property and the exchange (goods, services, works, securities, money, etc.). I.p. subdivided into real (right of ownership, the right of economic management, the right of operational management); rights of obligation (including the right to compensation for damage caused to the life or health of a citizen, and so forth to harm caused to the property of a natural or legal person); the right of authors and inventors to remuneration for the works created by them (made inventions); inheritance rights.

Economic Dictionary   " Property rights

Rights associated with ownership (ownership) of real estate (real estate). Ownership includes the right to use the property (property), its sale, lease, donation; as well as development, use for agricultural needs, development of mineral deposits, changes in its topography, division, consolidation or refusal to exercise all these rights. Combining property rights is sometimes called a bundle of rights. As a rule, they are subject to public and private restrictions, such as easements, rights of passage, zoning, established building density, and other restrictions that may encumber property. (MP-1, 3.0)

Economic Dictionary   " Property rights

subjective rights of participants in legal relations related to the possession, use and disposal of property, as well as the material (property) requirements that arise between participants in the economic turnover regarding the distribution of this property and exchange (goods, services, work, money, securities and others). PROPERTY RIGHTS are the powers of the owner, the right of day-to-day management (property) and rights of obligation (including the right to compensation for damage to a citizen’s health due to loss of earnings, as well as damage to the property of a natural or legal person), rights of authors, inventors, rationalizers on remuneration (fee) for the works created by them (the results of their creative work), inheritance law.

Similar words

  Property Rights and Duties of Parents

The property rights and obligations of parents include rights and obligations for managing the affairs and property of minors and disabled adult children who need help, as well as providing them with maintenance in the form of alimony or other payments in the manner and under the conditions stipulated by this Code and other acts of legislation The Republic of Belarus. (Art. 88 of the Code of the Republic of Belarus on Marriage and Family)

In short, property relations of spouses can be reduced to the following rule: everything acquired before marriage (premarital property) remains the personal separate property of the husband and wife, and the property acquired during the marriage becomes the common property of the spouses. In this case, the property received by one of the spouses as a gift or by inheritance, is considered his personal property. Such property includes personal items (clothing, shoes, etc.). Luxury items (jewels, etc.) are considered joint property, regardless of who used them. In case of divorce, joint ownership is terminated.

  Property Rights and Responsibilities of Spouses

- property relations of spouses can be briefly summarized to the following rule: everything acquired before marriage (premarital property) remains the personal separate property of the husband and wife, and the property acquired during the marriage becomes the common joint property of the spouses. In this case, the property received by one of the spouses as a gift or by inheritance, is considered his personal property. Such property includes personal items (clothing, shoes, etc.). Luxury items (jewels, etc.) are considered joint property, regardless of who used them. In case of divorce, joint ownership is terminated.

  Property Rights Patents

(property right of patentee) patent rights related to the possession, use and disposal of a patent. In accordance with these rights, the patent owner may independently use the invention, utility model or industrial design through their industrial production, or grant the right to use the said industrial property objects to other individuals or legal entities, or fully assign their rights arising from the patent to those named. The right to use the invention, utility model or industrial design is granted in the form of license agreements. Patent assignment agreements and license agreements are registered with the Patent Office. The patent law of the Russian Federation establishes a number of cases when third-party actions related to the use of an invention, utility model and industrial design are not considered as a violation of the property rights of the patent owner, for example, using patented means in extreme circumstances (catastrophes, natural disasters).

Conducted arguments about the property are not useless to us. Since the property rights of a certain person constitute his property, then, by defining the characteristics of the property, we can respectively identify the signs of property rights and vice versa.

The first and most obvious sign of property, and consequently, property rights, is its ability to belong to a particular person.

Actually, without this affiliation of property as such, it does not exist at all, because the rights without their subject are difficult to imagine, and hardly necessary. Although some authors point out that this question is not so unequivocal114, we are of the opinion that subjectless rights do not exist. Hard to imagine no one

the ability to act in a certain way (based on the most general definition of a subjective right).

The specified property of the property is its determining, integral feature and is inherent in property already by virtue of its nature. Moreover, as we have seen, it does not require registration by means of a subjective right, for example, property rights, since it is itself a set of rights. In this sense, it is necessary to agree with the opinion of L. Enneccerus that “property is not a subject of subjective right” 1. At the same time, individual rights in the property — property rights — draw up the ownership of things to a particular person, that is, act as a link between the thing and the subject, while other rights — obligations — do not make up any ownership, since the action of one person cannot belong to another. Such a difference is connected, first of all, with the fact that one and the same thing may belong to different subjects: for example, the owner and the tenant. Therefore, it becomes important to establish the legal connection of each of the subjects with this thing, that is, “an individual always has rights in respect of certain items relating to property” 2, while each individual obligation law by its very nature can belong only to one subject (perhaps the only exception - the joint liabilities of rights).

The next sign of property rights is their ability to serve as a means of realizing property interest. There is no doubt that the nature of the property interest as “need” in a certain good3 has a direct impact on the nature of the corresponding right. So, if the interest is primarily in the preservation of the corresponding property status, then it is provided with the help of property rights, but if there is an interest in obtaining a certain good, then it is mediated, as a rule, by obligations of obligations. With regard to property rights, the connection between them and the corresponding interest is sufficiently explicit and does not require proof. With regard to the rights of obligations, you can refer to the opinion of A.M. Gulyaev who 1

Enneccerus L. German civil law course. - p. 62. 2

See: Chechet DM. Subjective law and forms of its protection. - L., 1968. - p. 29.

ry wrote: “Since an obligation is a property right, then an action that is the subject of an obligation must be distinguished by a property interest” 115. A similar position holds, and K.I. Sklovsky: “The right of obligation is directed to a specific person, this is the right of claim, the right to fulfillment, the right to satisfy a property interest” 116.

