Zakhyst prava vlasnosti na maino, nabute u simeinykh soiuzakh, za zakonodavstvom Ukrainy ta derzhav Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu

The relevance of research on the problems associated with the implementation by spouses of enshrined in family law property rights and their protection in case of non-recognition, contestation or violation due to the fact that the property rights of spouses form the basis of the legal status of spouses and their implementation serves to strengthen the family’s the material well-being of both spouses and children. The purpose of the study is to identify gaps in legislation governing spouses’ property relations and to determine their impact on securing the enjoyment and protection of their property rights. Various methods of scientific knowledge were used in the research. Thus, the historical method was used in the analysis of the provisions of the Code of Laws on Marriage and Family of Ukraine, which regulated the property rights of spouses and determined ways to protect them. The comparative legal method was used to compare the norms of the CC of Ukraine and the FC of Ukraine governing alike or similar relations, in particular regarding shared ownership, invalidation of contracts and the like. Methods of analysis and synthesis were used to identify the shortcomings and gaps in current family law and in the practice of its application. On the basis of the formal-logical method, proposals for improvement of some provisions of the family law of Ukraine were formulated. The paper considers the general rule that a husband, wife disposes of the property, which is the subject of the joint property right of the spouse, by mutual consent. Another aspect of spousal property rights concerns the maintenance and legal regulation of a spouse. No less problematic aspect of the exercise and protection of property rights of spouses, which is considered in the paper, is the issue of property division. In particular, in case law, when considering cases of separation of property of a spouse, difficulties arise in the event of deviation from the principle of equality of spouses in the circumstances of significant importance. Such circumstances, which were analysed in the article, may be the reasons for both a decrease and an increase in the share of one of the spouses, including the former. The results obtained can be used to improve family law and the practice of its application, in further scientific studies concerning the property rights of spouses, as well as in teaching the course of family law in higher education

The article draws attention to the specifics of protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine by civil and special legislation, the rules of which are designed to protect the subjective rights of right holders and other participants in legal relations in the field of intellectual property. Some aspects of the legal nature of jurisdictional remedies are studied. Attention is paid to the specifics of protection of intellectual property rights by civil law, which consists primarily in the methods of protection provided by procedural law. The legislation, the norms of which guarantee the protection of intellectual property and the ways of protection of civil rights are outlined. The existing in the legal literature different views on the classification of methods of protection of property rights are analyzed. The legal analysis of the application of the vindication claim as a means of protection of intellectual property rights is carried out and the author's proposals are formulated. Keywords: civil law, intellectual property, lawsuit, protection

The article draws attention to the specifics of protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine by civil and special legislation, the rules of which are designed to protect the subjective rights of right holders and other participants in legal relations in the field of intellectual property. Some aspects of the legal nature of jurisdictional remedies are studied. Attention is paid to the specifics of protection of intellectual property rights by civil law, which consists primarily in the methods of protection provided by procedural law. The legislation, the norms of which guarantee the protection of intellectual property and the ways of protection of civil rights are outlined. The existing in the legal literature different views on the classification of methods of protection of property rights are analyzed. The legal analysis of the application of the vindication claim as a means of protection of intellectual property rights is carried out and the given proposals are formulated..

In the paper the property rights of spouses are studied, their specific features are identified, as well as the features of individual property rights of spouses. On the basis of the conducted scientific research, the author came to the conclusion that the property rights of spouses are those powers of a property nature, which are defined by family legislation or other sources of family law, arise in connection with the state registration of marriage and can be exercised by the spouses or one of them as bearers of these rights; rights that arise in connection with the exercise of the right of joint ownership of the property of the spouses or the right of personal private ownership of the property of one of the spouses or from alimony obligations of the other spouse. The paper highlights the general and special features of property rights of spouses, including that can be alienated in a contractual manner (regarding rights to proper property), inalienability and personal character (regarding the right to maintenance). The property rights of spouses include: property rights of spouses arising from the right of personal private ownership of certain property, property rights of spouses arising from the right of joint ownership of property acquired during marriage, the right of one of the spouses to enter into an agreement with the other person regarding the disposal of their a share of the right of joint co-ownership of the spouses in the case of its determination and allocation in kind or determination of the procedure for using joint property, the right of the spouses to divide the property that is the object of the right of joint co-ownership, as well as to determine the methods and procedure for dividing the corresponding property, the right to dispose of joint property and determine its legal regime after the death of one of the spouses and both of them by concluding a will of the spouses, the right to maintenance in the event that the disabled spouse needs financial assistance, the right to maintenance of the wife during pregnancy, the right to maintenance of one of the spouses with whom the child lives, the right to determine the methods of providing maintenance to one of the spouses.

