On the property of elasticity of the right of ownership in case of its limitation and encumbrance

In the article offered to the reader's attention, the author uses consistent doctrinal distinction between the notions of «limitation» and «encumbrance» to analyze manifestations of such elastic property as ownership right, which in general consists in the fact that as soon as an infringement of the ownership right is discontinued, this right is restored to its original limits. Arguments are raised to disprove as non-constructive the simplistic approach that interprets elasticity of the ownership right which fails to consider the nature of effects of limitations and encumbrances that differently affect the content of the ownership right. Building his discourse on the assumption that all limitations of ownership right is passive by nature and does not constitute a third-party civil right related to the owner's assets, while in turn all encumbrance is active by nature and does constitute a civil right, the author has demonstrated specific practical differences between limiting and encumbering manifestations of elasticity of the owner's legal rights. In particular, the article observes that encumbrance is less stable compared to limitation, while the ownership right is more elastic when it is encumbered. It is established that when encumbrance exits the owner's legal rights are not invalidated but merely reassigned to other persons, and are then restored to the original owner after the encumbrance is discontinued; this contrasts sharply with restricted legal ownership rights that exist only as a potential, and reemerge as soon as the limitation is lifted. The article explains the different consequences triggered by destruction of an asset when the respective ownership right is limited or encumbered. The implicitly paid nature of encumbrance is understood to be the special distinctive manifestation of elasticity of the encumbered ownership right. The final conclusion of this research rests on the statement that differences between the mechanism through which limitations and encumbrances affect the content of the ownership right - and these differences are found through examination of elasticity as an attribute that is highly typical for the ownership right - demonstrate the vital theoretical and practical need to refrain from and prevent confusion of such notions as «encumbrance» and «limitation» in legislative proceedings, legal enforcement, and science research.