Further indications of property rights can be identified on the basis of opposition to their non-proprietary rights, since from the standpoint of logic they are mutually exclusive concepts117. Thus, the non-property rights, according to the prevailing point of view, are strictly personal in nature, belong to a person by birth or by virtue of law, are inalienable and non-transferable to other persons by other means, except as required by law, and are also among exceptional 118 and are absolute. In addition, as signs of the non-property right, it is indicated that this right, "not subject to an exact monetary assessment, closely related to the person entitled, aimed at identifying and developing his individuality and having specific grounds for occurrence and termination" 119.

On the basis of the opposition of the indicated signs, let us single out the following sign of property - this is the possibility of its alienation, that is, separation from the identity of the carrier. This sign directly indicates paragraph 1 of Art. 129 of the Civil Code. In modern law, unlike the law of Rome, the identity of the creditor and the debtor in most cases is of a secondary nature: rights and obligations can be transferred120. In this sense, modern law of claim and duty are more of a relationship between two properties than between two persons; the creditor and the debtor are only the legal representatives of their property121.

Thus, property rights in the overwhelming majority are rights that are not personal. And, as indicated by D. Kavelin, “such actions (meaning obligations) largely lose their subjective character and approach objective values” 122.

In our opinion, the possibility of alienation of a property right constitutes an element of this right itself and acts as a right belonging to the subject of a right, which is part of the right itself. So, S.S. Alekseev noted that the law of obligations “includes the possibility of using this right” 123. The assignment of the possibility of the alienation of law to the elements of civil legal capacity, as proposed by individual authors, in particular V.A. Belovym124, in our opinion, is not fully justified, since in this case the parties, including in the contract, the condition on the inadmissibility of the assignment of rights under this contract on the basis of paragraph 1 of Art. 388 of the Civil Code, in fact, limit their legal capacity, which, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Art. 22 CC implies nullity of this agreement. Meanwhile, we repeat that the Code in Art. 388 expressly allows such agreements. Also unreasonable from the point of view of the conducted analysis of the concept of the object of a legal relationship and subjective right is the presence of special law  orders right 125.

It should be borne in mind that the trait of alienability fully manifests itself in relation to individual components of the property. The property itself, as a whole set of property rights belonging to a person, practically cannot manifest itself as an object of civil circulation. Practically the only possible case when the property as a whole passes to another person is the transfer of property in the order of inheritance, but here, too, not all rights that belonged to the estate of the testator are transferred to the heir. Thus, property rights, which are inseparably connected with the personality of the testator, are not transferred to the heirs (for example, the right to receive alimony, the right to compensation for harm caused to life and health, etc.).

Thus, the property as a whole is practically not subject to alienation, but the individual rights included in its composition possess this ability (with some exceptions). The presence of inalienable rights, provided that they satisfy other attributes of property, rather confirms the rule than refutes it. These rights are also material in nature, which is manifested in the fact that they serve to satisfy property interests in nature, where money or other things are most often the means to satisfy them. Consequently, the object of the relationship in which these rights exist is a certain property.

The alienation of property rights, the absence of an inextricable link between the right and the identity of its holder is a fundamentally important feature that characterizes the difference of this right from non-property rights, which are always strictly personal in nature. Even when we talk about the “alienation” of the non-property right, for example, the right to business reputation (a typical example is the franchise agreement, art. 1027 of the Civil Code), the alienation as such in this case does not occur, because the right to business reputation and the reputation itself the subject is not separated, just another person is entitled to use this reputation.

The fourth sign of the property, which is closely related to the already identified, is the possibility of a monetary valuation of the property. From the point of view of economics and other social sciences (without taking into account certain radical exercises), property represents a certain value, and the value is primarily economic. Property is the basis of any system of economic relations, without it there can be no talk of any economy. But economics also cannot be discussed in the absence of a turnover relationship. Development same

turnover objectively causes the emergence of some kind of universal measure of value, capable of being exchanged for the most diverse goods, namely money. Thus, having its own value, any object of circulation can be valued for money as the universal measure of this value itself. Property rights are no exception. Another gf Shershenevich noted that “from a legal point of view, property is understood as the totality of legal relations subject to monetary evaluation, in which a well-known person is located” 126. This idea was also expressed in the writings of Deriburg, Tura, Kipp, who defined property as a set of rights subject to monetary valuation127. Property rights, being ultimately associated with material values ​​- things, first of all should have come under the monetary valuation regime. As noted by R. Sawawe, “money informs its owner of a common economic power, capable of subjugating all subjects of free civil turnover” 128. Roman law researchers also pointed out the monetary nature of property rights: “Objects of property rights ... can only be benefits that are amenable to monetary value, represent the so-called monetary interest” 129.

Perhaps the sign of the monetary value of the property will seem flawed from logical positions, because money itself is an integral part of the property. However, it is still necessary. Money does not moiut not be part of the property, on the contrary, they would be the first to enter into the concept of property. At the same time, all other composite assets may well be valued for money.

The possibility of monetary valuation is a mandatory feature of property law. In this connection, some legislative formulations are very puzzling. In particular, in paragraph 1 of Art. 221 of the Law “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”, it is indicated that the bankruptcy estate of a peasant farm includes “money-valued property rights” in a bankruptcy estate. Does this mean that some property rights may not have a monetary value? And what are the rights? And how is this consistent with the wording of the Civil Code and the same law on property and other rights having monetary value?

Monetary rights are also held by those property rights that cannot be alienated by one entity in favor of another, for example, the right to receive alimony. Monetary valuation of these rights is derived from their content, from the evaluation of objects capable of meeting the interests of the subject, the means of realization of which is precisely this right.

The next sign of property derived from the sign of alienability is that it is not inherent in the subject from birth, but is acquired on the basis of certain transactions or other legal facts. So, even a newborn may have certain property, but it belongs to him not by virtue of his birth, but, for example, by inheritance law, on the basis of a donation contract, etc.

The main features of property rights noted by us reflect only the formal characteristics of the phenomenon under consideration. In order to determine the substantive side of the concept of “property right”, let us turn to the norms of the law.

As already mentioned, the legislator includes property rights and rights of obligation as property law. Despite the fact that various researchers have repeatedly made the conclusion that such a division130 is arbitrary and even about the need to single out a group of legal relations with mixed, real-world obligations131, we cannot deny the necessity and importance of such a classification.