Introduction. Adoption of new laws of civil and substantive law, the novelty of legal relations governed by the rules of these laws, the complexity of civil conflicts arising from these legal relations, require a high level of legal protection, compliance with the rule of law by all members of society. Only the law allows interested parties to choose the form of protection. This form can be traditional – jurisdictional (provides for the establishment of a body and procedure for the protection of violated rights), and non-jurisdictional (but certainly allowed by law), which may resort to interested parties. obstacle to the exercise of the right. Resolution of legal conflicts is possible not only through a jurisdictional form of protection. A non-jurisdictional form of protection of civil rights is the independent protection of a person of his violated rights. That is, the person does not apply to the competent state authorities. In fact, it is the commission of actual actions aimed at protecting and securing their personal property and other non-property rights. The purpose of the paper is a thorough study of models of non-jurisdictional protection of property rights in the system of protection of civil rights by analyzing the theoretical and practical aspects of using alternative methods of protection of private rights in general and mediation. Result. It is determined that the non-jurisdictional form of protection of civil rights is the actions of citizens and organizations aimed at protecting their own civil rights, freedoms, and legally protected interests. It is noted that these actions are carried out and implemented by eligible entities independently, without seeking legal assistance from government agencies and structures, as well as officials. It is determined that the mechanism of legal protection is implemented in non-jurisdictional ways in the field of legal regulation when it is necessary to overcome and eliminate obstacles that arise in the exercise of rights and legitimate interests of the subject of law, in other words – to quickly protect (ensure) legal status. It is determined that in international practice, namely in European countries, the basis of non-jurisdictional protection of property rights is mainly in the use of negotiation and mediation procedures. Non-jurisdictional form, which is usually local in nature, is achieved as a result of actual actions, occurs not in jurisdictional or procedural forms, but within the protected substantive legal relations, which are the subjects of such legal relations (usually imply The main difference between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional forms of protection of rights is that the protection of rights in jurisdictional form is carried out by the competent state and public authorities with each of them a certain procedural order of activity, while protection in a non-jurisdictional form takes place within the framework of a substantive legal relationship and is carried out by the parties themselves in the legal relationship. Conclusion. The study proves that in Ukraine, priority should be given to the development of various forms of out-of-court dispute resolution. The basis for this should be the legislative consolidation of out-of-court settlement of civil disputes as one of the basic principles of protection of violated private rights (of course, without revoking or replacing the right to judicial protection). Non-jurisdictional methods of protection of private rights are defined in the legislation of Ukraine and can be used due to the dispositive nature of the civil law method of regulation. However, this is insufficient, as participants in civil legal relations in case of violation of their rights are primarily confronted in the law with a defined right to judicial protection of violated rights, and often consider the court as the only possible form of protection.

The article explores the idea that public administration can act as an independent means of protection of civil rights, complementing such tools as civil law types of protection of rights, which consist in proving the legality of possession of the property itself. Protection of property rights is traditionally considered a field of private law, built on the principles of respect for private property, equality of arms, independence of the court and a fair settlement of legal disputes. It is stated that, unlike civil law methods of protection of rights, public administration as a method of protection of rights is aimed not at protecting the issue of legality of possession but at protecting the registration record from wrongful distortion. A large array of rules on the protection of private property is of a public law nature and is associated with the administration of relevant records. It is argued that from the point of view of protection of property rights, in particular property rights to real estate and their derivatives - the rights of the mortgagee, rights of claim, which are notarized, etc., the activities of state bodies are an organizational means of protecting such rights in the form of public administration. Publicity means that any decisions regarding changes in registered rights are made in public and, in accordance with the procedures provided by law, become public property, including stakeholders and an indefinite number of entities. It is determined that the essence of administration is that rights are protected on a procedural basis and the need for certain legal preconditions for making a management decision on changes in registered rights cannot be replaced by other legal preconditions, or a decision cannot be made without sufficient legal grounds.

