In the most general form the ownership can be defined as the relationship between economic agents regarding the attribution of economic resources and consumer goods. Also in the most general terms we can say that the appropriation of economic resources is the primary determinant in regard to the appropriation of consumer goods. Consequently, in any society or any country the rich and poor stratification of the population stems mainly on the different attitudes to economic resources as belonging to one or others.
It is possible to understand the essence of property, if we consider it in conjunction with all other economic relations of society: the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods. It is exactly the property that fully reflects the socio-economic character of the epoch. All existing economic systems differ in their attitude, especially in the ownership of the means of production. There are several historic property types, characterized by different methods of connecting the producer and the means of production and distribution of products of the social product among the members of society. It is accepted to distinguish the primitive, slave, feudal and capitalist types of property. Until recently, the socialist type of property was also highlighted, for which, apparently, there were not sufficient grounds. Socialism actually was built in none of the countries that were once part of the socialist community. Direct producers in these countries were still exploited, the reunification of the means of production with production workers in fact did not occur. The type of property under totalitarian regime (sometimes overtly, but in many cases disguised) that appeared in these countries, intricately combined the characteristics peculiar to ownership types of earlier ages and now existing.
Thus, the property as an economic category is defined as the relation of individuals or community of individuals to things as belonging to them, which is expressed in the ownership, the use and the disposal of property, as well as in addressing the impact of all other actors in the sphere of economic domination, into which the power of the owner extends, that is to say, the public attitudes on the ownership, control and disposal of the thing.
1.3 The theory of property rights
In a society with the state legal structure the economic relations of property inevitably receive legal consolidation. This is expressed either as a system of legal rules governing these relations and the Institute of ownership, or in securing some measure of legal authority for a specific person who is the owner of the thing. In the first case we speak of ownership in the objective sense, in the second sense we speak of the subjective sense or of the subjective ownership.
Ronald Coase was at the root of property rights. According to his theory: "the property is not resources, not factors of production, and but a set of rights or share of rights to use resources." Contents of property rights comprise, belonging to the owner, authority to own, use and dispose of the thing. These powers, as well as the subjective right of property in general, constitute legally supporting behavior capabilities of the owner; they belong to him as long as he remains the owner. In cases where the owner is unable to effectively exercise these powers, such as the arrest of its property for the debts or where the property unlawfully was held by another person, he does not lose either the powers themselves or the property rights in general. To disclose the content of property rights, it is necessary to define each of the powers belonging to the owner. Let's start with ownership.
Competence of ownership is the legally backed possibility of economic domination of the owner of the thing. It concerns the economic dominion over the thing, which does not require that the owner is in direct contact with it. For example, leaving on a long trip, the owner remains the owner of his apartment and the belongings located in it.
Possession of a thing may be illegal. By law possession is called legal, if it is based on any legal basis, i.e. the legal title of ownership. Legal ownership is often referred to as having title. Illegal possession cannot have a legal basis, so it has a title. Things, as a general rule, are in the possession of those who have a right to own them. This circumstance makes it possible in disputes over things to use the presumption of legality of actual possession. In other words, one who has the thing is expected to be entitled to its possession until proven otherwise. Illegal owners in turn are subdivided into honest and dishonest. The owner is conscientious, if he neither knew nor should have known of the illegality of his possession. Owner is unscrupulous, if he knew about it or should have known. In accordance with the general presumption of conscientiousness people participating in civil rights and responsibilities, we should act upon the assumption of good conscientious of the owner.
The division of the illegal owners in those with conscientious and without is important in settlements between owners about the income and expenditure, when the owner claims his thing by the court claim, as well as in deciding whether the owner can buy property right of ownership by prescription or not.
Competence to use is the legally backed possibility of extracting useful properties from things in its personal or industrial use and for production purposes. For example, a sewing machine can be used for clothing not only for ones own family, but also on the side for a fee. Competence to use is usually based on the entitlement of ownership. But sometimes you can use the thing, and not owning it. For example, musical instruments rental studio delivers instruments for rent with the condition that tool use occurs indoor of the studio, for example, at certain hours and days. The same is true when using the slot machines.
Competence of orders is the legally secured possibility to determine the fate of things by making the legal acts in respect of the thing. There is no doubt that in cases when the owner sells his thing, lends it, pledges it, transfers it as a contribution to a business entity or partnership or as a donation to the charity fund, it carries out the disposal of the thing. It is significantly more difficult to legally characterize the actions of the owner in respect to things when he or she destroys the thing that has become useless to him or her, or throws it, or when a thing is by its properties designed for use in only one act of production or consumption. If the owner deletes something or throws it, he disposes of a thing by making one-sided deal, because the will of the owner is directed for abandonment of property rights. But if the ownership is terminated as a result of single-use of the item, the will of the owner is not directed towards the termination of the right of ownership, but towards extracting useful properties out of the things. Therefore, in this case there is an exercise only of the right to use the thing, but not the right to dispose it.
Disclosure of the content of property rights is not completed by defining powers belonging to the owner. The fact is that the powers of the same name may belong not only to the owner, but to another person, including the bearer of the economic management right or of the life inheritable possession right. It is therefore necessary to identify a specific trait that is inherent to the specified competence exactly as authority of the owner. It is in the fact that the owner uses the powers vested in him at its discretion. As to the property rights, the exercise of the right at discretion including disposal means that the power (the will) of the owner is based directly on the law and exists independently of the authorities of all other persons in respect of the same things. Authorities of all other persons are not only based on the law, but also are dependant on the authority of the owner, affected by it. Ownership has the property of elasticity. This means that it has an inherent ability to recover in the same volume as soon as the connections of limitations no longer exist.
Ownership is among the exclusive rights. This means that the owner is entitled to exclude the impact of all third parties to the belonging-to-him scope of economic domination, including through the measures of self-defense. This, however, does not mean that the power of ownership over belongings is boundless. In accordance with the permissible thrust of civil regulation, the owner can actually perform, with respect to his property, any action, but not contrary to the laws and other legal acts. The owner is obliged to take measures to prevent harm to the health of citizens and the environment, which may be caused in the exercise of his rights. He must refrain from conduct which brings anxiety to his neighbors and others, and especially from the actions perpetrated solely with the intent to cause someone harm. The owner also has the obligation, on the terms and conditions and within the limits prescribed by law and other legal acts, to allow limited use of his property by others. These circumstances must be considered in formulating a common definition of property rights. Finally, givin