The question of the very understanding of property and obligations of rights also remains controversial right up to the present. Without going into a detailed analysis of existing points of view, we note only the main features that distinguish, from our point of view, these rights.

The primary distinction between property rights and obligations is in their very content: if a property right gives its carrier domination over a thing, expressed in the ability to perform any actions (within legal restrictions) regarding the thing, as well as the ability to demand negative behavior from all other persons, 132 the main content of the law of obligations is reduced to the ability to demand active behavior from other (strictly defined) persons, as well as to perform other independent actions This is aimed at realizing this opportunity. Thus, the real right is an absolute right, and the obligation is a relative one133. Further, the ways of occurrence (acquisition) of real rights are strictly defined by the legislation134. Property relations can be regulated only by law135. In addition, for the rights of property is characterized by the authority to follow136. In the literature, there are other signs of real rights, but, as we see it, all of them are either derived from those already mentioned, or do not allow us to distinguish between these types of rights.

Without denying the existence of some interpenetration of proprietary and legal liability elements, an example of which can serve as art. 398 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, for further discussion, this division will be extremely important. The fact is that it is important for us to find out which of the indicated rights can be considered as objects of a legal relationship. It seems that this issue is clearly resolved in relation to rights of obligations. These rights, which the legislator designates as rights of demand, today have become an inalienable object of civil circulation. And although this designation is not entirely accurate, since the right of obligation, in addition to the authority to demand, also contains at least the authority to act, it nevertheless reflects the main content of this right.

Having abandoned the Roman principle of non-transferability of the law of obligations, obligations as a strictly personal connection, modern law, following the tendency to expand personal freedom, regulates a wide variety of transactions for such benefits as liability rights: their alienation in paid or free form, pledge, trust management of rights . In this regard, it is appropriate to cite the following statement of the famous economist X. MacLeon: “If we were asked a question: who made the discovery that had the most profound impact on the fate of people? - it seems that after a thorough reflection we could answer with a clear conscience: the person who first discovered that the debt is a commodity to be sold ”137.

In the scientific literature there are also opposing opinions that deny the status of objects of civil legal relations for obligations of obligations. So, V.A. Belov, arguing this position, cites the following main arguments: subjective right is an independent category and cannot be the object of legal relations, since in such a situation the subjective right becomes an object of another right, which leads to the appearance of the “right to right” constructions 138; since the subjective right cannot exist without a subject, it cannot be an object of civil circulation, because the transfer as the main act mediating the turnover implies “the presence of at least an infinitely small in time point when one person, the predecessor (or the so-called auktor), the right has already been transferred, and the other (assignee) has not yet adopted it ”139.

Agreeing with the author that “subjective rights and legal obligations cannot be objects of other subjective rights and obligations” 140, one should simultaneously point out the author’s ungrounded identification of the category of subject of subjective right, the convention of which we have already said, and the object of legal relationship. Not being objects of subjective rights, obligations of rights are still objects of civil legal relations, representing an economic good that can meet the needs of subjects of legal relations. And the presence at the transfer of such a moment when one person has already transferred the benefit, and the other has not yet accepted, is not at all characteristic of the transfer. Quite the contrary. The transfer is always carried out to someone141, and not to some kind of emptiness, an abstract state from which another person can take the transferred benefit, that is, accept. Even when buying and selling things, the acts of transmission and reception should, as a rule, coincide. There may be a time gap between these acts, which is not due to the transfer itself, but to the nature of the transferred good, which is the thing. But even then, between the termination of the right of ownership of the seller and the occurrence of it at the buyer there is no time gap, the emergence and termination of the right of ownership take place at once. A similar situation is with respect to the transfer of rights. The act of transfer of the right means the simultaneous termination of the corresponding right on the side of the person transferring and its occurrence in the person receiving.

In our opinion, it is obvious that the obligations of obligations today are one of the real objects of civil legal relations. And in this regard, we join the statement of R. Ihering that “the obligation functions in the turn of the new time in exactly the same way as the thing works in the turn of the old time” 142, with only one qualification: everything is a thing and a law of obligation according to its legal The mode is excellent.

There is no doubt that not all liabilities of right can actually act as objects of a legal relationship. So, by virtue of the prescriptions of the law (art. 383 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), rights that are inseparably connected with the identity of the creditor cannot be transferred to other persons. There are other restrictions on the turnover of obligations of rights, which will be discussed in detail below.

It is well known that the liabilities of rights may exist either in their “pure” form, or be formalized with the help of certain legal structures, the main one of which is the construction of a security paper.

In the traditional sense, a security is a thing, a document, and the holder of such a security has both a “right to paper” (real right) and a “right from paper” (a right of obligation that constitutes the content of the security) 143. However, art. 149 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation allows for the existence of non-documentary securities, which, by virtue of their intangible ™, do not belong to the category of things, therefore, the norms of the real right do not apply to them, and the holder of such a security has only the “right from paper”. In general, a great number of opinions are expressed in the scientific literature regarding the understanding of non-documentary securities. Without going into their analysis, we note only that, in our opinion, non-documentary securities are property rights of claim. But within the framework of the present work, relations connected with their affiliation and turnover will not be considered. This is due to the fact that the subject of our research is the property rights in a “pure” form, and the non-documentary securities are considered by the legislator as a kind of securities, which, in turn, are an independent object of civil legal relations. There are a lot of grounds for distinguishing property rights in their “pure” form and non-documentary securities, but from our point of view, the presence of public participation in relations connected with securities is decisive here, namely: compliance with the established procedure for registration of securities issue is required , deals with them, etc. In the case of non-documentary securities, the right of this paper is exactly the same as the right embodied in documentary paper is subject to registration, fixing in any form: electronic record, certificate of securities, etc., while property rights in “pure” form exist without such an embodiment.