Statement of the problem. The questions of realization of civil norms about unjust enrichment in family law are relevant in connection with the strengthening of the economic component in the property relations of spouses. In addition, spousal conditional claims have recently been the subject of an increasing number of proceedings in the courts of general jurisdiction. However, while the civil law aspects of conditional obligations have been extensively and deeply researched in science, the issues of implementation of civil norms on unjust enrichment in family law have been addressed sporadically and so far remain outside the field of scientific research. Purpose and methods of research. The purpose of this article is to identify current problems of application of norms on unjust enrichment to property relations of spouses on the basis of the analysis of legislation, judicial practice and doctrine. The theme was carried out with the use of the following general scientific methods: a dialectical method of knowledge of the legal phenomena, the logical method was used at material presentation, the method of the system analysis has allowed to study interaction of norms of family and civil law, separate elements and signs of institute of unjust enrichment. In addition, special methods were used in the article: formal-legal, the method of generalisation of legal materials and technical-legal analysis. Results. The analytical study of the institute of unjust enrichment allowed the author to identify groups of family relations in respect of the application to them of conditional rules. In order to eliminate uncertainty in the choice of the method of protection of property rights of spouses, the criteria on the basis of which the claim for the return of unjustified enrichment is distinguished from the other property claims of the spouses was proposed.

The article is devoted to the study of the institution of property rights protection in administrative law. The legal institute of property rights protection in administrative law is considered as a set of administrative and legal norms regulating homogeneous social relations related to the protection of property rights. In the system of administrative law, they form an independent separate group, permeated with internal unity, with a common goal - to ensure a holistic effective regulation of social relations related to the protection of property rights, which allow for the possibility of applying to an individual or legal entity measures of administrative liability for the commission by that person of offenses encroaching on property. It is established that: 1) the institute of property rights protection, as a systemic, integral entity, is a unity of naturally arranged and interrelated elements, to which we have referred the sources, objects of legal relations, as well as special entities whose activities are aimed at organizing appropriate protection of property rights through the use of administrative and legal measures and means; 2) the institute of property rights protection in administrative law operates with universal administrative and legal measures and means. This universality lies in the fact that they combine the «power» of the State structures with which they are usually associated, and which involve the direct application of various measures of State coercion with a preventive effect. Their combined use makes it possible to protect property rights at the sectoral level in the most complete and comprehensive manner. It is stated that the State regulation of property rights protection in Ukraine belongs to a wide range of relations which are the subject matter of both civil, criminal and administrative law. The legal system of Ukraine has created a whole range of institutions for the protection of property rights. Taken together, they form the legal basis for state property protection. At the same time, the use of administrative and legal measures and means by the executive authorities in the course of property rights protection is the most effective in terms of the ratio «funds spent - results obtained from their use».

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

The article examines the issue of the specifics of the protection of property rights, the specifics of their application to objects. Article 13 of the Constitution of Ukraine declares that the fundamental principle of in the field of protection of property rights there is a provision that the state provides equal protection of all subjects of property rights. In recent years, the question of protection of property rights has gained important theoretical and practical importance. The analysis of modern judicial practice shows that there is no unified position of judicial bodies on the resolution of disputes related to the violation of property rights. Courts of general jurisdiction and commercial courts, when considering disputes related to the protection of violated rights, ambiguously apply the norms of current legislation, therefore, the uncertainty of judicial authorities in the matter of the uniform application of the provisions of civil law to disputes of this category leads to the violation of the constitutional rights of owners. It is emphasized that the protection of property rights is a complex of civil legal means, which are aimed, on the one hand, at ensuring the normal economic use of property and maintaining property rights in an intact state, and, on the other hand, at restoring violated property relations, overcoming obstacles to their normal functioning and compensation for damages caused to the owner. As a conclusion, it is said that the protection of property rights acts as an independent subjective right that arises at the moment when there is a threat of its violation or dispute. This right includes powers, each of which involves the active implementation of positive actions. In the field of legal relations related to the protection of property rights, the objects of protection are directly the rights to certain objects. It is these rights that can be violated by other persons, and it is for their protection that the civil law provides for various means that a person can use to protect his violated or disputed rights, which are subject to protection by the law of interests. Subjects of legal relations related to the protection of property rights are, on the one hand, persons who have property rights to a specific object, and persons who retain property in accordance with relevant contracts or laws, and who, accordingly to legal norms, have the right to demand protection of their violated subjective rights. On the other hand, these are persons whose actions led to the unlawful violation of subjective rights to property objects.

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) always drive invention and creativeness. It also creates new employment and makes you more competitive. Intellectual property rights protect and benefit the work of writers, artists, designers, discoverers, and other IPR users while they are being used by others. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) help protect ideas and creative works developed by inventors, designers, developers, and writers. After all, protecting intellectual property is one of the major challenges for both developed and developing nations. There are numerous international laws that protect intellectual property. International law employs several guidelines and recommendations to confirm the protection of intellectual property. In addition, most countries have intellectual property laws. Maximum countries have their own legislative powers to protect their intellectual property rights. But if not done properly, all these international and domestic intellectual property laws will be valueless. The legal system that China and Pakistan follow to protect their intellectual property is very similar to the legal system of developed countries but also has some main variances. This research paper attempts to examine the assessment of IPR protection in China and Pakistan. This research paper also describes IPR protection procedures in China and Pakistan. In addition, this article initiates a comparison of international IPR indexes to demonstrate and describe the variances in IPR protection assessments. This article also lists and describes the various factors that influence the lack of proper protection of property and intellectual property rights in both countries.

