Polyvariativity of rights in the structure of corporate legal relations

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Polyvariativity of rights in the structure of corporate legal relations

Anatolii Volodymyrovych Kostruba, Dr. hab. in Law, Professor, Professor of the Juridical Institute of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University

Резюме

Поліваріативність прав у структурі корпоративних юридичних відносин

Коструба А.В.

Стаття присвячена дослідженню структури корпоративних правовідносин, встановленню механізму їх формування. Юридичні відносини як форма суспільних відносин перебувають у постійному розвитку, що зумовлено активністю соціальних зв'язків у суспільстві. Як результат, відбувається виникнення та розвиток нових видів соціальної взаємодії, які вимагають відповідної юридичної форми свого впорядкування.

Таке впорядкування відбувається самоврегульовано учасниками відповідних відносин у процесі накопичення в них майнових, немайнових компонентів, організаційних тощо. Встановлено, що формування корпоративних правових відносин є результатом поєднання майнових, немайнових та організаційних складових. Організаційна складова корпоративних відносин полягає у впорядкуванні діяльності осіб у процесі поєднання їх зусиль на етапі виникнення таких правовідносин, а також впорядкуванні цієї діяльності учасників корпоративних правовідносин у процесі їх правореалізації. Створення юридичної особи передбачає організованість дій її учасників (засновників). Функціонування юридичної особи вимагає її структурної організованості. Існування юридичної особи в цивільному обороті потребує організаційної координації її правосуб'єктності.

Майновий характер корпоративних правовідносин полягає в обумовленості матеріальним інтересом учасників таких відносин отримати відповідне задоволення від їх участі в них. У його підґрунті системна комбінація речово-правового елементу та зобов'язально-правового відповідно. Речовий або ціннісний аспект майнової складової корпоративних правовідносин розкривається через реалізацію правомочностей власника. Це право учасника (засновника) юридичної особи володіти, користуватися та розпоряджатися належною йому часткою в статутному капіталі. Зобов'язальний (вартісний) аспект майнової складової корпоративних правовідносин є похідним від речового та відображає зустрічні активні дії учасників корпоративних правовідносин, які опосередковують процес переміщення корпоративних матеріальних результатів між ними.

За посередництвом немайнового сегмента відбувається ідентифікація корпоративних правовідносин у системі цивільного права. Вказане досягається шляхом активної діяльності суб'єктів, предметом чого є не стільки переміщення матеріальних благ, що характерно для майнових відносин, скільки управління корпорацією. Таке управління здійснюється опосередковано (утворення виконавчого органу корпорації, обрання членів наглядової ради акціонерного товариства) або безпосередньо (участь у загальних зборах, ведення справ корпорації, вихід зі складу юридичної особи, здійснення контролю за діяльністю виконавчого органу).

Ключові слова: корпорація, корпоративні правовідносини, цивільні правовідносини, організаційні відносини, майнові відносини, немайнові відносини.

Резюме

Коструба А.В.

Статья посвящена исследованию структуры корпоративных правоотношений, установлению механизма их формирования. Юридические отношения как форма общественных отношений находятся в постоянном развитии, что обусловлено активностью социальных связей в обществе. В результате происходит возникновение и развитие новых видов социального взаимодействия, которые требуют соответствующей юридической формы своего благоустройства. Установлено, что формирование корпоративных правовых отношений является результатом сочетания имущественных, неимущественных и организационных составляющих. Организационная составляющая корпоративный отношений заключается в упорядочении деятельности лиц в процессе сочетания усилий на этапе возникновения таких правоотношений, а также упорядочении этой деятельности участников корпоративных правоотношений в процессе их правореализации. Имущественный характер корпоративных правоотношений состоит в обусловленности материальным интересом участников таких отношений получить соответствующее удовлетворение от их участия в них. Посредством неимущественного сегмента обеспечивается управление корпорацией.

Ключевые слова: корпорация, корпоративные правоотношения, гражданские правоотношения, организационные отношения, имущественные отношения, неимущественные отношения.

Summary

The article is the study of the structure of corporate legal relations, the establishment of a mechanism for their formation. Legal relations as a form of social relations are in constant development. As a result, there is emergence and development of new types of social interaction, which require an appropriate legal form of their ordering. Such ordering is self-regulated by the participants of the respective relations as a result of the subjective accumulation of property, non-property, organizational, other components.

The organizational component of corporate relations is to order the activities of individuals in the process of combining their efforts at the stage of emergence of such legal relations, as well to order the activities of parties in corporate relations in the process of their realization.

