The concept of the moment of occurrence and the content of the legal capacity of citizens are considered in the laws of our country and are regulated by them. In particular, it follows from the regulations in force in the country that legal capacity presupposes that a person has civil rights. At the same time, this is directly related to the duties assigned to every citizen of the country. This is described by the Civil Code in the 17th article.
General theory
Key features of legal capacity:
- impossibility of alienation;
- abstraction.
From the Civil Code it follows that the civil legal capacity of citizens (the concept, content, occurrence, termination - everything is considered in this fundamental legal act) can be understood if we carefully study the duties and rights of citizens available to them through the legislation of the country. It directly follows from this that the description of legal capacity is based on the fact that a specific 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 should refer to the source, that is, the Civil Code. Of great interest from this point of view is his 18th article. It reveals a list of those rights of a citizen 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 citizens - individuals require that special attention be paid to the following rights:
- possession of property;
- wills;
- inheritance;
- conduct business within the framework of laws;
- to make deals;
- organize legal entities;
- take part in obligations;
- choose where to live according to your taste;
- copyrights.
And it's all?
From the laws that define the concept and content of civil legal capacity of citizens, it also follows that people have certain other rights:
This applies to a number of rights that are not directly prescribed in the law, but at the same time do not enter into confrontation with the meaning of civil laws and the principles of civil law. This makes it completely impossible to formulate a complete list of opportunities in terms of law inherent in the ordinary citizen of our country. At the same time, the list described in article 18 is complete enough for everyone to have an idea about which rights should be called the most significant and which do not belong to this category. So, the concept and content of legal capacity and legal capacity of citizens are described in Article 18 of the Civil Code or follow from the information that is published in the specified regulatory act.
More details
When studying the wording of article 18, it becomes clear that, for example, the law governing that everyone can own property becomes a key prerequisite for the formation of property rights. But actually not only him. This simple and concise wording of the law describing the legal capacity of citizens (concept, content, restrictions), thereby laying the foundation for most of the civil relations that exist in our modern society. This will include those 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 the owner for some thing.
That which is, as well as that which cannot be taken away
In our country, anyone with citizenship has legal capacity. At the same time, it cannot be said that two different people have absolutely equal rights in scope. But the opportunities, that is, the possession of rights in potential, are equal for everyone. Moreover, 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 a certain person in whose possession is a residential building. At this moment, he has the rights of the owner. But if such a desire appears, a citizen will receive the rights of a seller at home. 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 some time he will not be able to own the rights of the seller.
When we think wrong
The classic mistake of the described logic of reasoning is the denial of the rights of the seller of a residential building to the second citizen. It is due to the fact that people who reason about what constitutes a concept and retaining the legal capacity of citizens, too tie this phenomenon to the specific conditions that are 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 by law. The Civil Code provides various options for what a person may be entitled to - in a variety of situations, even those that will never happen in the life of an ordinary citizen.
Studying the law that describes the concept and content of legal capacity of citizens, we can conclude that the opportunity to become the 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 dispose of some object, property right. Therefore, according to the current legislation, the legal capacity of a citizen (the concept, content, occurrence, termination is disclosed in the Civil Code) is as follows: a person in any relationship related to liability may become a subject. This applies to residential buildings, country houses. Moreover, it can be a relationship of law, coupled with the simplest things - at least with toys and clothes.
And what follows from this?
Suppose that a person who owned property takes measures to alienate it. He has various ways to do this: you can sell, concluding an agreement, you can give or use other opportunities provided by law. The concept and content of the legal capacity of citizens are regulated: no changes are made regarding the person himself, his inherent rights.
The situation will be similar in the case when the court confiscates the property from a person or otherwise legally terminates the right of ownership. This situation will extend to the object that has become a passive participant in the trial, but it will not affect the rights and capabilities of a person.
And to put it easier?
The concept and content of the legal capacity of citizens, given by the Civil Code of our country, is such that a person, even when for some reason he has been deprived (of his or her own free will) of some property, remains with the rights to receive new ones. This is due to the fact that every citizen has both property rights and the possibility of acquiring new property rights.
On the one hand, the laws of our country are endowed with mechanisms to regulate the behavior of the population, so that justice reigns in the state. The content, the concept of legal capacity of citizens is such that it can neither be prohibited now, nor limited in the future, inherent in a person’s rights in a legal society. That is, in our specific example related to real estate, the court may decide that what is now available to the defendant should be confiscated, but it will not decide that this person is deprived of the right to own objects now or in the future.