When characterizing property rights, one cannot bypass the issue of so-called “corporate” rights. In the civil law literature, such rights are allocated on a par with rights of property and obligations144. At the same time, they are among the property rights. From our point of view, the understanding of “corporate” rights may look as follows. In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 48 of the Civil Code "in connection with participation in the formation of the property of a legal entity, its founders (participants) may have binding rights in relation to this legal entity or property rights to its property." As you can see, the Code does not speak about the existence of “corporate” rights. Further, if we turn to the analysis of the norms regarding the joint-stock company - the legal entity that most closely meets the characteristics of the corporation, we will see that in accordance with Art. 96 of the Civil Code, the rights of participants of a joint stock company are drawn up with the help of shares, which are securities (Article 143 of the Civil Code, Article 2 of the Federal Law “On the Securities Market” 145). And in accordance with Art. 2 of the Federal Law “On Joint-Stock Companies” 146 a share certifies the “obligatory rights of the participants of the company (shareholders) in relation to the company”, rights that are property-based in nature (Articles 142-144 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). These rights have their own characteristics, in particular, they are of an organizational nature, arise only between the participants of a particular organization, that is, are closed to other subjects of property turnover, etc. However, to say that they represent an independent kind of rights on a par with rights of obligation and property rights is incorrect. Rather, they are a kind of rights of obligations and, in this connection, can be objects of civil legal relations with the features established by the legislation on certain types of legal entities. In the future, considering the turnover of obligations of obligations, the main attention will be paid to the analysis of relations regarding the rights of obligations in their “pure” form, not including the study of relations about “corporate” rights. This is due to the fact that today there are a large number of scientific works devoted solely to the consideration of "corporate" legal relations, as well as the inability to adequately cover this issue in the framework of this study.

The rights of participants of most non-profit organizations should be distinguished from the “corporate” rights mentioned by us. By virtue of the direct indication of the law, they are non-proprietary rights (clause 3 of Article 48 of the Civil Code), and therefore in this paper they are also not discussed.

Now we will try to find out if such type of property rights as property rights is among the objects of civil legal relations? This question is far from idle. And it is associated primarily with the possibility of alienation of the real right in isolation from the thing itself. There are different opinions in the literature regarding this problem, and many authors admit this possibility in principle. In particular, I.V. Eliseev, referring to Art. 216 Civil Code, does not exclude the possibility of alienation of certain property rights in isolation from the thing, although it indicates that such cases are not yet known147. A similar point of view is found in the work of K.V. Kopylova, who points out that “... not all property rights can be pledged. In this capacity, under no circumstances can ownership rights, economic management and operational management, since these rights include the authority to dispose, and accordingly, in such cases only the thing itself can be pledged ”148. The above statement allows us to conclude that the author recognizes the possibility of a pledge (and therefore subsequent alienation) of individual real rights, thereby introducing them to the category of objects of civil legal relationship.

The latter point of view seems most reasonable for the following reasons. As already mentioned, the right of pursuit is characteristic of the real right: subjective right follows suit everywhere. This rule in the most general form is formulated in Section 3, Article. 216 of the Civil Code and specified in a number of other articles of the Code (for example, Art. 301 of the Civil Code). Competence to follow means that there is a sufficiently close connection between the subjective right and the thing itself, because if there is no thing, there will be no proprietary right, which in its content can only relate to an existing individually-defined thing150. Thus, the real right transferred in isolation from the thing itself loses all meaning and turns into fiction. As noted K.N. Annenkov, “with respect to property rights, it is impossible not to admit that it, like with Roman law, cannot be separated from those bodily things to which it relates, and therefore cannot be special, separate from them, the object of rights "151. In addition, civil circulation requires stability, concreteness. The participants of the turnover should be as clear and understandable as possible with whom they enter into relations and about what. In this sense, the turnover of things is much preferable than the turnover of rights, primarily because of its clarity. It is appropriate to recall the development of relations on the assignment of obligations of rights, which was initially carried out in the form of a transfer of a document certifying the right, and only with the passage of time did the assignment of the right in a “pure” form be allowed 152. And if the law of obligations could “break away” from its material design, then this is simply impossible with respect to property rights. The only exception to this is, perhaps, the alienation of a share in the right of common ownership (art. 246, 250, 255 GK), but we agree with V.V. Even that “nulla regula sine exceptione” 153.

In some cases, for example, when selling a thing of a customer, the commissioner does not have the right to own this thing by direct indication of the law (article 996 of the Civil Code), and accordingly, due to the principle “no one can transfer more rights to another than he has” does not have the ability to transfer ownership of the item to the buyer. Meanwhile, the buyer of the thing still becomes its owner, subject to the purity of the title of the principal. A similar situation arises with the alienation of property held by the seller on the right of economic management.

Hence we can conclude that the object of the legal relationship for the sale and purchase is the thing itself, and the transfer of ownership is carried out by the appropriate indication of the law, in particular clause 1, Art. 454 GK. If we recall the property of the following inherent in property rights and the regulation of property rights only by law, the situation looks quite logical. There is no doubt that participants in an alienation relationship can establish any other moment of transfer of ownership, rather than the transfer of the thing (clause 1, article 223 of the Civil Code), but this can only affect the moment of occurrence of the respective right, but not its very occurrence. Such an approach is quite consistent with the letter and spirit of the law: it is not for nothing that the legislator selects things and property rights as part of property (Art. 128 of the Civil Code, etc.), speaks about the turnover of property, and not property rights, etc., and the disposition of article . 454 of the Civil Code "... undertakes to transfer a thing ..." uniquely identifies the object of legal relations on sale and purchase.

Undoubtedly, the property of the following, mentioned by us, fully manifests itself only during the transfer, alienation of a thing on a legal basis. If the thing was stolen from the owner, and then sold to another person, then it is natural that the right of ownership in this case does not follow the thing. The only thing that the buyer acquires is fair ownership. And this is despite the fact that in this legal relationship that has arisen between the seller and the buyer (and the fact that it arises, undoubtedly), the object is still the same thing. However, as noted in the literature, the emergence of ownership of the acquirer in a transaction in which the other party is an unauthorized person, depends on whether the transaction is contestable or void. “When a transaction is negotiable between an unauthorized tradent and an acquirer, the transfer of ownership will have to be considered valid.” 154 This once again confirms our conclusions. After all, the seller of things in this case is not endowed with the right of ownership, respectively, can not transfer this right to the buyer. However, this right of the buyer arises arises arises precisely by virtue of the law. Accordingly, the object of the transaction, the object of the relationship that has arisen, is again a thing, and not a real right - the right of ownership.

