Legitimate land interests and prospects of their implementation in the conditions of digitalization of land relations

The article analyzes the status and prospects of judicial protection of environmental legitimate interests, analyzes the provisions of the relevant current procedural legislation, proposes the formulation of two environmental interests, the protection of which can make it possible to prevent violations of environmental safety. It is concluded that full implementation of judicial protection of selected environmental legitimate interests as an effective preventive mechanism in the investigated field may be exercised under the terms of the applicable version of procedural law. It is substantiated that the current law in the field of justice defines legitimate interests as the objects of court protection. Moreover the official understanding of the term "legitimate interest" was given by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in 2004 in its decision from 01, December, 2004 № 18-рп/2004. Despite of this this, it is noted that national courts rarely protect environmental interests directly. This is due to the absence of clear criteria for identifying legitimate environmental interests which are not explicitly enshrined in legislation. Therefore, in the absence of a proper tradition of protecting legitimate environmental interests, courts seek to protect specific environmental rights which are rather detailed specifies in current legislation. Such a situation impedes the fulfillment of the main objective of the legal regulation of public relations for ensuring ecological security, which is to prevent possible violations in the form of harm to life or human health. In case of full implementation the practice of full protection of legitimate environmental interests (which is formally permitted by the applicable procedural legislation), the protection of such interests will be exercised until the right to environmental safety is violated, so such violations will be prevented.

This article is devoted to topical issues of legal regulation of land relations in the state. One of the central issues of land relations in Ukraine - the issue of principles of land law - is studied. The purpose of the study is: analysis of the principles of land law of Ukraine, definition of the principles of land law, classification of the basic principles of land law. The author considers the main criteria for classifying the principles of land law. The concept of principles of land law is defined. Principles of land law are the basic guiding principles, significant ideas, postulates, which are reflected in the laws and regulations of the state and which follow from the content of legal norms, legal doctrine and case law. The author draws attention to the fact that the principles of land law are legally enshrined in both the Constitution of Ukraine and the Land Code. The scientist notes that the above principles are embodied in the basic legal norms and institutions of land law. The importance of the principles of land law is subject not only to the legal regulation of land relations, but in some cases serves as a means of overcoming gaps in land law. The most common qualifications of the principles of land law are studied. One of the new and extremely important principles of land law was the principle of digitalization. All subjects of land relations must adhere to the principles of land law. The principles of land law are designed to provide ideological guidance for the improvement and development of land law. In particular, they encourage the implementation of progressive ideas in the new land legislation by amending numerous legal acts, and as a result, contribute to the improvement of judicial practice in resolving land disputes. The author claims that the principles of land law are being changed and clarified in accordance with changes in state policy in the field of land relations. Based on the analysis of normative-legal and legislative acts, scientific literature, the author has developed and substantiated the conclusions of the research.

In modern conditions of great scientific and practical interest is the study of historical experience of legal regulation of land relationsin the Volyn province as part of the Russian Empire (1793–1917), which will help to understand and highlight the basics of historicaldevelopment of legal regulation of land relations in Ukraine. The study and generalization of this historical and legal experience will make it possible to use certain achievements to clarify the origins of national land law. Historical and legal research of this topicwill contribute to a deeper understanding of the protection of property rights and the peculiarities of its legal regulation, increase theefficiency of the institution of property rights at the present stage of establishment of the Ukrainian state.The article is devoted to the characteristics of the formation of legal regulation of land relations in the Volyn province as part ofthe Russian Empire (1793–1917).The author notes that in land relations in Volyn as part of the Russian Empire (late XVIII – early XX centuries.) There were certainfeatures not typical of other Ukrainian regions: there were strong influences of Polish law, which could not be completely eliminatedfrom practical application; in Volyn, local customary law, designed to regulate land relations (from purchase and sale to inheritance),had a strong influence; significant role in the economic and social life of the region was played by large landowners.It is concluded that in the early twentieth century. the largest amount of land in the Volyn province was owned by large landow -ners (including German and Czech colonists), while the peasantry, which was the largest group of the population of the then Volyn,owned a small amount of land. At that time there was an evolution of land relations in the countryside, resulting in a reduction in thenumber of landed estates and social stratification of the peasantry.So, in the land legal relations in Volyn as a part of the Russian Empire (the end of the XVIII – the beginning of the XX century)certain peculiarities were observed, which were not peculiar to other Ukrainian regions.

