Problems of classification of civil rights remedies

The article discusses the problems of classification of civil rights remedies whose characteristic of division is based on the type of the violated right. The practical significance of such a classification is explained by the fact that usually the type of the violated right is named as the main criterion for determining the appropriate remedy. The author sets the goal to draw parallels between absolute and relative rights, as well as proprietary and obligatory rights and ways to remedy them. As a result of the analysis, it was concluded that it is unreasonable to distinguish absolute and relative claims as corresponding to absolute and relative types of rights. The rationale for this conclusion was the fact that the attributes embedded in the concept of absolute remedy duplicate the attributes of absolute subjective right and exist only until the offense has taken place. At the same time, the dichotomy of proprietary and obligatory claims does not cover the full variety of remedies and is wrong from the standpoint of logic, since it implies an opposition of claims arising from rights of different types. According to the author, the difference between remedies lies in the presence or absence of an attribute of predetermination by the nature of the remedied right. The said attribute is inherent in vindicatory and negatory actions, as well as the claims resulting from the violation of contractual obligations. Such claims as the restoration of the position that existed prior to the violation of a right, suppression of actions violating right, recognition of right, recovery of damages and restitution of unjust enrichment can be included in the group of remedies for which there is no direct correspondence among certain types of civil rights. These claims cannot be called universal, but are common to some types of civil rights.

remedy, classification, systematization, defense of absolute and relative rights, proprietary and obligatory claims, general remedies