There are no restrictions! Is it so?
The above seems to be a logical basis for the assumption: under the current laws, one cannot limit in any way the legal capacity of citizens. The concept and content of this phenomenon described in the Civil Code are such that, upon careful study, they reveal the mechanisms for regulating the situation.
In a generalized sense, rights can be limited, and in some specific cases even necessary. The easiest way to consider this is with the following example: legal capacity assumes that any citizen of the country has the right to choose a place of residence to taste and stay here. But according to the law, it is possible for the authorities to make a decision, upon entry into force of which a person will have to live in the designated area. In parallel, the official procedure prohibits living in other places.
No less illustrative is the example of entrepreneurial activity. If every citizen of Russia has the right to carry out this kind of activity under the laws, a court decision may prohibit that person. However, the ban is not even mandatory: the court may impose a restriction. In any case, you can observe the restriction of rights.
How does theory work in practice?
For our rule of law, the presence of every individual person of all those rights that are assigned to him by the Civil Code is a fundamental phenomenon that guarantees equality, equal opportunities and comfortable conditions for living and development in social and legal aspects. This means that it is unacceptable to just take and restrict someone's rights simply because they so “wanted”.
It is possible to deprive a person of freedom or deny him the right to conduct business, apply some administrative, criminal punishment to a citizen only when the law requires it to be done. In any version, limitations of legal capacity are possible prescribed in the laws of the state, not contradicting fundamental documents, such as: the Constitution, the Declaration of Human Rights.
And when is it applied?
It is possible to limit the citizen's legal capacity in the event that he has committed a certain offense - administrative, criminal. If the law prescribes sanction for such an act, it usually consists in restricting legal capacity.
It so happened that a person is not able to impose a restriction on his legal capacity by activity committed on his own, just as he will not be able to lose elements of legal capacity.
And on examples?
Suppose a certain citizen pledged to leave the locality he had previously chosen as his permanent residence. As a reason, he indicated that he no longer wished to see his former family - the wife with whom he had divorced, the child. According to the courts, the obligation is considered null and void.
As for the citizen, he has the right to execute a legally insignificant decision or forget about him - the choice is left to the person. That is, with sufficient desire and aspiration, the man mentioned can indeed leave the former city forever so that he no longer intersects with those who were his family. But such an act will not be in any way a limitation. To explain this is as simple as possible: even if a citizen leaves, there remains the possibility of preserving the former habitat. In fact, he simply realizes something from the total scope of his rights: to remain 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 a place in life that seems to the person the most suitable, comfortable and convenient. Of course, there are certain exceptions: for example, you cannot just get into a closed town or live in a border zone. But these are individual exceptional cases. In the general case, a person has the right to move to where he sees fit. And no legal influences will force anyone to move or, conversely, prohibit such. Of course, if it’s not a crime.
And if on an example?
As for the example described above, in practice it is clear: the ex-wife of the ex-family man who expressed a desire to leave for another place, so as not to meet with her, can take the child and go after the man.
A person who has declared his desire to change his place of residence may not do so, delay the execution of the decision even to infinity. Morally, this may not be too beautiful, but from the point of view of assessing the situation under the law, there are no requirements. In any of the options, all family members realize in practice the right that they have given them by law to choose the best place to live. From the point of view of the law, in such a situation it does not play any role what particular motives caused the final decision.
Who is supposed to?
From the Civil Code it follows that as soon as a person is born, he immediately receives legal capacity. This will be inherent in the citizen of the country throughout the time allotted to him and only ends with death. The legal science does not consider the mechanisms for determining the birthday, death, as it is believed that such concepts are exclusively physiological and have no special meaning for law.
Biology and Law
From the point of view of law, the important aspects will be that a person was born, which, under medical conditions, means that the child can breathe independently. As soon as this happens, civil legal capacity appears.
Incidentally, this is not so unimportant. There are children who were orphans at birth. For example, if the child did not have a father or he died, and the mother died during childbirth, then a barely born baby immediately becomes the copyright holder and receives the right to inherit all that remains of the parents. But here a child who has not yet been born has no such rights and cannot inherit anything. Although the law contains certain standards designed to protect the interests of the alleged heir.