A negatory claim may be applied in case of violation of a subjective right. Giving the negatory claim an uncharacteristic preventive function for the purposes of protecting subjective property rights is not necessary, because the desired goal is achieved by using a different method of legal protection and in relation to another object of legal protection, namely, a legitimate interest. An owner is interested in ensuring that his subjective right is not violated. Therefore, he has an interest in third parties acting in such a way that a violation of his right would be excluded. A violation of such a legitimate interest of the owner is the commission by the debtor of actions that will inevitably lead to a violation of property rights. In view of the fact that a subjective duty does not oppose a legitimate interest, a dispute concerning protection of a legitimate interest provides for the resolution of competition between the protection of the plaintiff’s legitimate interest and the defendant’s freedom of action. The court’s duty in such a dispute is to establish a fair balance between competing legal benefits so that the legitimate interests of one or the freedom of the other are not infringed without sufficient grounds. Prevention of violation of subjective property rights can be carried out by such a general method of protection as the suppression of actions that pose a threat of violation of the right, a special case of which is a claim for the prevention of harm. A special real preventive claim brought to prevent the violation of subjective property rights is possible only if the appropriate method of protection is fixed by law. However, in the conditions of the existence of such a universal method of protection as the suppression of actions that pose a threat of violation of the law applicable to all subjective rights, there is no need to consolidate a special real preventive claim.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the peculiarities of the order of origin of land rights in Ukraine under martial law. It is established that under martial law the requirements of the legislation on the formation of land registration, not adapted to the new realities, and in fact from February 24, 2022, the formation and registration of land was suspended due to the temporary suspension of electronic state registers. Therefore, in such conditions, with the use of intensive agricultural production, there was an urgent need to create a legal framework for simplified access to land. At the same time, it is emphasized that in the conditions of external aggression against Ukraine it is necessary to develop a new legal framework that highlights the need for scientific understanding of changes caused by the war in legal regulation of land relations and the formation of scientific basis for their justification. In this regard, it is extremely important to study the problems and peculiarities of the order of origin of land rights in martial law. In addition, the article analyzes the latest regulations in the field of land relations under martial law and identifies their features. Arguing that the legislation of Ukraine of the «war» period of introduction simplifies the legal mechanisms for settling relations in the field of acquiring the right to use as soon as possible the use of agricultural land for food production. Also, the legislator in the first place to put the interest of society, while the interests and desires of owners and users of land in some cases may be out of place. It is emphasized that the recent history and challenges of Ukraine, what the state faces, are unprecedented decisions to solve many problems of Ukraine’s economy and to repel external armed aggression. Attention is drawn to the fact that it is important in martial law to ensure an adequate level of legal protection of land rights in Ukraine. The conclusion is substantiated that it is necessary to take into account the problematic aspects of «pre-war» legislation of Ukraine and not repeat the mistakes of previous years, ensuring stability and system of state policy in land relations in wartime, in order to form further offenses in the field of land rights. Key words: land rights, martial law, public interests, state registration of right

In post-conflict Burundi, land scarcity, rapid population growth, the heightened commodification of land serve as triggers to conflict and violence and significantly threaten the sustainability of long-term peace. This article interrogates the ways land tenure reforms affect women's housing, land and property (HLP) rights in Burundi where despite decades of intense mobilisation by progressive women's groups, the recently adopted national land code is still to be fully implemented. The paper argues that gender-neutral land reforms and law enforcement mechanisms interact with the failure to fully implement the national land code, multiple normative orders and social forces and tend to reinforce male hegemony over land. Although customary land tenure is the mantra of the tenure reform process, and tends to strengthen women's land rights, the various reform measures are skewed in favour of men. The failure to reform the marriage and succession laws is the most significant factor barring women's land rights. The adoption and implementation of laws that guarantee an equal right to inheritance between the sexes, sensitisation of, and the provision of legal aid to women claiming their land rights in front of conflict management institutions are required.

In the article, the authors made a thorough description of administrative and legal regulation in the field of land relations. They characterized the concepts of «regulation», «legal regulation» and «land relations». It is substantiated that land relations are one of the largest massifs of public relations regulated by legal norms, in which the absolute majority of both private and public legal entities are involved. But due to the diversity of such subjects and the differences in their legal status, the legal regulation of land relations uses methods characteristic of both civil and administrative law. In addition, within the limits of land law, the existence of its own method of legal regulation is emphasized. It was determined that «legal regulation» can be considered an institution of a general type, which includes specific characteristics that give rise to administrative and legal regulation. The formulated author’s definition of «administrative-legal regulation» as a type of sectoral legal regulation, which is based on the direct effect of the norms of administrative law and is an administrative-legal instrument that affects social relations arising in the field of public administration. taking into account the peculiarities of the legislative definition of the concept of «land relations», for the purposes of scientific research it is more correct to use the term «administrative-legal regulation in the field of land relations» as opposed to the term «administrative-legal regulation of land relations». In our opinion, the term «sphere of land relations» should be understood as a set of relations, which, in addition to land relations, include relations arising in connection with the exercise of power by public administration bodies in relation to land management. The objects of these relations are land, land plots, rights to them, as well as goods and objects derived from them. «Administrative and legal regulation in the field of land legal relations» should be understood as a type of sectoral legal regulation, which is based on the direct effect of the norms of administrative, civil and land law and is a legal instrument that affects public land legal relations arising in the field of public land management affairs.