The grounds for a similar conclusion can be found in the rulings of the courts. Thus, by the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of April 21, 2003 No. 6-P “On the case of verifying the constitutionality of the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 167 of the Civil Code Russian Federation  in connection with the complaints of citizens OM Marinicheva, A.V. Nemirovskaya, Z.A. Sklyanova, P.M. Sklyanova and V.M. Shiryaeva ”155 it was determined that if a person purchased a thing through an insignificant transaction and there are no conditions for the vindication of this thing, then the thing cannot be withdrawn from the acquirer on the basis of applying restitution provisions. In accordance with paragraph 25 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation No. 8 of February 25, 1998 “On some issues of dispute resolution practice related to the protection of property rights and other real rights” 156 the court’s decision to reject the claim for the claim of property is the basis for registering the transfer of rights property to the buyer.

Obviously, in the described case, the emergence of ownership by the acquirer of the thing is not based on the act of disposal of the right by the original owner. The emergence of ownership of the acquirer in this case has as its basis the presence of a non-title, but subject to the protection of possession of the thing.

In connection with the foregoing, the formulation of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Arbitration, which, when examining one of the cases, concluded that “in essence, it was not the enterprise that was sold, but the title to the property of the enterprise” 157, as well as certain statements of scientists, according to which the contract of purchase sales regulate the relations of the parties when “the transfer of ownership of a thing in exchange for money” is 158.

As a result, it should be noted one more argument in favor of the fact that property rights cannot act as independent objects of civil legal relations. The Civil Code, establishing the content of these rights and the powers of their owners, often establishes certain prohibitions and restrictions for them, which just characterize the “limitedness” of all other real rights, except the right of ownership. These restrictions relate mainly to the disposition of things. However, the Code almost never speaks of restrictions on the alienation of the real right itself. Does this mean that the owner of, say, the right of economic management, instead of obtaining the consent of the owner to alienate the real estate, has the right to sell the right of economic management to them? Naturally not. This also traces the unity of the property right and the thing in relation to which this right is established.

Thus, property rights cannot be considered as independent objects of civil legal relations, in the sphere of civil turnover they are inseparably connected with things, they follow them.

Analysis of the provisions of Art. 128 of the Civil Code can create the impression that the range of property rights is limited to real and obligations rights. However, the concept of “property rights” is also used in a number of legislative acts devoted to the protection of the results of intellectual activity, and these rights are referred to as exclusive159. If we turn to art. 128 GK, we will see that exclusive rights are allocated separately and are not included in the property. Does this mean that these rights are not proprietary? It seems no. The fact is that despite the ongoing discussion regarding the understanding of exclusive rights, and the very existence of this term, it can be noted that these rights may well be based on the features we have already identified as property rights, which, by the way, is confirmed by many authors160. At the same time, it is impossible not to notice that these rights have significant specificity.

First of all, an exclusive right is an absolute right to an intangible result of intellectual activity, in contrast to material objects for which the right of ownership is valid. This right began to be fixed on objects, the inclusion of which in the economic turn became objectively necessary. Despite the differences inherent in the legal regime of certain types of results of intellectual activity, they have a number of common features that determine their essence. These common features are largely due to the intangible nature of the object and, accordingly, the possibility of simultaneous use by an indefinite circle of persons.

One of the specific features of exclusive rights is also called the fact that “copyrights are so interrelated that it is rather difficult to single out purely property or non-property rights among them” 161. This circumstance is emphasized by other researchers, 162 in particular, R. Dumas noted: “Along with ownership, a person also creates a non-property right, which has all the features of personal rights, which allows to make a conclusion about the mixed nature of copyrights, which include the ownership right relating to the category of property rights, as well as the right of the individual, belonging to the category of non-property rights ”163. With all the conventions of the use of the term “property” in relation to the results of intellectual activity, this statement sufficiently reflects the duality of exclusive rights. It is this duality, combined with other features of the rights in question, the determining of which is the immateriality of the object in relation to which these rights are established, and served, most likely, as a basis for the allocation of exclusive rights to a separate type of objects, as is done in Art. 128 GK. Perhaps this distinction is also associated with the influence of the concept of intellectual rights, which calls copyright and patent rights to rights of a special kind, which lie beyond the classical division of civil rights into real, obligatory and personal rights.

Despite the indicated circumstances, we are still inclined to attribute the exclusive property rights of authors to the number of property rights. Without denying that these rights have significant peculiarities that predetermine the specifics of making transactions regarding these rights, 164 we include exclusive property rights in the circle of civil law objects. This point of view is based both on the provisions of the current legislation, which determines the possibility of transfer of exclusive property rights from one person (author, holder) to another, and on the research of scientists, which include these rights in the subject matter of the author’s agreement165.

However, a detailed consideration of the peculiarities of these rights and copyright agreements as transactions mediating the transfer of these rights in the framework of this study is hardly possible. Also currently there is a fairly large number of special works devoted to the study of this subject.

Thus, the result of a study conducted in this paragraph are the following conclusions.

Property law is a subjective civil law belonging to the subject of civil law, acting as a means of realizing property interest, having a monetary value acquired on the basis of transactions or other legal facts and possessing a sign of alienability.

Property rights include property rights, obligations (including “corporate”) and exclusive rights. As the object of civil legal relations can be all property rights, with the exception of property rights. This paper does not analyze legal relations arising from the turnover of non-documentary securities, “corporate” rights and exclusive rights. This is due to the fact that the subject of the research is rights in their “pure” form, therefore the problems of securities turnover are not explored, and the fact that many issues (with regard to “corporate” and exclusive rights) have found their sufficient coverage in the literature. The subject of further research is the individual legal relations, within which the turnover of property rights in their “pure” form takes place.

Res incorporales - property rights.

Property rights are non-cash money, property rights of claims against the bank (the rights of the depositor).

