Current features of the application of civil law methods for protection of state property rights under the crisis of international public law

The occupation of the Crimean peninsula and hostilities in eastern Ukraine have led to global violations of the rights of all categories of owners. State property has suffered the most, as entire property complexes, enterprises, institutions and organizations have been illegally nationalized. The main goal is to investigate the peculiarities of the application of civil law methods of state property rights protection in the crisis of public international law, to identify the problems that accompany such application, and to identify ways to solve them. While preparing the study general scientific and special methods of scientific cognition were used, in particular dialectical, formal-logical, comparative-legal ones, system analysis, etc. The research indicates that in the process of protecting state property, there is a wide range of entities that can be involved in it. The ambiguity of judicial practice has been established in the issue of representation of the state's interests by the prosecutor in this category of cases. It also points out the peculiarity of the representation in court of the interests of the state represented by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the National Bank of Ukraine. The authors also note the urgency of the issue of jurisdiction over property disputes located in the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Examining the Law of Ukraine "On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the Legal Regime in the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine" of 15.04.2014 and the Constitution of the Russian Federation indicates the dual nature of different laws in one territory, which virtually makes it impossible to be adopted by a national court. In general, the authors conclude that the only position of all public authorities that are subjects of state property management should be non-approval of compensation for nationalized property from the aggressor state, because then it will be impossible to return it. The consent should be given only for compensation of the income that the country has lost as a result of the inability to use its property

Doi: 10.37635/jnalsu.27(3).2020.80-94