Land or land rights can be obtained by someone as an heir, either a biological child or a living spouse, either individually or jointly between the biological child and the living spouse. The acquisition of property rights over land occurs through inheritance, which is the transfer of land rights due to the death of a person or heir who holds land rights. The objective of this research is to identify and analyze the regulation of land ownership rights for foreign nationals according to Article 21 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) and to identify and comprehend the implementation of land ownership rights by the State for foreign nationals at the Badung Regency Land Office. This research applies empirical legal research method with statutory approach, legal concept analysis and factual approach. The results of this research indicate that the regulation of the acquisition of property rights to land for foreign nationals according to Article 21 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Agrarian Law is that heirs with foreign citizenship are obliged to relinquish the right within a period of 1 year since the loss of Indonesian citizenship. The implementation of the granting of land ownership rights by the State for foreign nationals in the Badung Regency Land Office is that a foreign national may receive inheritance of land and/or buildings with property rights status (such as a house). However, within one year, the foreign national must transfer his/her rights to the land and/or building to another person.

B a c k g r o u n d . Land reform in Ukraine has been going on for over 32 years. Due to both some systemic miscalculations and insufficient resources for its provision, most of the goals of land reform still remain unrealized. The introduction of market land relations has not become a guarantee of sustainable land use. There is an urgent need for urgent correction of land reform, justification of new innovative approaches to reforming land relations in the context of global trends. M e t h o d s . The problems of scientific and methodological principles of improving the processes of land management and regulation of land relations at different levels of government are revealed in the works of leading Ukrainian scientists. However, previous research has focused on some aspects of this problem. Insufficient attention was paid to the regulation of land relations in the context of decentralization of power, ensuring deregulation in the field of land relations. No research has been conducted on the regulation of land relations under martial law. The purpose (the objective) of this article: elucidation of the peculiarities of the regulation of land relations in the conditions of martial law and substantiation of the prospects for the regulation of land relations in Ukraine on the basis of decentralization and deregulation in the post-war period. R e s u l t s . The system of factors that caused the need to introduce a simplified procedure for access to land for agricultural production during martial law was determined. Key legislative novelties regarding food security, peculiarities of land relations regulation under martial law are analyzed. The peculiarities of the introduced "land reform package" in the context of decentralization and deregulation in the field of land relations are studied. The reform initiatives introduced by the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Improvement of the System of Management and Deregulation in the Field of Land Relations" were analyzed, which due to its scale (affecting 4 codes and 22 laws of Ukraine) and the importance of the changes (29 reform initiatives) received the name "Land Constitution". C o n c l u s i o n s . The system of factors that necessitated the introduction of a simplified procedure for access to land for agricultural production during the martial law has been identified. The key legislative novelties concerning food security, features of regulation of land relations in the conditions of martial law are analyzed. A thorough analysis showed that in a relatively short period of time the necessary legal framework was created to complete land reform in Ukraine, identified scientifically sound prospects for streamlining land relations in Ukraine on the basis of decentralization and deregulation. Prospects for further research in this direction are associated with the need for scientific substantiation of the system of mechanisms, tools and methods of forming a multi-level system of land resource management in the context of ensuring decentralization and deregulation in the field of land relations, which should represent an integrated set of interconnected elements that retain their individual importance and have a target orientation in accordance with the concept of ustainable development of territories.