The rights of claim can be transferred to trust management, you can sell, you can charge them. Everything is the same as with things.

Property rights are possible from the contract, the main difference here is that from the contract you can demand not only money, but also the provision of services, the transfer of goods, the publication of a work, for example.

The difference is also in the temporary nature: the requirement to the bank is indefinite, and the requirements from the contract can be stated in the period for which the contract is valid.

Obligations (debts) as objects of civil legal relations. Any debts are property liabilities. Debts can also be transferred, they also have a cost.

Intellectual property (intellectual rights) - intangible benefits (Art. 1225). Intellectual property is not related to the right of ownership (since property is established in relation to things, and intellectual property in relation to property rights to the results of intellectual labor)

Intangible objects  civil rights: personal rights, intellectual rights, property rights.

Money and securities

Both money and securities have a dual legal regime: they are both things and property rights.

Money if are in cashthen they can be called things although their value is not determined by the value of the thing, but by their economic essence - payment properties.  Moreover, these things are movable, they are always generic things.

Civil and economic properties of things are somewhat different (divisibility, consumption).

We are interested in the economic properties of money as a means of circulation.

Monetary obligation is always feasible, because there is always money in nature.

The ruble is a single payment instrument. This means that any monetary obligation may be discharged in rubles, even if it is concluded in a currency. The payee is obliged to accept the payment regardless of the money in which the payment is made.

Money as means of payment is generic, divisible.

Divisibility of money as a medium of exchange is called changeability.

If the money is non-cashthen these are property rights.

From a legal point of view, this is not money at all. At the same time, the CC maintains the terminology: money, cash  (non-cash money).

Therefore, cash is not legal tender. You can pay them only if the counterparties agreed on this.

But non-cash funds are protected by a bank guarantee.

Non-cash money can not have ownership rights, maybe possession.

Securities

They also have a dual legal nature: these are things, and property rights.

Even if a security is a thing, its value is determined by the property right embedded in it.

Valuable paper is a property right that is enshrined in a special form.

Security Paper (documentary)  - a document of the established form, certifying property rights, the implementation of which is possible only upon presentation of the original document

Not all securities can be uncertificated. For example, a bill can only be a document, also a check.

Shares can only be uncertificated.

And some securities can be both documentary and non-documentary.

If a security is issued in uncertificated  form, it is a fixation of property rights.

If the security is documentarythen there is a certain clash of rights to the material carrier and property rights. And in the pre-revolutionary law a rule was worked out: the right out of paper follows the right to paper. That is, the one from whom the paper has the right to demand.

Properties of the security:

Literature - the written form of which clearly follows the scope of the right

Formality - the presence of all the required details under the fear of nullity (for each type of securities have their own details). The absence of records and the presence of unnecessary records entails the invalidity of the security, but does not entail the invalidity of the property right (the anecdote about the revolutionary sailor in the bank “is no longer a bill of exchange”)

Legitimation of the subject - an indication in the security of the person authorized by it or the method of establishing the authorized person

The presentation of a security is a property in that in order to realize a right incorporated in a paper, it is necessary to present the original of this security.

The abstractness of the obligation - isolation from the legal basis. Such a basis is a definite deal. Even if the transaction is invalidated, the security will still be valid.

The autonomy of the right - the independence of the rights of the bona fide owner of the rights of the previous owner. I mean, if the paper was stolen, and then sold to a bona fide purchaser, then the rights to it will pass (the property of public credibility). This is an exception to Roman law: no one can transfer more rights than it has.

Securities classification:

According to the criterion of the method of legitimization of the entitled subject:

Name - it is assumed that the authorized person is directly named, indicated. It can only be changed by assignment   (complex order).

Presenters. It is assumed that the rights to the papers belong to the owner. And it is very easy to change the authorized person - to transfer the paper.

Order. Allow the change of the authorized person through unilateral actions, more precisely, through the execution of the inscription on the most valuable paper ( endorsement - transfer inscription, meaning the transfer of rights on the order security). The holder (endorser, subscriber) of the paper makes the inscription. Recipient (endorsee). The difference between the endorsement and the cession is that all endorsers remain responsible, remain joint debtors for this security, that is, the endorsee acquires several joint debtors at once.

That is, a bill is a profitable financial instrument. In addition, when making an endorsement aval - guarantees for a certain endorser. Avalist - the one who puts down the aval becomes a joint debtor, as well as endorsers.

Additional sheet for avals - allonge.

With the bill you can wait for the execution time, and the second option - to pay this bill.

Endorsement may be order  (performed with the indication of a specific endorsee - the person to whom the performance will be performed), may be blank  (he makes a security paper)

Instrumental endorsement  - this is not an endorsement at all, it is not a transfer of rights on a security. This is an order to do something, an order to exercise some rights (for example, to receive a payment). An endorsee for such an endorsement acts as a representative.

By the criterion of the identity of the obligated person:

Public (the obliged person is a public law education)

Private (an individual or legal entity is obligated)

According to the criterion of the content of rights certified by a security:

Cash - the right to demand money (these include bonds, bill, check, as well as a savings or deposit certificate, bearer savings books, winning lottery tickets)

Bond  - a security certifying the right to receive from the issuer the nominal value of bonds or other property equivalent. Bonds can not be order, because they are not created to participate in the turnover. This is only a debt obligation. The basis of the bond is a loan agreement.

Bill of exchange - a security certifying the unconditional right of the drawer to pay the bill holder a bill amount in a specified period. It is possible to transfer, purchase of a bill before the maturity date (for a smaller amount) - this accounting bills (discounting). The difference is called discount percentage. The basis of the bill is a loan agreement. The economic goal of a bill is to create a financial instrument (financing instrument).

The bill may indicate "no turnover on me"

Check  - security, expressing the unconditional requirement of the drawer of the drawer to the bank to pay the check amount to the check holder.

Commodity   - certify the right to receive property.

First of all, bill of lading -the form of the contract of carriage of goods by sea (transfer of the bill of lading means the transfer of goods).

