«Accessory» as a Category in the Theory of Law

The article examines the general theoretical aspects of the formation of accessorism in private and public law. There are signs of accessory in the branches of law, the author tries to give a general theoretical concept of «Accessory». This article will be useful to supplement the theoretical material in the knowledge of accessory, for example, teaching the institute of accessory obligations in the master's degree. Since this institution, in the fair opinion of E.N. Fetsenko: «... cannot be considered sufficiently developed, since in domestic law, named security obligations were mainly studied.», and therefore it should be recognized that for a full understanding of the theory of «Accessory», its comprehensive study is necessary, not only at the level of translation of the term from Latin and reasoning in a narrowly developed civil direction, but also an understanding of accessory based on its historical development and the peculiarities of its reception in Russian law. Based on the study of these postulates. Most of the research works concerning accessorism have a narrowly sectoral (private law or criminal law) approach, despite the fact that there are no studies substantiating that accessorism is a legal institution. Or maybe it's a legal concept or a legal construction. Judicial practice has gone even further: courts actively refer to the accessory nature of the obligation, primarily security, while the property of accessory is not fixed and is not disclosed. It turns out that the property of accessory is applied, intuitively, only by indirect signs of accessory (additional (dependent accessory) character in relation to the provided one), which is not permissible, since the terminology used in the administration of justice must be verified in terms of its formal and legal certainty. Hence, it can be assumed that accessorism is used as a legal instrument. Therefore, the correct understanding of accessory as a legal category is especially important.