The article examines the legal grounds for termination of rights to land plots and their classification. An analysis of the current legislation in the field of compulsory termination of rights to land plots for the purpose of their further transfer for subsoil use is carried out. Indeed, in the current conditions in Ukraine, the issue of compulsory termination of ownership or use of land plots for the purpose of their transfer for subsoil use is becoming increasingly relevant, given the public need. The current judicial practice regarding the resolution of land disputes in this area is considered. Particular attention is paid to the compulsory termination of ownership rights to agricultural land and its subsequent transfer for subsoil use. Judicial practice in the context of compulsory termination of ownership or use of land plots for the purpose of transferring them for subsoil use demonstrates that public interests take precedence over private interests. The issue of ensuring the rights of both land owners and land users remains important, especially in cases where the land plots are transferred for use to third parties. It is concluded that compensation for losses incurred in the process of acquiring and exercising land rights by subsoil users and the value of land plots is one of the key guarantees for the protection of land, property, and other legitimate rights and interests of land owners and land users. It is advisable to provide in land legislation for the possibility of choice for owners of land plots subject to compulsory alienation: either to transfer them to state ownership or to independently conclude a lease agreement with interested parties for the purposes of subsoil use. Thus, research into the compulsory termination of land rights of owners and land users for the purpose of transferring land for subsoil use is relevant and requires separate attention. Despite this, there are still some issues that require clear definition and consolidation at the legislative level. Overcoming the existing shortcomings requires systematic reform of the regulatory framework, harmonization of the provisions of the Land Code of Ukraine and the Code of Ukraine on Subsurface Resources, as well as ensuring the unification of approaches in judicial practice.

Problem setting. The issue of legal entities’ ownership of land plots is considered to be an important one in the field of legal regulation and scientific research, given that land ownership plays a key role in stimulating investment, business development and efficient use of natural resources. Land relations involving legal entities are regulated primarily by the provisions of land law, with some civil law provisions being taken into account. An important classification of legal entities in the context of exercising land rights is their division into private and public. At the same time, scholars base this division on the grounds for establishing a legal entity, the purpose of its activities and the form of ownership. Thus, it is noted that there are differences in the exercise of their rights to land plots by legal entities under private law compared to legal entities under public law. Such differences are manifested, in particular, in the grounds for acquisition, realization and termination of ownership. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The issue of peculiarities of private property rights to land plots of legal entities under private law has not been the subject of a comprehensive study, while some issues have been addressed by such scholars as P. Kulynych, M. Shulga, T. Kovalenko, V. Nosik, A. Miroshnychenko and others. Purpose of the research is to analyze and identify the specifics of private property rights and peculiarities of private law legal entities as subjects of land ownership, and this understanding affects the efficiency of legal regulation of land relations, economic development and rational use of land resources. Article’s main body. Thus, legal entities, as subjects of land rights, have significant opportunities to acquire land plots into private ownership. The procedure for such acquisition may differ depending on the type of legal entity private or public law, as well as its national status domestic or foreign. Legal entities of private law established by Ukrainian citizens or legal entities have the right to acquire land plots for the purpose of conducting business. At the same time, the absence of clear restrictions on the use of land for other activities suggests that such legal entities may also use land plots for other purposes. The classification of land plots by their designated purpose affects the specifics of legal regulation of the acquisition of such land. Thus, land plots of almost all categories may be privately owned by legal entities. At the same time, the law establishes restrictions on the possibility of private ownership of land plots, in particular, defense land. Legal entities acquire ownership of land plots on various legal grounds. The main ones are civil law transactions, inclusion of land plots in the authorized capital, and inheritance of land. Civil law transactions may include various types of contracts, such as sale and purchase, donation and exchange. Contribution of land to the authorized capital is important for the formation of the company’s assets, contributing to its financial stability. Inheritance of land plots is governed by inheritance law and can be applied to legal entities as heirs. In addition to the main grounds, the law also provides for other ways of acquiring land plots. These include court decisions, administrative acts of public authorities and other cases specifically provided for by law. For example, according to paragraph 6-1 of the Transitional Provisions of the Land Code of Ukraine, legal entities that previously had the right to permanently use state-owned or municipally owned land plots may purchase these plots without holding auctions. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Thus, legal entities have ample opportunities to acquire ownership of land plots, which allows them to effectively realize their business and other goals. Legislation provides a variety of legal grounds for this process, which contributes to the flexibility and adaptability of land relations in accordance with the needs of business and other areas of activity. Effective legal regulation of these processes is important for ensuring the rational use of land resources and sustainable economic development.

