Usufruct in National Legislation: Prospects for Development in Light of European Experience

Abstract

The article provides a comprehensive theoretical-legal and comparative analysis of the prospects and specific features of introducing the institution of usufruct into the legal system of Ukraine in the context of the recodification of civil legislation. The relevance of the study is обусловлена adoption of the Law of Ukraine No. 4196-IX, which introduces usufruct as an instrument for modernizing the management of state and municipal property, replacing Soviet legal remnants—namely, the rights of economic management and operational administration.

The state of doctrinal development of the issue is examined, and the contribution of leading domestic scholars to the study of the legal structure of usufruct, European experience, and the specificities of public property management is emphasized. It is established that, despite existing scholarly achievements, issues concerning the legal nature of usufruct and the practical prospects of its implementation into the national legal order remain at an early stage of comprehensive research.

The architectonics of usufruct in the national draft Civil Code of Ukraine are analyzed, and a comparative study is conducted with the models of France (Code civil) and Germany (BGB). It is determined that the Ukrainian legislator follows the Roman law tradition by defining usufruct as an independent limited real right.

Special attention is paid to the specific grounds for the emergence of usufruct in Ukraine. Unlike the classical European private-law approach (contract, will, law), in Ukraine this institution is introduced primarily through the public sphere, where an administrative act serves as the legal basis for its establishment.

Critical risks and legal conflicts of the current reform are identified. First, the extension of usufruct to consumable things (quasi-usufruct) transforms real relations into obligatory ones, which may lead to the withdrawal of assets from public ownership. Second, discrimination is revealed in the mechanisms for terminating fixed-term and indefinite usufructs of managing authorities. Third, the inconsistency of the reform is noted (due to the adoption of sectoral laws bypassing Article 395 of the current Civil Code), as well as the lack of transitional instruments (accounting, tax, and banking mechanisms).

The author proposes amendments to legislation aimed at unifying the conditions for terminating usufruct and limiting its application to consumable objects of public property.