В поданной к обсуждению научной статье автором предложено собственное видение научной проблемы по определению порядка защиты права на участие в управлении хозяйственным обществом его участниками (акционерами). Сделан вывод о том, что сегодня в Украине судебная защита является действенным способом защиты права на участие в управлении хозяйственным обществом, поскольку действия, связанные с самозащитой, не имеют эффективного содержания и лица, чье указанное право нарушено, все равно обращаются к юрисдикционным органам.

Ключові слова: господарське товариство, корпоративні права, корпоративне управління, право участі в управлінні, учасники, акціонери.

В поданной к обсуждению научной статье автором предложено собственное видение научной проблемы по определению порядка защиты права на участие в управлении хозяйственным обществом его участниками (акционерами). Сделан вывод о том, что сегодня в Украине судебная защита является действенным способом защиты права на участие в управлении хозяйственным обществом, поскольку действия, связанные с самозащитой, не имеют эффективного содержания и лица, чье указанное право нарушено, все равно обращаются к юрисдикционным органам.

Ключевые слова: хозяйственное общество, корпоративные права, корпоративное управление, право участия в управлении, участники, акционеры.

Problem setting. One of the most important tasks of the law on business entities is the defense and protection of the rights and legitimate interests of their members (shareholders), regardless of their share in the charter capital. The rights of shareholders have traditionally been recognized by a special kind of securities – shares, that is, documents. These documents by their nature and purpose, provided for their presence within authorized persons – shareholders. However, the Laws of Ukraine “On Securities and Stock Market”, “On Joint Stock Companies’ stipulate the possibility of issuing shares only in a non-documentary form. The rights of the members of the rest of business entities have also a specific form of certification – to consolidate the share of the participant in the statute (constituent agreement), i.e. also have no material form. This led to a number of problems related to the protection of the right to participate in the management of a business entity. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The problems of protecting corporate rights were at various stages of the development of the legal doctrine on legal persons under the scope of interests of V. A. Belov, V. A. Vasiliev, V. M. Kravchuk, I. V. Spasibo-Fatieieva and others. However, the specifics of protecting the right to participate in the management of a business entity as one of the non-property corporate rights was not paid enough attention. Target of research. The objective is to establish the mechanism of protecting the right to participate in the management of a business entity. Article’s main body. Being one of the fundamental rights of the members of business entities, the right to participate in the management of a business entity may be violated both by the corporation itself and by its other participants. A group of violations of this right may be quite diverse and concern: a) violation of the procedure for registering shareholders to participate in general meetings, including nonadmission of shareholders for registering; b) decision-making on matters not included in the agenda; c) holding of the general meeting of members (shareholders) in the absence of a quorum; d) violation of the procedure of voting and counting of votes, etc. However, neither the legislation nor the legal doctrine nor the judicial authorities give an unambiguous answer to a number of unresolved problems, and sometimes contain contradictory norms, propositions and decisions. The realization of the right to protection is not limited to only one possibility of appealing to the competent authorities in order to protect the violated right. The use of methods of self-defense of their rights, as well as measures of operative influence by a member (shareholder), also takes place, but as a rule in exceptional cases. The conducted analysis demonstrates that law enforcement practice in Ukraine does not allow in the full sense to provide adequate protection of the right to participate in the management of a business entity by means of a non-jurisdictional form or by using methods of self-defense by the members (shareholders). Hence, almost the only option is to appeal to the court. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Judicial protection nowadays in Ukraine is an effective way of protecting the right to participate in the management of a business entity, since actions related to self-defense do not have an effective content, and persons whose mentioned right is violated still appeal to the jurisdictional authorities. However, the legislator and court practice should develop mechanisms for extrajudicial procedure to protect the right to participate in the management of a business entity, as well as to expand the scope of self-defense of such a right.

Key words: business entity, corporate rights, corporate management, the right to participate in the management, members, shareholders.

Статья посвящена исследованию правовой природы корпоративных прав как составляющей части содержания корпоративных отношений. Делая вывод об их гражданско-правовой природе с учетом разных подходов к классификации корпоративных прав, сделан вывод о целесообразности признания существования имущественных и неимущественных прав участников хозяйственных обществ. Критикуется выделение в отдельную самостоятельную группу организационных корпоративных прав, а также доказывается некорректность ведения речи о личных неимущественных корпоративных правах в контексте их «личностности».

Ключові слова: корпоративні відносини, корпоративні права, господарські товариства, майнові права, немайнові права.

Статья посвящена исследованию правовой природы корпоративных прав как составляющей части содержания корпоративных отношений. Делая вывод об их гражданско-правовой природе с учетом разных подходов к классификации корпоративных прав, сделан вывод о целесообразности признания существования имущественных и неимущественных прав участников хозяйственных обществ. Критикуется выделение в отдельную самостоятельную группу организационных корпоративных прав, а также доказывается некорректность ведения речи о личных неимущественных корпоративных правах в контексте их «личностности».

Ключевые слова: корпоративные отношения, корпоративные права, хозяйственные общества, имущественные права, неимущественные права.

Nowadays there is no clear classification of corporate relations in jurisprudence and legislation. Depending on the component object of corporate relations are divided into property and non-property. The basis of this division we assign their content part – the rights that are divided into property and non-property. Although there is no general recognition of the stated classification in legal literature, because along with property corporate rights, many scholars suggest to study the organizational rights and, consequently, organizational corporate relations. The construction of organizational relations within civil law is criticized. The author supports these criticisms because scholars, who recognize the parallel existence of property and organizational relations, do not consider secondary importance (complementary character) of the latter. Special attention is paid to the fact that even a clear definition of dividing corporate relations into property and non-property does not provide an accurate idea about their characteristics, because the legal community has no single approach on this issue, too. In particular, it is stated that corporate relations have only non-property or exclusively property nature. The content of corporate relations constitute property and non-property rights that have between them a distinctive and independent nature. Hence, corporate relations are a separate group of private relationships regulated by the norms of corporate law that can not be characterized solely as property or non-property, but have civil and legal nature according to their compliance with all the features of civil relations. As a result, there is a need to include corporate relations along with personal non-property and property into the subject of civil law regulation that makes it possible to admit the existence of two types of corporate rights: property and non-property. Under these circumstances dichotomous combination of the types of corporate relations, depending on the component object to property and non-property is appropriate.

Key words: corporate relations, corporate rights, business enteties, property rights, non-property rights.