The property nature of corporate legal relations consists in the conditionality by the material interest in an objectified form of its participants' aspiration to obtain the corresponding materialized effective satisfaction from the participation in them.

Key words: corporation, corporate legal relations, civil legal relations, organizational relations, property relations, non-property relations.

Problem formulation

The problem of formation of corporate relations in the civil law of Ukraine involves a fairly wide scientific discussion both among the representatives of civil legal science and of other areas of jurisprudence. At the present stage of development of legal doctrine, corporate legal relations are considered from the standpoint of property law, law of obligations, and corporate law approaches, each of which prioritizes cognominal elements in the structure of legal relations. In addition, some scholars study corporate relationships in the context of the parity of their constituent rights. Such modern scholars as V. Vasylieva, I. Spasybo-Fateeva and others give considerable attention to the study of this issue. But these problematic questions are left unanswered. Legal relations are one of the fundamental categories of legal theory. They are the means by which inertia is given in the structure of legal matter. With their help, law starts to be realized: rights are exercised, obligations are fulfilled. Therefore, the study of elements of corporate legal relations, their uniqueness and variability, method and sequence of accumulation is relevant for civil jurisprudence in Ukraine.

Analysis of recent research and publications

Important issues of the researched problem were considered in many works of domestic scholars, in particular, V. Borysova, V. Vasylieva, Y. Zhornokuy, R. Maidanyk, L. Sishchuk, I. Spasybo-Fateeva., etc. An important role is played by research on the problems of corporate legal relations conducted by foreign scholars J. Waldman and H. Willmott, T. Lawson, as well as V. Davydova, L. Kuznetsova, O. Petnykova and others. At the same time, without diminishing the importance of these and many other studies, we should note that the content and structure of corporate legal relations remain debatable in civil jurisprudence. Moreover, there is no understanding of the structural configuration of such relations in general.

Purpose formulation

Based on these considerations, the purpose of the scientific publication is to study the nature of subjective civil rights and legal obligations in their polyvariativity, which affects the formation of corporate legal relations in the civil law of Ukraine.

Main body

Despite the lack of a generally accepted concept of the term of legal relations, as of today, their classification has been formed quite precisely. Indeed, the division of legal relations into property and non-property ones is quite well-established. In the theory of law, legal relations are also systematized into absolute and relative, real and promissory ones. The latter concerns the species classification of property relations. This structure is also of practical importance. Thus, depending on the type of legal relationship, the object of social relations, which correlate with the legal ones, has a respective regime of its existence. Given the above, each type of social relations has a different content of legal relations. The basis of property relations are two groups of relations: the relationship of property belonging to a person (real) and the relationship of turnover (promissory). The latter, in turn, differ depending on the chosen method of defense, as well as the order of enforcement. Non-property legal relations, due to their personal nature, are non-translational. Along with the above, non-property rights are inseparable from the bearer of these rights, which ensues certain specifics of the foundations for their emergence and termination.

However, along with the above, one should distinguish one more group of legal relations, which by their nature are focused on ordering (normalizing) other social relations, the actions of their participants or the development of social formations. This is so-called organizational relations, the place of which in the subject of civil law was determined by O. Krasavchykov in 1966. “.. .Civil organizational and legal relations, the author writes, are legal relations based on the equality of their parties, which express, within the law, the activities of people and organizations to order their relationships, coordination of efforts in the implementation of state or their own initiative.”¹. It is reasonable to note that in civil doctrine, different terms are used to describe the concept under study: “procedural relations”²; “procedures”³. And according to Y. Yegorov, such social relations should be called “coordination” ones, as they are established between non-subordinate parties⁴. However, the term “organizational”, in our opinion, reflects the nature of the phenomenon under study the most clearly from the semantic viewpoint. Despite the debatability of this issue in the context of the attribution of organizational relations to the subject of civil law (S. Bratus, O. Ioffe, O. Krasavchykov, Y. Tolstoy), the scientific validity of the position of the scientist is beyond doubt. The nature of the legal relationship of the subjects of social interaction is not limited to the property or non-property component.

The existence of social relations is due to the activities of a person aimed at achieving a certain result of property or non-property content. Such activities indisputably have a legal form of their existence, and are also filled with legal content through the corresponding purpose. Thus, the given activities of the person acquire all signs of legal relations which, because of private legal character of a subject of the corresponding organization, become civil legal ones. The erroneous position of O. Krasavchykov, in our opinion, is limited only by the systematization of organizational legal relations to one line with property and non-property ones.