Secondly, warehouse documents  (when stored at the warehouse)

- simple warehouse certificate - bearer commodity security

Double warehouse certificate (it consists of two parts, each of which is a security paper, the first part is a warehouse certificate, the second part is a pledge ticket ( warrant) through the transfer of warehouse certificates you can sell the goods stored in the warehouse, the warrant allows you to get a loan secured by goods stored in the warehouse)

Thirdly, mortgage  - A security paper that regulates the relationship of the pledge of real estate. Mortgage transfer means transfer of collateral rights

Corporate - stocks and stock certificates

Derivatives - the most controversial group, which is not recognized by all scientists. These securities certify the authority arising from the underlying securities.

Bond Coupon ("Cut Coupons")

A depositary receipt expressing the holder's right to receive securities of another type instead of existing ones and when converting the shares of one JSC into shares of, say, another JSC.

Bank Certificates

Article 128 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation names the types of objects of civil rights as follows: things, including money and securities; other property, including property rights; jobs and services; information; results of intellectual activity, including exclusive rights to them (intellectual property); intangible benefits.

From this article it follows that the concept of "property" in the broadest sense covers things, property rights and property obligations corresponding to them.

Due to the fact that the concept of "property" is collective and extremely heterogeneous in its composition, it is necessary to correctly determine its content in relation to specific legal relations.

Under the property can be understood as a single thing, and a set of things. So, in articles 301-303, 305 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, providing for ways of protection of property rights and other property rights, the following is said. The property that can be claimed from another's illegal possession is considered as a thing or a certain number of things that have left the possession of the owner or a person who has the right of lifelong inherited possession, economic management or operational management, etc., right.

In its other meaning, the concept of "property" covers both things and property rights. For example, in paragraph 3 of Article 63 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the property of a legal entity being liquidated, sold at public auction, means both things and property rights. The term “property” has a similar meaning when it comes to the responsibility of a legal entity or an individual entrepreneur for its obligations with all property belonging to them (here we are already talking about such an area of ​​civil law as the law of obligations).

Despite the fact that property rights as a legal category of civil law have been formed for a long time, however, there are still no definitions defining the general features of this phenomenon, contributing to the ability to distinguish it from similar categories.

So, property rights are an object of law that has no material, physical form, like other objects of civil law. It cannot be transmitted physically. At the same time, it has a material content, which allows it to be used as ordinary things to satisfy the interests of civil law subjects. Because of this, they can be owned, used and disposed of in the interests of its owner. Property rights are recognized as general rule, objects of civil law without restriction. However, the turnover of property rights is limited by the rights recognized by law (1) by property rights that are not recognized by law as such, but do not contradict the basic principles of civil law (2), and, finally, by property rights, the circulation of which is prohibited (3). Consequently, we are talking about the first two groups of property rights, acting as an object of civil rights.

Further, it appears that a property right is primarily not an abstract right, but a concrete right, belonging to a specific person and expressing the latter’s attitude to this right as to its own. At the same time, the recognition of this right by its owner on the part of other persons gives rise to corresponding relations between them, the content of which lies in the proper attitude of third parties to the property right belonging to the right holder. In other words, a person has a property right who can use it at his own discretion as an opportunity to act in a certain way, including transferring, selling or disposing in a different way, as an ordinary object of civil law.

Property rights are considered as the result of those social relations that have arisen between the subjects and are legally recognized. That is, the relationship that resulted in property rights - legally enforceable benefits, which may still arise legal relationship. Unlike such a good as "property", property rights represent a secondary relationship.

The specific feature of property rights is that, as a rule, they are separated from their foundations and represent a special social value. On the contrary, many similar rights, for example, ownership of a particular thing, are closely related to the latter and follow the latter. Therefore, these rights are not recognized as independent objects of civil law and legal relations.

Indeed, the distinction between property rights as independent objects and similar rights that do not possess such a property is very difficult. The legislation speaks of property rights as independent objects of civil rights that are part of property benefits, i.e. on property rights that are not closely related to specific property objects. However, this does not mean that property rights of this kind are not related to property benefits. Such a presentation would be a profound delusion.

Property rights, being a type of civil law objects, are the result of property relations. They, if not directly, then indirectly retain a relationship with the corresponding benefits of a property nature, respectively, and the relationship about such rights are property.

Property law as an object of law has a specific legal regime, which is expressed in the manner established by law for its use, relevant methods and limits for the exercise of these rights, in the mode of transfer, the amount of rights to be transferred, the nature of the rights transferred, forms and conditions of transfers, etc. All this makes property rights an independent object of civil law, about which there are numerous civil legal relations.

In accordance with the foregoing, the property right is understood to be personified rights, possessing a regime defined by the legislation, about which relations on possession, use and alienation are formed.

In legal literature, “property rights are understood as subjective civil rights to property benefits (in particular, the rights to use, own and dispose of property benefits)”. This definition is generic. Legislation refers to property rights and rights as objects of civil rights. If by benefits we mean everything that satisfies the needs of a person, a collective, any other subject, then all specific subjective rights to property, money, securities, services, etc. should be attributed to property rights.

In the literature, property rights (rights of claim) and obligations (debt) are singled out as a type of property. This in itself is the correct position, rather, it is acceptable to legal obligations of the relationship. However, to extend the provisions that have arisen in the obligations of the relationship, and other areas of civil law would not correspond to reality. In this case, it becomes difficult to determine when these rights act as an independent object of civil law and legal relations, and when not. Therefore, it seems appropriate to understand the subjective rights in a dual sense. First, when property rights are closely connected with their object, when the transition of a specific property object leads to the mandatory transfer of the right to it, otherwise, the right to follow. Secondly, when property rights are recognized as an independent legal category independent of their own object, on the basis of which independent civil-law relations are formed.

The Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Article 128) proceeds from the fact that property rights are part of a thing as an object of civil rights and at the same time are an independent object. That is, property rights in the first value are not recognized as an object of civil law, about which appropriate civil legal relations are formed. In the second case, this group of property rights has all the necessary features that are inherent in the objects of civil rights.

