DETERMINANTS OF CONFLICT IN METHODS OF PROTECTING SUBJECTIVE CIVIL RIGHTS (USING THE EXAMPLE OF PROTECTING RIGHTS TO REAL ESTATE)

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to identify the determinants of conflict in the methods of protecting subjective civil rights using the example of civil relations arising from immovable property. Methods. The study actively uses the structural-functional method, which is used to differentiate the levels of conflict as determinants of the conflict between methods of protecting subjective civil rights, as well as to determine the nature of their impact on the opposition between methods of protecting subjective civil rights to real estate. Methods of analysis and synthesis are used to determine the legal nature of the conflict as a whole, as well as individual forms of conflict in the methods of protecting subjective civil rights to immovable property. Results. It is determined that conflicts between methods of protecting subjective civil rights can be based on two levels of conflict: social conflict that has taken legal form, and conflict between legal regulations of civil relations. With regard to the latter, civil legislation generally contains a separate set of tools aimed at resolving conflicts, which are based on the “ranking” of regulatory measures according to their legal force. Nevertheless, even today, there are conflicts in the legal regulation of relations concerning real estate that directly affect the procedure for protecting the rights of participants in property transactions. Conclusions. The relevance of the phenomenon of conflict between methods of protecting subjective civil rights has been brought to a new level by the practice of higher courts, the further development of which may ultimately lead to the formation of a full-fledged case law system, at least in the field of law enforcement. After all, the elimination of conflicts at this level of the problem may lead to the formation of clear and unified legal tracks for resolving disputes, taking into account specific practical circumstances, which, however, will inevitably raise the question of the plaintiff's discretion in choosing the very purpose of protection, as well as discretion in choosing and constructing new ways to protect their rights.