COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED GROUNDS FOR THE COMPULSORY TERMINATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

Abstract

The article provides a comprehensive comparative legal analysis of selected grounds for the compulsory termination of property rights, in particular confiscation, requisition, and the institution of the recognition of assets as unjustified and their subsequent recovery in favour of the state. A legal analysis of confiscation within both criminal and civil law is carried out, its common fundamental features are summarized, and it is established that confiscation combines elements of both private and public law regulation. The institution of the recognition of assets as unjustified and their recovery in favour of the state is examined as a form of civil confiscation applied in civil proceedings and aimed at counteracting unjustified enrichment of persons authorized to perform the functions of the state or local self-government. Its legal nature, specific features of application, and its place within the system of compulsory termination of property rights are determined. Requisition is analyzed as a form of compulsory expropriation of property of a public-law nature, applied under extraordinary circumstances, martial law, or a state of emergency through an out-of-court (administrative) procedure with mandatory compensation for its value. The characteristic features of requisition and the grounds for its application are identified, and the need for further legal regulation of the list of property subject to compulsory expropriation is established. The necessity of improving the legal regulation of the procedure for compensation for the value of property in cases of requisition, as well as ensuring adequate guarantees for the protection of property rights, is emphasized. It is established that confiscation and the recognition of assets as unjustified have a sanctioning nature, are generally applied on the basis of a court decision, and involve the gratuitous transfer of property into state ownership. In contrast, requisition does not have a punitive nature, is not related to the commission of an offence, and serves as an administrative instrument of the state used under extraordinary circumstances, martial law, or a state of emergency to meet public needs with mandatory compensation for the value of the property.