The legal capacity of citizens: the concept and content, limitations

The concept of the moment of origin and the content of legal capacity of citizens are considered in the laws of our country and they are regulated. In particular, from the normative acts in force in the country it follows that legal capacity presumes the person has civil rights. At the same time, this is directly related to the duties imposed on every citizen of the country. This is told by the Civil Code in the 17th article.

General theory

Key features of legal capacity:

• Impossibility of alienation;
• Abstractness.

It follows from the Civil Code that the civil legal capacity of citizens (concept, content, origin, termination - everything is considered in this fundamental legal act) can be understood if we carefully study the duties, rights of citizens available to them through the legislation of the country. From this it follows directly that the description of legal capacity is based on the fact that a particular person is an individual with a psyche and physical parameters, as well as an object that has legal, social qualities.

Where to look in the laws?

To understand in more detail what the concept, content and significance of a citizen's legal capacity, one should turn to the primary source, that is, the Civil Code. Of great interest from this point of view is his 18th article. It reveals a list of those citizens' rights that are considered fundamental, the most significant in our world.

What is it about?

What civil rights can be called the most important? The concept and content of the legal capacity of individuals - individuals require special attention to the following rights:

• Possession of property;
• Wills;
• Inheritance;
• Conduct business in the framework of laws;
• to make deals;
• Organize legal entities;
• To take part in obligations;
• By their own taste choose where to live;
• Copyrights.

And it's all?

From the laws that define the concept and content of citizens' legal capacity, it also follows that people have certain other rights:

• Property;
• Non-property.

This applies to a number of rights not directly prescribed in the law, but at the same time not confronting the meaning of civil laws and the beginnings of civil law. This makes it absolutely impossible to form a complete list of opportunities from the point of view of law inherent in the ordinary citizen of our country. At the same time, the list described in the 18th article is quite complete, so that everyone has an idea of what rights should be called the most significant, and which do not belong to this category. So, the concept and content of legal capacity and capacity of citizens are described in the 18th article of the Civil Code or follow from the information that is published in this normative act.

Learn More

When studying the wording of Article 18, it becomes clear that, for example, the law that regulates that every person can own property becomes a key prerequisite for the formation of property rights. But in fact, not only him. This simple and concise wording of the law that describes the legal capacity of citizens (concept, content, restrictions), thereby laying the foundation for most of the civil legal relationships that exist in our modern society. This will include and associated with various obligations. The explanation is very simple: in reality it is impossible to become a participant in property relations, if there is no right to be an owner for some thing.

What is, as well as what not to take away

In our country everyone who possesses citizenship has legal capacity. At the same time, it can not be said that two different people have absolutely equal rights. But the opportunities, that is, the possession of rights in the potential, are equal for all. At the same time, the scope of opportunities is not determined either by the duties of a person or by the rights inherent in him.

A classic example of reasoning is as follows. Suppose there is some person in whose possession is an apartment house. At this point, he has the rights of the owner. But if there is such a desire, the citizen will receive the rights of the seller of the house. But another citizen, say, in the initial conditions does not have property, that is, he does not have a home. This does not mean that after a while he will not be able to own the rights of the seller.

When we think incorrectly

The classic error of the logic of reasoning described is the refusal of the second citizen in the rights of the seller of an apartment house. It is conditioned by the fact that people who argue what constitutes a concept and the retention of citizens' legal capacity, too tie this phenomenon to the concrete conditions present here and now. The subjective rights inherent in this or that person do not have a direct and clear connection with all the possibilities prescribed in the law. The Civil Code provides various options for what a person can be entitled to - in a variety of situations, even in those that never happen in the life of an ordinary citizen.

Studying the law that describes the concept and content of citizens' legal capacity, it can be concluded that the opportunity to become an owner of an object or object is not an element of legal capacity. Instead, the content of legal capacity has, as an element, the ability to have some object, property right. Consequently, according to the current legislation, the legal capacity of a citizen (concept, content, origin, termination is disclosed in the Civil Code) is the following: a person in any relationship related to responsibility can become a subject. This applies to houses, cottages. Moreover, it can be a relationship of law, coupled with the simplest things - yes, at least toys and clothes.

And what follows from this?

Suppose that a certain person who owns property takes measures to alienate it. He has different paths to that: you can sell, by concluding a contract, you can donate or use other opportunities provided by law. The concept and content of legal capacity of citizens regulates: no changes in respect of the person himself, his inherent rights do not occur.

The situation will be similar in the case when a court confiscates real estate from a person or otherwise lawfully terminates the right of ownership. This situation will extend to the object that has become a passive participant in the litigation, but it will not affect the rights and opportunities of the person.

And if you say it is easier?