Ensuring a balance of rights and legitimate interests is often indicated, primarily in the acts of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, and the goals of legal regulation common to all types of civil relations. These goals are of particular importance in neighborly relations, which are usually understood as the relations of persons who own neighboring real estate objects. Formed in the prerevolutionary legal order, which has lost its significance in Soviet law, neighborhood law as a legal means of coordinating the private interests of neighboring owners has proved to be in demand in modern Russian realities and has become one of the projected areas of property law reform. In the draft Federal Law No. 47538-6/5 "On Amendments to Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation", neighborhood law, based on the pre-revolutionary tradition, is presented as a restriction (constraint) of property rights in favor of neighbors. The content of these restrictions is, firstly, the obligation of the owner to under- go an impact emanating from a neighboring land plot, "if it does not affect the use of his land plot or has such an impact on its use that does not exceed the established standards, and in their absence - reasonable limits based on the nature and location of the land plots or from custom." Secondly, the owner of the land plot himself is obliged to refrain from carrying out an "unacceptable impact" on the neighbor's land plot, including when building his land plot and exploiting the results of construction. Despite the fact that only two articles (Article 293 and Article 294 of the bill) are devoted to neighborhood rights in the draft law, its implementation in this part will make up for the private legal regulation of neighborhood relations that is missing in our legal order, will have an unconditional positive impact on law enforcement practice. The latter, in the absence of guidelines in the law, has formed stable legal positions that are widely used in resolving numerous neighborhood disputes. They are based on the principle of ensuring a balance of rights and legitimate interests in neighborly relations, which is not legally designated as a general provision, but is actually used by the courts. The "balance of interests" of the owners of neighboring real estate is a guideline in determining the composition of the violation necessary for the use of civil remedies, as well as in determining the consequences of this violation applied by the court. Therefore, the legalization of the principle of ensuring a balance of rights and legitimate interests seems to be the appropriate level of solving the problems existing in the sphere of legal support of neighborhood relations.

The aquaculture sector’s interest in areas beyond national jurisdiction (‘deep sea’) is emerging in a regulatory vacuum for accessing aquatic genetic resources and sharing the benefits from their use. A key question is how to balance the ‘legitimate’ interests of creators of deep sea genetic resource technology inventions with the public interest in sharing the genetic materials and knowledge with others to create new technologies and aquaculture strains. This article analyses approaches to ‘legitimacy’ under the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, and the United Nations’ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Convention on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’). All three instruments attempt to influence the sharing of genetic resource technologies to varying degrees. Using deep sea shrimp bioluminescence and tuna technologies as examples, the article gives insight into a common stewardship approach under these instruments for fairly balancing public and private interests in deep sea resources. It concludes that this common approach could be a starting point for negotiations over the United Nations’ proposed instrument under UNCLOS, which is expected to tackle access and benefit sharing of genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction.

The acquisition fee for land and building rights is payable to be repaid when the acquisition of rights occurs, while on the other hand the Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency in Article 33 does not require the payment of fees for the acquisition of land rights and a certificate is still issued, so that a certificate of land rights is issued which is burdened with an obligation to acquire land and building rights owed. The disharmony of this arrangement creates legal uncertainty so that it affects the legal strength of land rights certificates which are burdened with debt acquisition fees for land and building rights. Based on this background, a normative juridical research method (legal research) is used, with a legal approach and a conceptual approach. The procedure for settlement of fees for the acquisition of land and building rights in the issuance of land rights certificates in Article 33 of the Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency no. 6 of 2018 is contrary to Article 9 paragraph (2) of Law no. 20 of 2000 which regulates fees for the acquisition of land and building rights, so that it does not meet one of the 8 values of legal certainty, namely that a legal system must not contain conflicting regulations. Based on the research, it can be concluded that the certificate of ownership that is charged with the acquisition of land and building rights payable in a complete systematic land registration program does not have legal force, so that it has legal consequences for the object and subject of land rights. it is necessary to harmonize the law against ATR/BPN Regulation No. 6 of 2018.

The principle of legal certainty is a general principle of law. It takes its origin from Ancient Greece and Rome. Greeks used legal certainty as a main criterion for just legislation, but Romans understood it as a requirement for judicial activities. Modern requirements of the legal certainty principle have the same spheres of usage – legislative and judiciary. The main of them are the following: restrictions must be provided for a specific legal act, which is public, predictable and general, clearly formulated, has legitimate public interest; clear division of powers and responsibilities; enforcement must be unique and predictable. Nowadays, legal certainty is a generally recognized democratic value that is part of the European common heritage. The European Court of Human Rights has a great influence on the legal certainty formation. It has stable practice of using the legal certainty principle in different spheres. The ECHR has developed legal certainty to the level that it has now. Legal certainty begins to penetrate into the Ukrainian legal system. Nowadays, this process is very slow and developed only by the scholars and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. From the other hand, uprising of the rule of law and other fundamental principles of law application is moving in a positive way. This positive tendency could be found not only in constitutional law, but also in different branches of law, such as land law. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine tries to use the concept of “living instrument” that was established by the ECHR in Tyrer v. The United Kingdom case. The majority of legal certainty requirements in land sphere are connected to the legislative usage. Predictability of the acts and legislative policy is the most problematic aspect of the legal certainty implementation in Ukraine.