DETERMINING WAYS TO PROTECT SUBJECTIVE HOUSING RIGHTS

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of some aspects of the legal nature of methods to protect the right to private ownership of housing. In particular, it was established that when defining the concept of the method of protection of the right to ownership of housing, it should be based, firstly, on its substantive and legal nature, which provides for the possibility of applying certain coercive measures to the violator of the subjective right, and secondly, from the lexical meaning of the method as a category that reflects not just an action, but the specificity of the implementation of this action, an admissible and effective legal technique that allows to achieve the desired legal result for the owner – the restoration of the violated, unrecognized or disputed ownership right to housing, as well as the elimination of the threat of such violation. It is emphasized that scientific approaches related to the need for legislative or contractual consolidation of protection methods are somewhat limited and do not correspond to the current state of legal regulation in this area. It was established that the legislative departure from the numerus clausus principle of methods of protection of subjective civil rights, including the right to property, is not absolute, and a potential possibility of applying non-legislative methods of protection, which is enshrined in the provisions of Part 2 of Article 5 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, is characterized mostly by declarativeness, because it is complicated by the need to comply with a number of conditions, including: 1) non-fixing in the law or contract of an effective method of protecting the right to ownership of housing; 2) lawful character of the method; 3) the court’s decision on application of the method is based on its own discretion. The position was taken that in any case, based on the content of the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 5 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which establishes the possibility of protecting subjective civil rights in a way that is not provided for by law, regardless of the difficulty of implementing this possibility in practice, there are sufficient legal grounds for revising and changing the position regarding the need to limit the range of methods to protect subjective civil rights rights, including the right to ownership of housing, by their enshrining by law or contract, in terms of including those methods that are not reflected in the provisions of current legislation and do not contradict it.