The concept and content of citizens' legal capacity, given by the Civil Code of our country, are such that a person, even when for some reason he was deprived (by his or some kind of will) of some property, remains with the rights of obtaining a new one. This is due to the fact that every citizen has both property rights and the opportunity to acquire new property rights.

On the one hand, the laws of our country are endowed with mechanisms for regulating the behavior of the population, so that justice prevails in the state. Content, the concept of legal capacity of citizens are such that it is impossible neither to prohibit now, nor to limit in the future the rights inherent in a person in a legal society. That is, in our concrete example connected with real estate, the court can decide that the defendant's present time should be confiscated, but it will not be decided that this person is deprived of the right to own objects now or in the future.

There are no restrictions! Is it so?

What has been said above seems to be the logical basis for the assumption: under existing laws, the legal capacity of citizens can not be limited in any way. The concept and content of this phenomenon, described in the Civil Code, are such that, with careful study, it is possible to identify mechanisms for regulating the situation.

In the generalized meaning of law, it is possible to restrict, and in some specific cases, even necessary. The simplest way to look at this is with the following example: legal capacity assumes that any citizen of the country has the right to choose a habitat to taste and stay here. But by law, it is possible for the authorities to take a decision, upon entry into force, a person will have to reside in the area indicated for this. In parallel, the official procedure prohibits living in other places.

The example of entrepreneurship is no less obvious. If every citizen of Russia has the right, according to the laws, to conduct such kind of activity, according to a court decision, a specific person can be banned. However, even a ban is not necessary: the court can impose a restriction. In any case, you can observe the restriction of rights.

How does the theory work in practice?

For our rule of law, the existence of every single individual of all those rights that are assigned to him by the Civil Code is a fundamental phenomenon guaranteeing equal rights, equal opportunities and comfortable conditions for living and development in social and legal aspects. This means that it is unacceptable to just take and limit someone else's rights simply because it so "wanted".

To deprive a person of freedom or to deny him the right to conduct business, to apply to a citizen some administrative, criminal punishment is possible only when the law obliges it to do so. In any variant of the limitation of legal capacity, the states prescribed in the laws are possible, which do not contradict the fundamental documents, such as the Constitution, the Declaration on Human Rights.

And when is it applied?

It is possible to limit the legal capacity of a citizen in the event that he committed some offense - administrative, criminal. If the law prescribes a sanction for such an act, it is usually limited to legal capacity.

It so happened that a person is not able to impose a restriction on his / her legal capacity by self-made activity, just as it will not be possible to lose the elements of legal capacity.

And on examples?

Suppose a certain citizen undertook to leave the settlement he had previously chosen as his permanent residence. As a reason, he pointed out that he did not want to see his ex-wife, the divorced wife, more. According to the courts, the obligation is considered insignificant.

As for the citizen, he has the right to execute a legally void decision or forget about him - the choice remains for the person. That is, with sufficient desire and desire, the man in question can really leave the old city forever, so as not to intersect with those who were his family. But such an act will not be in any way a restriction. It is very easy to explain this: even if a citizen leaves, it remains an opportunity to preserve the former habitat. In fact, he simply realizes something from the total scope of his rights: stay in the old place or choose a new one. He acts the way he wants.

And what will it lead to?

The laws of our country give everyone the right to choose such a place in life, which seems to the person the most suitable, comfortable and convenient. Of course, there are certain exceptions: for example, you can not just get into a closed town or live in a border zone. But these are isolated exceptional cases. In general, the person has the right to move there, where he deems fit. And no legal effects will force anyone to move or, conversely, prohibit such. Of course, if there is no crime.

And if for example?

With regard to the example described above, in practice it is clear: the ex-wife of that ex-family man who expressed an urge to go to another place so as not to meet with her, can take the child and follow the man.

A person who declared his desire to change his habitat can not do so, delay the execution of the decision even indefinitely. Morally, this may not be very nice, but from the point of view of assessing the situation according to the law of requirements no. In any of the options, all members of the family implement in practice the right given by law to choose the optimal place for living. From the legal point of view, in such a situation, it does not matter what motives are the reason for making a final decision.

Who is supposed to?

From the Civil Code it follows that hardly a person is born, he immediately receives legal capacity. This will be inherent in the citizen of the country during all the time allotted to him and only with death will end. Legal science does not consider the mechanisms of determining the birth date, death, since it is believed that such concepts are exclusively physiological and have no special significance for law.

Biology and Law

From the point of view of law, important aspects will be that a person was born, which by medical conditions means that the child can breathe on his own. As soon as this happens, civil capacity appears.

By the way, it's not so important. There are children who were orphans at birth. For example, if the father did not have a child or he died, and the mother died during childbirth, then the barely born infant immediately becomes the rightholder and gets the right to inherit all that is left of the parents. But here is a child who has not yet been born, has no such rights and can not inherit anything. Although the law contains certain standards designed to protect the interests of the alleged heir.