If property rights are legally recognized as an object of civil rights, then a relevant question arises: do they act in a similar capacity in civil matters? In the science of civil law, the problem of the relationship of an object of law and an object of a legal relationship causes an ambiguous reaction from scientists. The overwhelming majority of scientists proceed from the identity of the concepts “object of law” and “object of legal relations”. When deciding on the identity of these two categories, "one should proceed from the fact that civil law relations (as a public relation regulated by law) cannot have a phenomenon that is not an object of civil rights." parts of the concept "object of civil rights" and "object of civil legal relationship", if they are not identical, then at least they should not contradict each other in relation to the analysis of a specific legal relationship, because It is obvious that “something” that is not an object of civil rights cannot be an object of civil legal relations, and vice versa.

However, when studying the object of civil legal relations, the positions of scientists diverge sharply. At present, several theories of the object of legal relations have been formed: the “real theory”, “behavioral theory”, “theory of legal regime” and the theory “object - good”.

It should be noted that representatives of a number of the indicated theories for arguing the object of civil legal relations proceed from the transformed traditional philosophical understanding of an object that has found a specific application. So, OS Ioffe points out that “not only in philosophy, but also in any other science that considers the question of the object of a certain phenomenon, an object is understood not as something about which this phenomenon exists, but what this phenomenon has or may have an impact on” . Speaking about the multi-object civil legal relationship (legal, ideological and material), he writes: "The behavior of the obligated person to which the empowered is entitled to claim constitutes the legal object of civil legal relationship."

Points of view on behavior as an object of civil legal relations are shared by other scientists.

However, the recognition of behavior as an object puts an equal sign between all types of legal relations - real and binding, contractual or non-contractual, etc. Behavior is an essential attribute of a legal relationship: without appropriate behavior, civil law as a legal category is nothing. It arises as a result of the behavior of subjects of civil law, expressed in the conclusion of a contract or other lawful actions related to the will of the parties - with the intention, as a rule, to obtain the necessary result that satisfies their interests. Relationships themselves do not arise, they begin with behavior, are embodied in behavior and end with behavior. However, behind all these there is an invisible basis, which determines the whole course of behavior, type, time, place and nature of behavior. This is a perceived need, acting as an interest and defining purposefulness, the desire, the desire of the subjects to act in a certain way to satisfy their interest. It is not abstract, always concrete, definite and also determines the future behavior of the subject of civil law relations.

The foregoing testifies that the list of objects fixed in the civil legislation expresses their static state. Without determining the ownership of these objects, including property rights, they cannot be used, they cannot be transferred into ownership, for use. Whereas, on their occasion, civil law relations arise between the owner of property rights and third parties, by virtue of which they can be alienated in the ways stipulated by regulatory legal actsthat represents the dynamics of these objects. Consequently, the object, subject and content are elements of a single legal phenomenon, where the object appears to be decisive, unchanged, the other two elements are based on it.

There is another point of view according to which not only objects of the material world are recognized as objects, but also the actions of people themselves, human behavior. At the same time, it is believed that the relationship "can only affect human behavior. Therefore, the object of civil relations is the behavior of its subjects, aimed at various tangible and intangible benefits. However, it is necessary to distinguish the behavior of subjects of civil relations in their interaction with each other aimed at material benefit. The first forms the content of a civil legal relationship, and the second is its object. "

It should be emphasized that the content of civil legal relations consists of the powers and obligations of the parties, carried out through the actions of counterparties, without which it is impossible to imagine the existence of legal relations. In the above position, the action as if forks, firstly, the behavior of the subjects in the process of their interaction constitutes the content of a civil legal relationship, and then the same behavior aimed at material law is recognized as its object. The relevant question arises: should a single behavior be artificially subdivided into parts and give each of them an independent meaning?

Probably not yet, behavior is a complex of actions for the implementation of rights and duties, which constitutes the content of civil legal relations arising from the relevant objects recognized by law and aimed at changing the legal status of the same object. In this form, the material object as it remains outside the relationship, although the latter arises about this object, is the basis of the relationship of the parties. "The object of the relationship appears as something external to the subjects of the relationship. But in relation to the relationship itself, the object appears as its integral part. The object of the relationship is what connects the subjects of law and duties in relation."

Behavior is the object of the impact of objective law, which results in a legal relationship. The latter is a legal form of social relations, the content of which consists of the powers and obligations of the parties. Consequently, the relationship does not regulate the behavior of subjects, and is the result of regulation, in accordance with which actions are committed or refrain from committing them. But these legal relations do not arise on their own, but about the same object, for the acquisition, use and disposal of which certain rules are established by the regulatory legal acts, the observance of which is obligatory for the subjects of civil law.

O.S. Ioffe points out that the single and only object of a relationship is "human behavior, activity or actions of people", and then concludes that the object of a relationship has nothing to do with the object to which the behavior of obligated persons is directed. Thus, it seems hardly acceptable to recognize the “object of civil law” of material goods and property rights, and the “object of civil legal relationship” - the behavior of subjects.

Another theory of the object of civil legal relationship is the so-called property theory. At the time, MM Agarkov wrote that “in order to avoid confusion, it would be better to rationalize terminology and consider the object of law the behavior of the obliged person, primarily the thing ... the behavior of the obligated person ... to be called the content of the relationship” as an object of law.

The developed theoretical substantiation of the point of view, in accordance with which the material objects are recognized as material objects, is given by A.P. Dudin. He writes: "The object of a relationship is a subject to which the activities of the subjects of a relationship are directed, carried out in the process of exercising their legal rights and obligations." R.O. Halfina also recognizes material objects as a legal relationship.

Of course, in itself, the correct idea of ​​the object of a legal relationship as a material object in modern conditions, in our opinion, somewhat narrows the entire set of objects of civil rights. It seems that the objects of civil rights should be understood in two ways - in a wide and narrow. In the first meaning, objects of civil rights include not only material objects that can be physically transferred, enjoyed, but also property rights that can be ceded, mortgaged or otherwise alienated. It is justified if we bear in mind that property rights are the same benefits as property, since they can also satisfy the needs of the right holder as material objects.