Main aim of the article is to analyze the correlation of the institutes of protection of property rights and self-protection of rights. The natural course of civil rights is also due to the fact that this right lies in the sphere of ownership, control and predictability of the rightholder. The legal possibility of self-defense in the system of property rights protection is applicable not only on the basis of the circumstances of self-defense of the rights enshrined in the general provisions of civil legislation, but also in accordance with special norms. The chapter entitled "Protection of property and other property rights" essentially provides for at least two measures of self-defense of the rights enshrined in articles 274 and 277 of the Civil Code. It is necessary to clearly coordinate self-defense measures and the scope of their application in the RA Civil Code, otherwise there are problems with the practical application of self-defense rights. There are no clear legislative delimiters regarding the system of protection of rights. Are the defense guarantees of individual legal institutions part of the system of protection of private law? Can the right holders of rights protected by private law institutions that have a separate system of protection use general forms of legal protection, for example, self-defense of rights? In the course of the study, a comparative legal method was applied. We have come to the conclusion that the protection of property rights on at least two legal grounds can be carried out through self-defense of rights, being enshrined in both general legislative and special parts.

This paper tries to seek legal issues and revision directions of the constitutional provisions on the protection of property rights. The economic freedom of individuals and corporations secured through constitutional freedom of contract, private autonomy, protection of private property, etc. is an indispensable condition of democracy, and in particular, property rights form the basis of socio-economic activities. This paper does not understand the constitutional property rights as relative fundamental rights but considers them as supernational natural rights. The Korean constitutional academy tends to commonly accept that the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution declaring protection of property rights finally recognizes property rights as personal rights at the highest normative level of the Constitution, and it does not mean recognition of supernational or natural rights but embodiment of personal rights in the actual law named the Constitution. However, property is as important as freedom because it is a prerequisite for realizing other fundamental rights. Therefore, this paper does not understand property rights as the actual rights that can be restricted by the state, but consider property rights from the viewpoint of the natural rights given to human beings even before foundation of the state. The protection of property rights includes the protection of value and the guarantee of sustainability, but it cannot adhere to the guarantee of sustainability in need of the public interest, but needs to be expanded even to the protection of value for compensation of loss. The recognition of the Constitution as a union of loss compensation is due to the failure in recognizing the difference between the German and the Korean Constitutional norms. In addition, in connection with discussions on amendment of the provisions for constitutional property rights, this paper also reexamines the property rights as the natural rights in order to prevent the harms caused by excessive intervention of the state power in the economic areas under the imperial presidential system.BR Korea has undergone rapid domestic and international changes since 1987. Faced with today`s multifaceted social environments, Korea is also requested to revise its Constitution, the highest standard of community. Such amendment of the Constitution needs to advance towards the unification of social realities and norms overcoming the partisan interests in order to develop a new Korean society in the 21st century by realizing the integration of both industrialization and democratization forces and establishing new rules in the fields of fundamental rights.

Constitutional Protection of Property Rights in Hong Kong

The protection and enforcement of property rights both at the national and international levels is mostly taken for granted so that the importance of this issue for the smooth flow of international transactions is not always fully realized. One has to remember that about 200 years ago, large scale piracy still constituted a major impediment to international trade, and that both internal and inter-country commerce were unsafe due to the presence of bandits on the highways. Moreover little protection was available for what we call now intellectual property. Today the discussions and controversies surrounding the Internet where neither transactions nor intellectual property rights are yet completely safe are there to remind us of the importance of this question. It is remarkable that international cooperation in terms of the current trade regime has managed to achieve enough protection of property rights to insure relatively smooth trade flows. As the previous example of the Internet or the emergence of new trades in more complex financial instruments and new rights (such as for instance emission trading) shows, a safe future for such transactions is far from guaranteed. This paper intends on the one hand to emphasize the importance of the proper attribution and then protection of property rights at the international level to insure a continuous flow of international transactions. On the other hand, the paper also wants to draw attention to the problems associated with the recognition and protection of property rights when productive processes under the influenced of new opportunities and technologies show increasing returns to scale. More generally however, the paper also intends to stress the importance of cooperative processes in shaping state structures and ultimately the international system.