The scholar describes the relationship between them. Unfortunately, he limits to this, ignoring that such a relationship is indeed systemically necessary, but is based on different criteria for classifying organizational, property (non-property) legal relations. It is incorrect to claim that organizational relations, along with property and non-property ones, are an independent element of the subject of civil law regulation. Thus, the criterion for classifying legal relations into property and non-property ones is their object. At the same time, the criterion for classifying legal relations into organizational and other (non-organization- al) ones is their content. In view of the above, it is a mistake to separate the organizational element from the property one or to oppose it. They are at different levels of the same system. But this is the theoretical side of the question.

At the same time, after analyzing the debatable issue of classification of legal relations, it should be concluded that property and non-property relations, as well as absolute or relative ones, do not exist in the “pure” form. Even the relationship of alienation of things, which has a property nature, contains a non-property component, such as the right to information. In turn, non-property relations cannot be realized outside the property ones. In the relations of hire, the guarantee of defense of non-property relations is the appropriate compensatory methods of their realization, including compensation for damage of a property nature. Thus, the specific nature of legal relations is given by the total amount of powers making up their content. It is their predominant number in the structure of legal relations that gives them a property or non-property type, real or promissory, or even organizational one.

If we focus on individual elements of legal relations (object, content), the latter are structured into basic and derivative ones. The basic ones are those that have a target orientation (organizational, regulatory, protective ones), the purpose of their existence. Derivative relations ensure the realization of the basic (property, non-property) ones. In this case, the self-organization of civil relations takes place at two levels: at the beginning, at the level of determining the goals of the legal relationship, then, at the level of establishing the nature of achieving such goals.

The above enables concluding that the classification of civil relations is determined by the sum of its constituent powers of the monolevel order. Empirically, this allows explaining the principle of formation of so-called “paired rights”. At one time, I. Spasybo-Fateeva drew attention to this phenomenon, noting that “... in civil law, there are paired categories of rights. It is not advisable to consider them separately, because they give the legal effect, designed to best meet all the interests and needs of their bearers, to give the regulation the level that can do it, only in inseparable connection with each other. Therefore, in the study of such rights. <.>. personal non-property and property rights should be considered as paired”⁵. The rationality of the scholar's idea is beyond doubt. Variative combination of different types of powers, even their types, within civil legal relations is natural for the subject of civil legal regulation of public relations. Actually, public law relations that have an imperatively focused tone are deprived of such a property. In our opinion, only the limitation of the combination of rights to a single pair (property and non-property ones), as well as to the obvious interdependence can serve as points of criticism to her position. This is clearly not enough to explain the nature of such rights.

Firstly, the combination of powers is not limited to a pair of property and non-property ones. Property relations, divided into real and promissory ones, can also be involved in the accumulation of a critical mass of powers, which will lead to the emergence of a particular type of civil relationship in the future. An example of this is a servitude relationship that combines promissory and real rights.

Secondly, the accumulation of powers in a civil relationship is not exhausted by the paired combination. Their consolidation in the structure of legal relations can be ensured by almost three powers, which, in addition to property and non-property, are also organizational ones. And if necessary, they can also be the powers to defense, converting regulatory civil relations into protective ones. In essence, this idea provides additional arguments in the dispute over the structure of a subjective civil right and the inclusion of the right to defense into it (V. Grybanov, L. Yavych, R. Stefanchuk) or its separation into an independent subjective civil right (P. Yelyseikin, Y. Motovylovker, Z. Romovska) in favor of the latter.

As a result of this combination, complex (combined) civil legal relations of a higher order arise around a certain object. Thus, as a result of the combination of property and non-property relations, the object of which are family benefits, family legal relations are formed.

Another example is legal relations of intellectual property as a result of parity of property and non-property rights around the results of creative activity. We observe that family legal relations and legal relations of intellectual property are characterized by “parity” of rights, in favor of which opined I. Spasybo-Fateeva.

The organizational component of corporate relations is to order the activities of individuals in the process of combining their efforts at the stage of emergence of such legal relations, as well to order the activities of parties in corporate relations in the process of their realization. They are based on a structurally organizing component.

The creation of a legal entity involves the organization of actions of its participants (founders). The functioning of a legal entity requires its structural organization. The existence of a legal entity in civil turnover requires organizational coordination of its legal personality. In other words, the fact of activity of a legal entity, from the time of its creation to the moment of its termination, presupposes organizational influence on the structure of corporate legal relations on the part of their participants. The absence of an organizational component excludes the genesis of property and non-property powers in the structure of corporate legal relations of their participants. A legal entity also cannot be created in the absence of an organizational component. It should be noted that the species classification of organizational legal relations, developed by O. Krasavchykov in 1966, is most vividly reflected on the example of corporate legal relations⁶.

a) organizational prerequisite (forming) relations. As for the subject of our study, their content is to realize the provisions of Art. 4, 26(2), 35-36, 50, 52, 67, 75-76 of the Law of Ukraine “On Business Entities” (joint stock company, limited liability company, and additional liability company are created and operate on the basis of the charter, an unlimited and limited partnership are created and operate on the basis of the foundation agreement⁷).

