Peculiarities of a Person's Civil Liability in Case of Exercising the Right to Self-Defense and in Extreme Necessity

Abstract

Civil law provides both general rules that provide the grounds and procedure for liability for damage to a person, and special grounds for bringing or release from such liability in the event that the person causing such damage carried them out in self-defense or extreme necessity. Therefore, it is important to clarify the specifics of civil liability of a person in the exercise of his right to self-defense and in a state of extreme necessity. The grounds and procedure for bringing a person to such responsibility are determined, the peculiarities of the subject composition are determined. A thorough study of the Civil Code of Ukraine to determine their compliance with the general principles of civil law and the need for appropriate changes and clarifications for proper legal regulation of grounds for liability and release from liability for damage caused by a person exercising his right to self-defense and in a state of extreme necessity . The development of civil legislation of Ukraine in terms of compensation for damage caused by a person in the exercise of his right to self-defense, in conditions of extreme necessity and necessary defense in order to identify gaps and contradictions and formulate proposals for recoding the Civil Code of Ukraine. The purpose of the study is to define the concept of self-defense and extreme necessity, as well as to determine the grounds and conditions of civil liability for damage caused by a person exercising his right to self-defense or in extreme necessity, as well as sanctions applied to a person. The object of the study is the legal relationship arising from the prosecution of a person who caused harm in a state of extreme necessity or in the exercise of his right to self-defense and the application of civil sanctions. To achieve this goal, the following methods were used: formal-legal to study the legal regulation of legal relations; analytical for the correct interpretation of the scope of legal content; system-structural to determine the legal nature of the studied legal relations; historical and legal for the analysis of the development of civil legislation; dialectical to identify contradictions in legal relations and legal regulation. It is noted that in determining the content of self-defense committed by a person, it is necessary to take into account the legal nature of legal relations, as the performance of self-defense actions of a legal nature are mainly contractual obligations, and self-defense actual actions – noncontractual obligations, including tort obligations. The prevailing position in civil science is that self-defense is a way of protecting civil rights and a non-jurisdictional form of realization of this protection. It is noted that self-defense can be carried out in the form of both factual and legal actions, which can be both legal and illegal. Manifestations of self-defense are measures of operational influence, which in science are called operational sanctions. They are designed to prevent specific offenses, usually in contractual obligations and can be applied by a unilaterally authorized person out of court. Varieties of such sanctions are unilateral withdrawal from the contract; unilateral termination of the obligation; actions of the commission agent, aimed at unilateral retention of the thing to be transferred to the principal, in order to ensure their claims under the contract; actions of the commission agent aimed at unilateral deduction of the amounts due to him under the contract, received by him for the principal. Illegal active and passive actions of self-defense can lead to harm to the life, health of the offender, his property, which can lead to prosecution of the person for the damage. The analysis of the norm of Art. 1169 of the CCU, which regulates liability for damage caused by a person in the exercise of his right to self-defense. It is noted that the norm of Part 2 of Art. 1169 of the Civil Code is formulated unsuccessfully, because it does not contain information about "another person" who was harmed by a person who carried out self-defense against unlawful encroachments, and therefore it is not clear who may be obliged to compensate him. In this regard, it is proposed to make appropriate changes to the norm under study in terms of clarifying the person who may be obliged to compensate, introducing the term "causer" of the damage along with the term in the article "person who committed an illegal act". As a general rule, damage caused by a person in cases of exercising his right to self-defense is reimbursed only if the limits of necessary defense are exceeded. In this case, the right to apply a sanction for damages has a person whose actions have become the basis for the application of self-defense. Damage caused to third parties in ways not prohibited by law and which do not contradict the moral principles of society, is compensated by the person who committed the illegal act, and in other cases – by the person who carried out self-defense. That is, in the first case, the third party has the right to apply sanctions for recovery. Keywords: sanctions, liability, protection, compensation for damage, tort, operational measures.