Search

The problematic issues related to the legislator’s priority task of regulating changes in the property status of a legal entity in the course of its reorganisation are outlined, which ensures the organisational and legal transformation of the organisation through effective redistribution of resources and enhancing the modernisation of the country’s economic stability as a whole. The current state of the legal doctrine of understanding reorganisation as a legal phenomenon has no common denominator. It is studied as a method of termination of a legal entity; a method of emergence and/or termination of a legal entity(ies); a special procedure for the transfer of rights and obligations; a type of universal succession; a legal remedy; the procedural aspect of reorganisation actions is studied, pointing to the process, composition or set of legal facts, or it is proposed to abandon attempts to define the category of “reorganisation” altogether. Based on the analysis of the legal doctrine and current legislation, the conclusion that reorganisation is a special mechanism of transformation of a legal entity, which is manifested in a complex legal structure aimed at achieving a positive economic effect or bringing it into compliance with current legislation, resulting in termination and/or establishment of a new legal entity(ies) with the transfer to it of the property (or part thereof) of the legal entity being reorganised by way of legal succession, has been made. The opinion that an unambiguous statement that reorganisation is a form of either creation or termination of a legal entity is erroneous has been presented. This conclusion is based on the fact that current legislation enshrines different denominators for certain types of reorganisation – termination/establishment, but the relevant legal phenomenon should be studied comprehensively (as a whole). In this case, one section of such a legal structure will indicate the creation and the other one will indicate the termination of a legal entity, which is manifested within the reorganisation procedure of one organisation.

Based on the analysis of Ukrainian legislation and legal doctrine, the article examines the legal regime of a share in the authorised capital of a limited liability company. The necessity of considering a share in the authorized capital in two senses is substantiated: economic and legal. According to the first meaning, such a share expresses a part of the value of the company’s property and gives a person the opportunity to dispose of the company's capital (assets). However, from a legal point of view, there is an insurmountable obstacle to this understanding – the status of a limited liability company as an independent participant in civil relations, which owns such property, and property separation is one of the features that characterises it. The opinion that a share in the authorised capital of a limited liability company does not coincide with the concepts of “corporate rights” or “property rights” is supported, it is an independent tradable object, but with a specific legal regime, in particular, it cannot be the object of other limited property rights, but it is such a share (and not corporate rights) that can be the object of property rights. It has been proved that: 1) the legal nature of a share should be characterised through the legal nature of the powers of a limited liability company participant; 2) such powers constitute a single and indivisible set of corporate rights which are recognised as a separate category of rights, along with obligatory and property rights; 3) the legal nature of corporate rights is of a comprehensive nature, which primarily consists of a combination of the principles of absoluteness and relativity; 4) the definition of a share only through the shareholder's rights is not justified, since the shareholder's rights are inextricably linked to his/her obligations; 5) a share as an object of civil rights is “other property”, not “property rights”.

Foreign and domestic legislation and legal doctrine regarding the right to be forgotten, establishing its features, in particular in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war, are analyzed. It is noted that recently in the international legal field there is a mention of the existence of a new category for legal scholars - the right to be forgotten. The definition of the right to be forgotten is disclosed and it is established that, in a broad sense, the right means that a certain person after a certain period of time can turn to the media to remove previously disseminated information about him, which is not currently of a certain public interest, but at the request of the person should not to exist in public space. In a narrow sense, the right to be forgotten preserves the personal identity of the relevant person in its subjective aspect, which is related to honor, objectivity and reputation, that is, it prevents the person from being reminded of certain information related to him and causing him certain negative consequences in society. The importance of ensuring a balance between freedom of speech, expression of views, freedom of the press and the right to be forgotten is established. The need to maintain a balance of private and public interests in the context of the right to be forgotten is considered. It is noted that the Court of the European Union recognized the possibility of a person acquiring the right to be forgotten only when there is no interest in information about a specific person in the public space, and also when such a person does not play a special, significant and important social role. It is emphasized that the right to be forgotten is different from the protection of the right to privacy and its realization does not entail the manifestation of measures of civil liability. The impossibility of applying the right to be forgotten in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war is analyzed. Emphasis is placed on the fact that persons who are somehow involved in armed aggression cannot expect that their name will be “whitened” in the future. It is noted that international companies have set a new standard of business behavior regarding geopolitical events in the future with their decisions. It has been established that companies must cease cooperation with the russia or persons related to it. It was emphasized that transnational corporations, by exiting the russian market, exert a significant influence on the lack of financing of the military machine, preserving their good name. It was concluded that there is another side of the medal of the right to be forgotten, when certain information, despite its resonance, must be forgotten so that the victim can live on and count on an objective attitude towards himself. It is proposed to develop relevant provisions on the regulation of the unimpeded exercise of the right to be forgotten by persons who suffered from the war, despite the fact that their cases were high-profile and of great public interest, because a person has the right not to be associated with such situations.

Doctrinal approaches to understanding the place and role of the sign of property separation of an entrepreneurial company in the context of the main provisions of the theory of fiction and the theory of reality of a legal entity as a participant in civil circulation are analyzed. It was concluded that the existence of a significant number of scientific approaches that reveal the essence of individual features of an entrepreneurial company as a legal entity only contribute to the further development of doctries about the legal nature of this legal phenomenon and outline not only the general model of a legal entity, but also its varieties with additional features highlighted. Such a variety is a business partnership, which, as a type of phenomenon in relation to a generic (legal entity), has its own characteristics that do not replace (fully correspond to) the general characteristics of a legal entity. One of these features is property separation, which is recognized as mandatory both by the supporters of the theory of fiction and the supporters of the theory of the real existence of a legal entity as a participant in civil circulation. It is noted that the feature of property separation is the main one for a legal entity, as it allows to ensure the guarantees of its creditors, to limit the possibility of abuse by the participants (founders) of such an organization, who could use the construction of a legal entity for the purpose of evading responsibility. However, this sign is not the only one. The approach based on which the theory of fiction most accurately reveals the property separation feature and its place in the system of features of a legal entity is substantiated, defining it as one of the two key essentially forming features of a legal entity.

An analysis of the Ukrainian legislation, as well as doctrinal approaches to understanding the guilt of a legal entity as a participant in civil relations, was carried out. It was concluded that the issue of the possibility of guilt in a legal entity within the limits of civil liability is determined by several factors of both an objective and subjective nature, namely: a) various mechanisms of forming the will of participants in civil legal relations; b) lack of understanding of the manifestation of the legal entity's own guilt as an independent participant in civil relations, or the guilt of members of its bodies, participants or employees; c) the absence of a direct indication in the current Civil Code of Ukraine on the existence of guilt in a legal entity, since the code (Article 96) contains a norm only about its responsibility. Some questions remain unresolved: 1) does the category “guilt of a legal entity” exist at all; 2) if there is a legal entity's guilt, so which of the recognized doctrines should be applied - the doctrine of mental conditioning of the offender's behavior or the doctrine of objectively possible care and prudence in the behavior of a participant in a civil legal relationship. Guilt as a basis for civil liability is taken into account in civil legal relations only between natural persons. There is no separate type of guilt of a legal entity, and any failure by it to fulfill its obligations is caused by the actions of its bodies, participants, and team. This subjective factor is not and cannot be taken into account when imposing civil liability on a legal entity.