The legal norms forming the organizational prerequisite corporate legal relations are enshrined in Article 9 of the Law of Ukraine “On Joint Stock Companies”. Thus, in order to create a joint stock company, the founders must hold a closed (private) placement of its shares, hold a constituent meeting and carry out state registration of the joint stock company, etc.⁸;

b) organizational delegating relations, which are characterized by the endowment of organizational and administrative powers to manage a legal entity in the realization of corporate legal relations. In particular, Art. 59, 62, 68, 81 of the Law of Ukraine “On Business Entities” provide for the scope of powers of the governing body of a legal entity, as well as Art. 39 of the Law of Ukraine “On Joint Stock Companies”;

c) organizational and control relations allow a person to control the actions of another one, who are in a certain relationship. In particular, Art. 63 of the Law of Ukraine “On Business Entities” regulates the procedure for exercising control over the activities of the directorate (director) of a legal entity through the institution of an audit commission. In a joint stock company, these functions are performed by the supervisory board of the joint stock company;

d) the criterion of organizational implementing relations is absent in the classification of O. Krasavchikov, but is consistently appropriate in such a system. Thus, the organizational component in the activities of a legal entity accompanies its functioning in civil turnover at each stage of legal regulation of corporate relations. It is also present at the stage of law enforcement, the content of which is the realization of subjective corporate rights and corporate obligations. These are the relations connected with the convening of a general meeting of participants (founders) of the corporation, the relations of participation in it, the adoption of appropriate decisions (voting), etc.

Dualism is inherent to the property component of corporate relations. It is based on a systemic combination of the real and the promissory elements, respectively. The property nature of corporate legal relations consists in the conditionality by the material interest in an objectified form of its participants' aspiration to obtain the corresponding materialized effective satisfaction from the participation in them. That is, their content is a cost value aspect.

The non-property component of corporate relations semantically complements the previous two components. Through the non-property segment corporate relations are identified in the civil law system. This is achieved through the active efforts of the subjects, the subject of which is not the movement of material benefits, which is characteristic of property relations, but is the governance of the corporation. Such governance is carried out indirectly (formation of the executive body of a corporation, election of members of the supervisory board of a joint stock company) or directly (participation in the general meeting, conduct of business of the corporation, withdrawal from the legal entity, control over the executive body). We can make sure that the non-property component of corporate relations is related to the individual, deprived of direct material content and is aimed at meeting certain social needs, as well as ensures the realization of freedom of social existence (the right to choose occupation).

Referents

1. Красавчиков О.А. Гражданские организационные отношения. Категории науки гражданского права. Избранные труцы: в 2 т. Т 1. М.: Статут, 205. 492 с. С. 53.

2. Захаров В.А. Создание юридических лиц: правовые вопросы. М.: НОРМА, 2002. 208 с. С. 45.

3. Давидова Г.Н. Юридические процедуры в гражданском праве. Общая характеристика: автореф. цис. ... канц. юрид. наук. Казань, 2004. 28 с.

4. Егоров Ю.П. Правовой режим сделок как средства индивидуального гражданско-правового регулирования: дис. ... д-ра юрид. наук. Екатеринбург, 2004. 475 с. С. 11-12.

5. Спасибо-Фатеева И.В. Парные права или еще одна попытка разобраться с личными неимущественными правами, сопоставить их с имущественными правами и раскрыть значимость категории «парные права» и их виды. Личные неимущественные права: проблемы теории и практики применения: сб. статей / под ред. Р.А. Стефанчука. Київ: Юринком Интер, 2010. 1040 с. С. 163-164.

6. Красавчиков О.А. Гражданские организационные отношения. Категории науки гражданского права. Избранные труцы: в 2 т. Т 1. М.: Статут, 205. 492 с. С. 45-56.

7. Про господарські товариства: Закон України N° 1576-ХІ віц 19 вересня 1991 р. Відомості Верховної Ради України. 1991. № 49. ст. 682.

8. Про акціонерні товариства: Закон України № 514-УІ ві,ц 17 серпня 2008 р. Відомості Верховної Ради України. № 50. 2008. Ст. 384.

Размещено на Allbest.ru